Roger Mexico Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 7 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said: Given what they did to the Cutty Sark, I wouldn't trust them with Ian Longworth's cabbage. As far as I can tell, the Cutty Sark is owned and run by the Cutty Sark Trust, which is a separate organisation from the National Maritime Museum, though they are grouped together under the Royal Museums Greenwich (along with the Royal Observatory and the Queen's House) and the NMM might provide some services. But paradoxically the NMM doesn't actually have many boats - a few small ones at best - and none that need careful conservation conditions like the Peggy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted January 21, 2023 Share Posted January 21, 2023 (edited) Sounds like another 'nice to have' if we weren't in the shit ! In terms of priorities for Government money it shouldn't be top of the pile for funding, there are struggling health services, crumbling schools with no money for building works to commence, road maintenance deferred because too expensive to do (PSM) and a whole raft of issues affecting the wider community. We don't have enough tourists to make things like this even remotely financially viable, once again a private business would look at a proper business case and say nope not going to work ! Of course it's only other peoples money so no one really cares ! Back to the original topic of Liverpool, again what business case adds up for this to cost 100 million, not carry freight and only be open a limited amount of time in the winter, does Government not realise that most of what it does from the outset is guaranteed to lose money ? Edited January 21, 2023 by asitis 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted January 21, 2023 Share Posted January 21, 2023 10 hours ago, asitis said: Sounds like another 'nice to have' if we weren't in the shit ! In terms of priorities for Government money it shouldn't be top of the pile for funding, there are struggling health services, crumbling schools with no money for building works to commence, road maintenance deferred because too expensive to do (PSM) and a whole raft of issues affecting the wider community. We don't have enough tourists to make things like this even remotely financially viable, once again a private business would look at a proper business case and say nope not going to work ! Of course it's only other peoples money so no one really cares ! Back to the original topic of Liverpool, again what business case adds up for this to cost 100 million, not carry freight and only be open a limited amount of time in the winter, does Government not realise that most of what it does from the outset is guaranteed to lose money ? I agree with it all apart from the freight. Why would you want freight landed in the centre of Liverpool. The new terminal has the capacity to take freight so could be used if there was an emergency. But realistically, apart from an emergency, why would you want to. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted January 21, 2023 Share Posted January 21, 2023 4 minutes ago, Happier diner said: I agree with it all apart from the freight. Why would you want freight landed in the centre of Liverpool. The new terminal has the capacity to take freight so could be used if there was an emergency. But realistically, apart from an emergency, why would you want to. I agree, It might have made more economic sense (in business case terms) if it were a freight terminal, but I'm not sure at 100 million it would make economic sense if it were a spaceport as well ! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted January 21, 2023 Share Posted January 21, 2023 14 minutes ago, asitis said: but I'm not sure at 100 million it would make economic sense if it were a spaceport as well ! Kodiak is the smallest spaceport that came to mind.... "“DOD is sinking more than $80 million into a ‘spaceport’ in Alaska that is not even equipped for the rockets that the Pentagon is planning to launch there,” the report claims." But that $80 million also includes the cost of some flights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted January 21, 2023 Share Posted January 21, 2023 12 minutes ago, Two-lane said: Kodiak is the smallest spaceport that came to mind.... "“DOD is sinking more than $80 million into a ‘spaceport’ in Alaska that is not even equipped for the rockets that the Pentagon is planning to launch there,” the report claims." But that $80 million also includes the cost of some flights. So about 65 million GBP, cheaper than a tin shed on Merseyside ! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted January 21, 2023 Share Posted January 21, 2023 Focusing on the wrong project surely, Liverpool is committed costs now and hopefully it will just be complete in a reasonable time. It's the upcoming ones we should be worrying about (probably MUAs next interconnectors etc is the next £100m+ big piehole coming our way, various 'consultations' recently). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted January 21, 2023 Share Posted January 21, 2023 2 hours ago, asitis said: I agree, It might have made more economic sense (in business case terms) if it were a freight terminal, but I'm not sure at 100 million it would make economic sense if it were a spaceport as well ! I dont think there was any hope of getting planning permission for a freight terminal in the city centre. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted January 21, 2023 Author Share Posted January 21, 2023 2 hours ago, Happier diner said: I dont think there was any hope of getting planning permission for a freight terminal in the city centre. That isn't the issue, per se. The issue is the price tag for what we can actually use it for and the projected frequency of use. This should have been stopped and questioned when it hit £20M, particularly in light of the original quoted cost of £3M to IoM taxpayer. That was just over 6 times the quoted cost. We're now into the realms of in excess of 30 times that original quote. Plus the ever pushed-back completion dates. Sunk costs indeed and excuses still being made for it with not one person accountable to date and more than likely nobody accountable when the final bill presents. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshoremanxman Posted January 21, 2023 Share Posted January 21, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, Mercenary said: Focusing on the wrong project surely, Liverpool is committed costs now and hopefully it will just be complete in a reasonable time. Yes 30x over budget committed costs. Edited January 21, 2023 by offshoremanxman 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 2 hours ago, Non-Believer said: That isn't the issue, per se. The issue is the price tag for what we can actually use it for and the projected frequency of use. This should have been stopped and questioned when it hit £20M, particularly in light of the original quoted cost of £3M to IoM taxpayer. That was just over 6 times the quoted cost. We're now into the realms of in excess of 30 times that original quote. Plus the ever pushed-back completion dates. Sunk costs indeed and excuses still being made for it with not one person accountable to date and more than likely nobody accountable when the final bill presents. TBH. I think we all know that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 There are a lot of people gone before this even hits the PAC, top echelons CS, director of ports etc etc. Almost as if they know some brown stuff will be directed somewhere. If ever a full, proper, and open enquiry were needed, this is it, and whichever CM is in charge will have no credibility at all if this is allowed to be swept under the very lumpy carpet ! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 10 hours ago, offshoremanxman said: Yes 30x over budget committed costs. Well no, committed is cost of contractual termination vs completion, which will be very similar now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshoremanxman Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 2 minutes ago, Mercenary said: Well no, committed is cost of contractual termination vs completion, which will be very similar now That’s still the best part of £100M which is about 30 x what was budgeted originally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 (edited) 22 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: That’s still the best part of £100M which is about 30 x what was budgeted originally. I agree, and no doubt there will be an inquiry apportioning blame across the various groups. However they often follow a trend here of various small/naive political decisions and/or special interest groups lobbying behind the scenes adding up to constraints that deliver a massively over budget scheme. Promenade - horse tracks must be twin track in road > makes scheme undeliverable > £10m over budget Liverpool - can't be beholden to Peel Group who control all our ports > must be gateway building in dockside of Liverpool > prime conditions for big £ And surely the next one coming is the future of electrical generation. Interconnector getting to end of life / power station needs an overhaul. So when you add in climate change bill (legal requirement for net zero) + MUA/DOIs desire for N+2 in recent consultations we are probably on for over £100m before even looking at Pulrose. No doubt there will be various unforeseen connection issues requiring expensive upgrades UK side and inflation costs and it will be the same story, but everyone will be too focused on projects in progress such as Liverpool landing stage in build stage to care about until we've signed up to it. Edited January 22, 2023 by Mercenary Formatting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.