Network Rail "incorrectly designed" the Gospel Oak - Barkingimprovements
 

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co...rk-is-required

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

Network Rail "incorrectly designed" the Gospel Oak -Barking improvements
 

Basil Jet wrote:

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co...rk-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.

TfL must be secretly relieved that this takes away the pressure to transfer
some old electric 4-car trains on to the line before the new class 710s
arrive.

Network Rail "incorrectly designed" the Gospel Oak - Barking improvements
 

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.
--
Roland Perry

Network Rail "incorrectly designed" the Gospel Oak -Barking improvements
 

Roland Perry wrote:
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.

Yup

Network Rail "incorrectly designed" the Gospel Oak - Barking improvements
 

"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?

Network Rail "incorrectly designed" the Gospel Oak - Barking improvements
 

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 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.

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.

--
Spud

Network Rail "incorrectly designed" the Gospel Oak -Barking improvements
 

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

Network Rail "incorrectly designed" the Gospel Oak -Barking improvements
 

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 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.

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.

Network Rail "incorrectly designed" the Gospel Oak -
 

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 15:49:30 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
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 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.

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.

The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels and the
main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd rail anyway.

--
Spud

Network Rail "incorrectly designed" the Gospel Oak -
 

wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 15:49:30 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
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 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.

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.

The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels and the
main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd rail anyway.

The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are little used.