Comments for New Civil Engineer

Comment on TfL and Motts discuss West London Orbital Overground line as feasibility stage completed by John Porter

John Porter — Sat, 23 Nov 2024 11:14:10 +0000

This is a welcome scheme if it can be built for the estimated £900million.
Presumably the design capacity is 16 trains/hour and the intended opening frequency half that.
The ideal rolling stock would be a variant of the Thameslink stock to help Great British Rail justify grade separating the Midland Main Line and Thameslink conflicts. A dual purpose tunnelled northbound dive under from Kentish Town station to West Hampstead station could allow Thameslink’s trains to continue to Hounslow via Old Oak instead of terminating at Kentish Town, thus providing a quarter hourly service from Hounslow etc to Kings Cross, London Bridge & beyond in the 2050s.

Comment on Leeds’ flood protection enhanced after 10-year scheme adopts mix of new and well-tried solutions by peter.stilliard@jacobs.com.qsi

peter.stilliard@jacobs.com.qsi — Fri, 22 Nov 2024 09:13:16 +0000

Pleasing to read of the success and also the triple win from NFM implementation of reducing flood risk, reducing wall heights and therefore carbon, and wider benefits and carbon sequestration from the NFM measures. Hoping the success will prove a catalyst for ever increasing inclusion of NFM measures within flood risk management schemes.

Comment on Billions to be made available for UK infrastructure via megafunds in major pension reform by Philip Alexander

Philip Alexander — Thu, 21 Nov 2024 07:14:43 +0000

This is nationalisation of pension funds under the guise of “reform”. It is just outright theft by the government. Rachel Thieves doesn’t actually understand the first thing about the finance sector and especially the pensions sector. The trustees of pension funds are legally obliged to invest where the returns are greatest, not to prop up some loony Labour government’s spending plans. Where’s the return in investing in infrastructure in the UK? This is theft, pure and simple. I hope the pension fund trustees resist this theft with all the legal firepower they can muster.

Comment on Rail minister says Euston station ‘no longer in a fit condition’ by Philip Alexander

Philip Alexander — Thu, 21 Nov 2024 07:09:54 +0000

You could really sort out Euston station by re-routing the “HS2” services (which ought to be just part of the rest of the network running 125mph trains) into St Pancras and using the land which has been purchased for the HS2 platforms to re-model Euston starting from the west and working eastwards. It’s not rocket science.

Comment on Mott MacDonald Jacobs consortium to develop £2.5bn West Yorkshire Mass Transit by Keith Joshua Elliott

Keith Joshua Elliott — Tue, 19 Nov 2024 22:23:55 +0000

Slightly worrying in the year 2024 that the photo-illustration chosen to showcase this project shows a number of cycling “extras”, none of whom apparently believe that they need to wear a safety helmet. If an Engineer or Architect chose this picture, shame on you! If it was chosen by the marketing team, shame on all the Engineers and Architects who surely had the opportunity to challenge it! Surely in this day and age we technical professionals have a duty to promote the safety message at every opportunity?

Comment on Shell and Equinor to concede Scottish oil and gas consents are ‘unlawful’ in judicial review by Richard Craig

Richard Craig — Tue, 19 Nov 2024 15:06:52 +0000

Sorry – got the last bit wrong – it should read LESS reckless than the path the courts, Greenpeace and the former Climate Change Committee chairman are trying to foist on us.

Comment on Shell and Equinor to concede Scottish oil and gas consents are ‘unlawful’ in judicial review by Richard Craig

Richard Craig — Tue, 19 Nov 2024 15:02:45 +0000

I think we need to unpack what’s happened here.
Will stopping these developments actually make a difference to the amount of carbon produced by or on behalf of the UK? Probably not. Instead of oil and gas being produced in the UK, from the North Sea, it will be produced elsewhere and imported. And this means the oil or gas will be transported over longer distances to get to our power stations (gas) or vehicles (oil) so probably will increase our carbon emissions. It is therefore escaping me why it can be unlawful. It seems the judges did not fully consider what the carbon emissions would be if the developments did not go ahead. The judges, Greenpeace and the Climate Change Committee former chairman seem to be under the misapprehension that if these fields are not developed, this will reduce the UK carbon emissions. Unless something else happens, it will not – the UK will just import more oil and gas.
And what do I mean by something else? It probably needs four big changes (leaving aside agriculture and meat/dairy production) – decarbonisation of our electricity generation, decarbonisation of heating, electrification of transportation and reductions in energy demand (be it increasing efficiency or reducing use through behavioural change). All of these require investment and a lot of that will come from the government, financed through borrowing or taxation.
And where does a lot of Government revenue come from? The North Sea – £2.6 billion rising to £9.9 billion in 2022/3 (due to oil/gas price rises after the invasion of Ukraine), £6.2 billion in 2023/4 and then falling to £2.2 billion by 2028/9 (and probably falling faster with these judicial decisions).
And if there is another oil/gas price shock? Yes, the oil/gas is sold on the international market but if we let others produce the oil/gas we use, then others will profit from the price increases and the UK will not – so how do we fund ensuring people who cannot accommodate the resultant price increases are able to keep warm?
I therefore think there is a significant body of opinion that not continuing to use the North Sea to enable a smooth and risk free transition to net zero and continuing to use the generated revenue to fund the decarbonising agenda, enabling the UK to accommodate the further likely oil/gas price shocks would actually be more “reckless” than the path that the courts, Greenpeace and the Climate Change Committee former chairman seem to be forcing us into.

Comment on Track works on £56.8M Mid Cornwall Metro to commence by Bill Addington

Bill Addington — Mon, 18 Nov 2024 03:26:55 +0000

A map or layout plan would be useful to illustrate details of the proposed works.

Comment on Hydrogen produced at scale using biological process combining carbon capture by Norman Frederick Brent

Norman Frederick Brent — Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:58:47 +0000

It would be nice to hear a little more about how this is achieved, rather than the very simplified basic facts of this report. I’ve noticed this tendency in several recent reports, to the extent that I sometimes find better explanations in the non-technical press.

Comment on Saudi Arabia calls reports of 21,000 construction worker deaths ‘misinformation’ by Philip Alexander

Philip Alexander — Thu, 07 Nov 2024 07:48:41 +0000

21000 deaths over an 8 year period is 50 deaths a week or 8 deaths per working day. It’s likely that H&S measures may not be as ‘perfect’ as they are in the UK, but I really question the veracity of such figures. If it was indeed true that so many workers were being killed at work over a sustained 8 year period, there would have been far more ‘leakage’ of information to the western media. I believe these figures are completely made up to excite the sort of journalist who just reprints press releases rather than properly verifying such claims.