About Us

Recliner[_3_] · February 9th 17, 02:49 PM posted to uk.transport.london,uk.railway

wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:17:56 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 09:20:11 on Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Recliner
remarked:

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co...spel-oak-to-ba
king-route-to-reopen-on-monday-27-february-but-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 couldnâ€™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.

Of course, if they'd simply installed 3rd rail they could have done it in a
couple of months while the line carried on running. But thanks to stupid DoT
rules about no new 3rd rail they've had to close the line for god knows how
long inconveniencing 10s of thousands of people and spent 100m.

The line also carries freight, which will be hauled by 25kV locos.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Network Rail "incorrectly designed" the Gospel Oak -	[email protected]	London Transport	1	February 15th 17 11:48 AM
Network Rail "incorrectly designed" the Gospel Oak -	[email protected]	London Transport	1	February 11th 17 11:14 PM
Gospel Oak-Barking	Andrea	London Transport	16	March 8th 07 07:37 PM
SPECS installation in Gospel Oak?	John Rowland	London Transport	1	April 15th 06 09:52 AM
Gospel Oak - Barking	Slim	London Transport	1	July 21st 04 12:26 PM

Menu

About Us