NY wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 09:20:11 on Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Recliner
remarked:
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co...-further-work-
is-required

http://www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk/...ss_release.pdf

It looks like NR is trying to pass the blame on to the contractors:

"Along the 14-mile route, a number of the structures, which carry the
overhead lines, were incorrectly designed and couldn’t be installed at the
planned locations. Late delivery of materials and structures also led to
further delays."

I think NR would have used different words if the faults had been its own.

NR's fault is (once again) lack of project management and performing
checks on what was being designed/manufactured.

Yes, no matter whose fault it is, it's ultimately Network Rail's fault. They
are the project managers and they will have either designed the structures
or else approved someone else's design; ditto with the construction. The
buck stops with them.

I wonder if the problem would have arisen in the days of British Rail when
they (BR) did everything themselves: design, construction, project
management? In other words, how much of the problem is due to the fragmented
chain-of-command not-my-problem nature of modern civil engineering, where
there are loads of different contractors and sub-contractors involved. Has
anyone ever analysed and costed the risk of the fragmented approach?



OTOH I wonder how much is down to dodgy survey work (piles couldn't
actually go where intended - one of the major problems on the GWML AIUI)
and also down to trying to do it in one blockade; AIUI on the GWML there
are planned three month gaps between piling and steelwork, and between
steelwork and wiring - AFAIK the detailed design work on the steelwork
isn't done until they know exactly where the piles actually landed.


Anna Noyd-Dryver