White Elephants… that turn out good?
Discussion
A quick scan of the news today about the Typhoons sent up to intercept a non responsive plane got me thinking.
I’m sure when I was young, these planes were considered a massive white elephant, ‘a Tornado is perfectly fine’ etc. Yet in the interim, they seem to have become a fantastic platform, one that is going to give the vast majority of opposition (I don’t just mean passenger turboprops!) a bad day.
The F-35 seems to be heading down the same route. Crazy, wrong decision, waste of money etc. Yet even more rapidly seems to becoming very accepted as being a rather good bit of kit.
So are we just afraid of change?
I’m sure when I was young, these planes were considered a massive white elephant, ‘a Tornado is perfectly fine’ etc. Yet in the interim, they seem to have become a fantastic platform, one that is going to give the vast majority of opposition (I don’t just mean passenger turboprops!) a bad day.
The F-35 seems to be heading down the same route. Crazy, wrong decision, waste of money etc. Yet even more rapidly seems to becoming very accepted as being a rather good bit of kit.
So are we just afraid of change?
pitlane said:
So are we just afraid of change?
Regarding modern aircraft - because of how expensive/complex the vast majority of new planes are the manufacturers, and the countries buying them, buy/make them in fairly small "lots/tranches" etc per year.However due to the fairly long time it takes to get hold of say 50+ aircraft you'll find that the very first ones are almost like BETA tests, heavily limited initially, whereas as over the years new mods get added into the build to increase the capability of each different Lot/Tranche.
So long gone are the days of "we want 150 fighters and we want all of them this year and they must be identical" and instead its "we want 150 fighters, but we can only afford about 30 per year (and you can't build much more than that anyway). Oh, and can you update the equipment in them as you build them every few years too please".
Therefore its inevitable that the first ones we see are generally "not great" and take time (usually 20+ years) to mature into the fantastic aircraft we eventually get.
Every military aircraft goes through phases.
1) It'll never fly.
2) It might fly but there's no use for it.
3) it flies and there is.a use for it,. but we can't use it because it won't work properly.
4) We are using it but that doesn't mean it works properly.
5) We are doing a good job with it because we have heroically overcome it's limitations.
6) It's been doing a good job for years why scrap it in favour of something which won't work?
Typhoon is in stage 5 while F35 is just entering stage 4, as are the new aircraft carriers interestingly enough.
1) It'll never fly.
2) It might fly but there's no use for it.
3) it flies and there is.a use for it,. but we can't use it because it won't work properly.
4) We are using it but that doesn't mean it works properly.
5) We are doing a good job with it because we have heroically overcome it's limitations.
6) It's been doing a good job for years why scrap it in favour of something which won't work?
Typhoon is in stage 5 while F35 is just entering stage 4, as are the new aircraft carriers interestingly enough.
ianrb said:
I don't know the full history of the Elizabeth Line, but I do know it was late & over budget. So it's possible that it was thought to be a bit of a white elephant. Was in London last week, and for quick easy east-west trips it was brilliant.
I think HS2 will pan out the same.
The problem with HS2 is its name because it completely miss sells it.I think HS2 will pan out the same.
It was never really about getting to Birmingham, Manchester or wherever 10 minutes sooner. It’s about freeing up existing lines from super fast express trains to make all trains run more freely and improve services across the board.
Some bright spark (probably a politician) decided “speed sells” let’s brand it “high speed 2”
It’s actually a pretty essential part of this country’s future infrastructure.
I had it explained to me by an industry boffin ….
No they weren’t working on the project …..
robemcdonald said:
The problem with HS2 is its name because it completely miss sells it.
It was never really about getting to Birmingham, Manchester or wherever 10 minutes sooner. It’s about freeing up existing lines from super fast express trains to make all trains run more freely and improve services across the board.
Some bright spark (probably a politician) decided “speed sells” let’s brand it “high speed 2”
It’s actually a pretty essential part of this country’s future infrastructure.
I had it explained to me by an industry boffin ….
No they weren’t working on the project …..
I completely agree. It seems to make people really cross but all the info I've read about it seems really sensible. It was never really about getting to Birmingham, Manchester or wherever 10 minutes sooner. It’s about freeing up existing lines from super fast express trains to make all trains run more freely and improve services across the board.
Some bright spark (probably a politician) decided “speed sells” let’s brand it “high speed 2”
It’s actually a pretty essential part of this country’s future infrastructure.
I had it explained to me by an industry boffin ….
No they weren’t working on the project …..
robemcdonald said:
Admittedly it’s not as good value as a failed track and trace system of PPE contracts that supplied unsuitable equipment.
Past examples of wasteful expenditure do not excuse present or future examples. It may well prove to be a half decent spend but written down it currently just appears eye watering and at odds with claims by government that they can’t afford this, that or the other. I’m not opposed to it btw, I’ll support anything that proves itself, I just see the figures and think hmm that’s a fair chunk of change.robemcdonald said:
It was never really about getting to Birmingham, Manchester or wherever 10 minutes sooner. It’s about freeing up existing lines from super fast express trains to make all trains run more freely and improve services across the board.
So in road terms, it's a by-pass!robemcdonald said:
Admittedly it’s not as good value as a failed track and trace system of PPE contracts that supplied unsuitable equipment.
There's been rather more time to plan HS2 though, and thousands of people are not dying every day from it - which adds pressure somewhat.Simpo Two said:
robemcdonald said:
It was never really about getting to Birmingham, Manchester or wherever 10 minutes sooner. It’s about freeing up existing lines from super fast express trains to make all trains run more freely and improve services across the board.
So in road terms, it's a by-pass!robemcdonald said:
Admittedly it’s not as good value as a failed track and trace system of PPE contracts that supplied unsuitable equipment.
There's been rather more time to plan HS2 though, and thousands of people are not dying every day from it - which adds pressure somewhat.LukeBrown66 said:
M6 toll
I know lots of people use it, but it has not really helped that much unless you are prepared to pay a lot! Basically a VIP lane so for them it's great, for most it's still white!
Millenium Dome, kind of is a thing you might miss now if it went!
Brits just don’t like paying tolls! Governments should pay for infrastructure.I know lots of people use it, but it has not really helped that much unless you are prepared to pay a lot! Basically a VIP lane so for them it's great, for most it's still white!
Millenium Dome, kind of is a thing you might miss now if it went!
ISTR reading an article where one of the banks that financed it in the first place, Macquarie, I think, said that they had financed / owned loads of toll roads around the world and the only one they ever lost money on was the M6 Toll road!
At the point they sold it, the Govt of the day should have just bought it and put it in to none toll paying use. Could have bought it for less than the build cost.
Pity it wasn’t an orbital motorway around the midlands conurbation, an “M25 for the midlands”. Would have had loads of use then.
djc206 said:
Mabbs9 said:
I completely agree. It seems to make people really cross but all the info I've read about it seems really sensible.
Except the cost. FWIW, I don't have an answer to that, but everything is expensive when you do it then it looks cheap in hindsight when the value of the project is seen. The M40 was expensive, the new nuclear builds are expensive, the first railways were expensive, there are always arguments why not to do stuff, but if you don't do it then you never make progress. The existing railway was built over 150 years ago, if HS2 lasts 150 years then the cost per year/per passenger will be negliable - we are not building for today, but building for tomorrow, the next day, and for you grandkids' kids to use.
LukeBrown66 said:
.....
Millenium Dome, kind of is a thing you might miss now if it went!
The dome itself is a useful venue, it was the Millenium Exhibition that went in it that was a bit naff. The whole thing was designed to be inclusive and all the other thing a committee would want, but it ended up with lots of exhibits without decent descriptions and a lot of them pretty mediocre.Millenium Dome, kind of is a thing you might miss now if it went!
The multi-level lifting stage in the middle of the dome with all the people on it was pretty amazing though. How that ever got past the health and safety people I'll never know.
Condi said:
What is a "sensible" cost for a new railway line from London to Manchester?
FWIW, I don't have an answer to that, but everything is expensive when you do it then it looks cheap in hindsight when the value of the project is seen. The M40 was expensive, the new nuclear builds are expensive, the first railways were expensive, there are always arguments why not to do stuff, but if you don't do it then you never make progress. The existing railway was built over 150 years ago, if HS2 lasts 150 years then the cost per year/per passenger will be negliable - we are not building for today, but building for tomorrow, the next day, and for you grandkids' kids to use.
That’s the £44-100bn question isn’t it. Infrastructure projects are generally a good way to spend money and like a lot of government spending a decent amount of that will find its way back into the coffers so it’s not really spent but the headline figure is certainly, well a good headline. As with most government projects it’s not simply the number it’s the fact that it was promised to be a tiny fraction of what it is now forecast to cost, that overspend is what attracts attention and ire.FWIW, I don't have an answer to that, but everything is expensive when you do it then it looks cheap in hindsight when the value of the project is seen. The M40 was expensive, the new nuclear builds are expensive, the first railways were expensive, there are always arguments why not to do stuff, but if you don't do it then you never make progress. The existing railway was built over 150 years ago, if HS2 lasts 150 years then the cost per year/per passenger will be negliable - we are not building for today, but building for tomorrow, the next day, and for you grandkids' kids to use.
GliderRider said:
LukeBrown66 said:
Millenium Dome, kind of is a thing you might miss now if it went!
The dome itself is a useful venue, it was the Millenium Exhibition that went in it that was a bit naff.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff