Based on the news about Crossrail that has emerged in the last 24 hours, the project which was approved in 2007 and began construction two years later was due to take 9 years to complete. The fact that it has slipped by 9 months is clearly unfortunate and in the context of most large construction projects, this does matter as the plans would or rather should have had a lot of provision for such problems. All construction projects are estimated based on many factors which cannot all be certain until the day the work starts. However to announce a delay of 9 months when the project was due to end in 3 months time is where this projects credibility is at great risk. According to the reports, the news of this delay is not new, it has simply not been communicated to the public, and according to news broadcasts, not to one of the two commissioning bodi

The news that has emerged in the last 24 hours regarding Crossrail comes as something of a surprise to those who were expecting this long time coming scheme to be completed by December 2018, even though the latest projected finish date is now indicated as only being September 2019. Given that George Dow first put forward proposals regarding the tunnels under London back in 1941-48 and the project which was finally approved in 2007 by Parliament. The construction which began two years later was due to take 9 years to complete so a few more months is not enormous. Also given that the first slippage of the project was announced in 2007 when stations that were due to be completed by the end of that year were announced as slipping until 2009 so this is not the first shock to those observing this scheme.

The fact that it has slipped by 9 months and risen by 3% in budgetary terms is clearly unfortunate if assessed in the context of the project as a whole as whilst delays can easily occur in the life of both small and large construction projects, this should lead the designers of such high profile projects to allow for such factors when they make their plans and timescales public. A slippage of just over 8% is not necessarily momentous but it cannot be treated superficially as seemed to be the case by John Armitt who is the Chair of the National Infrastructure Commission and who was interviewed yesterday on Radio 4. In his role he took over from Andrew Adonis who is full of speeches because he is a politician, but unlike his predecessor John is an engineer who understands how such projects work, having been responsible for the construction of the Olympic Stadia.

All construction projects are estimated based on many factors which cannot all be certain until the day the work starts. However to announce an extension of 8.3% of the overall time required when the project has reached 97.3% of the original time proposed is why this projects credibility is at great risk. According to the reports communicated yesterday, the news of this delay is not new and it has been known by the two commissioning bodies for some time. That Transport for London has chosen to avoid announcing this is frustrating, however the fact that the Department for Transport claimed that it only heard about this delay in the last 48 hours when they are the other half of the same commissioning body raises far more concerns. The head of the Department is Chris Grayling and it was suggested he along with his colleagues was oblivious to this issue at the beginning of this week. Let us hope that the Politicians, who supported his role back in June when the Labour Party asked for a vote of no confidence in him, will now be reconsidering their decisions.