On 29 May, 19:51, Martin D. Pay
wrote:
In message , at 10:07:32
on Thu, 29 May 2008, Richard J. remarked:
'The contractors were jacking up the bridge. The jack collapsed and

And this was happening while trains were running underneath ?!?!?!

Indeed. I have no doubt that HSE will have some fairly robust
views on this, once the investigation has finished - and they
tend not to take prisoners...

Indeed not.....it was reported above that the actual jacking had been
done *overnight*....other work with bearings was going on (not that
this actually caused the bridge to drop necessarily - the reason will
come out eventually) at the tie thatthe jack gave out on onecorner of
the bridge) and, according to the NR statement, "a concrete
slab" (that's 'a', i.e. ONE) fell off the bridge onto the track.

One unconfirmed report has that it broke the cab windscreen, but I
doubt it, personally - just like a passenger being quoted as saying
that there was debris all over the track.....yes, dear, it'scalled
ballast!


With the info currently available, I see no reason why they couldn't
have been working where they were. There's no proof yet that whatever
they were doing actually caused the problem anyway.

How much damage was done to the OHLE? There must have been
*some*, surely?

From one slab?....quite possibly, none at all.

On May 29, 2008, Paul Corfield wrote:
While I am not at all surprised that top level communication has
occurred as a result of this incident I do find the tone of Network
Rail's "outrage" and their "banning" to be tinged with a large splash of
hypocrisy given the almighty cockups that they have inflicted on the
travelling public.

It does seem like something out of The Sun, doesn't it?

--
Kirk

Mizter T wrote:

It did cross my mind that maybe the hostile undertone of that
statement perhaps spoke of a wider institutional animosity within NR
towards TfL.

Maybe it was simply and edict from above to "Make sure everyone
knows it wasn't our fault this time"...

Cheers

mark-r

On May 29, 2008, Paul Corfield wrote:

While I am not at all surprised that top level communication has
occurred as a result of this incident I do find the tone of Network
Rail's "outrage" and their "banning" to be tinged with a large splash of
hypocrisy given the almighty cockups that they have inflicted on the
travelling public.

The difficulty with this type of language, as Mr Gisbey will find out,
is that if you are prepared to dish it out, you must also in the
fullness of time be prepared to take it. What we have here is a near
miss - now these are important as research work done by the University
of Minnesota on sites such as oil rigs,chemical factories, airports
and railroads shows that often a near miss occurs not by chance but
because inherently unsafe process are being followed generically.
Accidents often happen when a fatal cocktail of events align - in this
case we were lucky - but the more we learn from this the luckier we
shall remain. The Rail industry was until recently bedevilled by a
"someone has got to be summonsed" mindset which resulted in moats and
draw bridges being built after major incidents as everybody scuttled
for lawyers who promptly advised clients to clam up. Fortunately with
the new RAIB we have an " no blame" approach borrowed from Civil
Aviation. If anybody is banning anything it should be the RAIB
together with their colleagues from the HSE. Apart from securing the
bridge to avoid further immediate hazards I would imagine that the
RAIB have already insisted that the site is preserved so that detailed
analysis can begin together with interviews of the people involved. At
times like this a message from Mr Gisbey indicating a willingness to
help TfL through this situation would have been more appropriate.

Mwmbwls wrote:

At times like this a message from Mr Gisbey indicating a willingness
to help TfL through this situation would have been more appropriate.

Maybe, but it's hard to see how in any real sense, such help could be
offered and delivered. Presumably there is going to be some monetary
figure attached to the disruption, and a bill is going to be delivered -
the only real help would be not to do so, but that's not likely , is it?

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10589967.html
(50 032 at Oxford, May 1985)

On Fri, 30 May 2008 06:22:26 -0700 (PDT), Mwmbwls
wrote:

On May 29, 2008, Paul Corfield wrote:

While I am not at all surprised that top level communication has
occurred as a result of this incident I do find the tone of Network
Rail's "outrage" and their "banning" to be tinged with a large splash of
hypocrisy given the almighty cockups that they have inflicted on the
travelling public.

The difficulty with this type of language, as Mr Gisbey will find out,
is that if you are prepared to dish it out, you must also in the
fullness of time be prepared to take it. What we have here is a near
miss - now these are important as research work done by the University
of Minnesota on sites such as oil rigs,chemical factories, airports
and railroads shows that often a near miss occurs not by chance but
because inherently unsafe process are being followed generically.

Well exactly. It could have been much worse but it wasn't. Feet back on
planet Earth is always a helpful place to be.

Accidents often happen when a fatal cocktail of events align - in this
case we were lucky - but the more we learn from this the luckier we
shall remain. The Rail industry was until recently bedevilled by a
"someone has got to be summonsed" mindset which resulted in moats and
draw bridges being built after major incidents as everybody scuttled
for lawyers who promptly advised clients to clam up. Fortunately with
the new RAIB we have an " no blame" approach borrowed from Civil
Aviation. If anybody is banning anything it should be the RAIB
together with their colleagues from the HSE. Apart from securing the
bridge to avoid further immediate hazards I would imagine that the
RAIB have already insisted that the site is preserved so that detailed
analysis can begin together with interviews of the people involved.

Yes and I hope we will have a balanced and "unemotional" response to
whatever is discovered and that the lessons are duly learnt.

At
times like this a message from Mr Gisbey indicating a willingness to
help TfL through this situation would have been more appropriate.

Possibly - it people want to express their anger then they should pick
the phone up or meet face to face not rubbish a key stakeholder and
business partner via a press release. It makes you wonder what will
happen if a TfL owned (ok leased) London Overground train ever does any
damage to the NR network. Are all the trains going to be "banned" from
NR's precious metallic rights of way?

Chris wrote:

Indeed not.....it was reported above that the actual jacking had been
done *overnight*....other work with bearings was going on (not that
this actually caused the bridge to drop necessarily - the reason will
come out eventually) at the tie thatthe jack gave out on onecorner of
the bridge) and, according to the NR statement, "a concrete
slab" (that's 'a', i.e. ONE) fell off the bridge onto the track.

One unconfirmed report has that it broke the cab windscreen, but I
doubt it, personally - just like a passenger being quoted as saying
that there was debris all over the track.....yes, dear, it'scalled
ballast!

Sorry, but I personally counted 4 slabs around the the 19.15 Southend
departure (I was on the 19.18 Harwich alongside). At lest one of those
was mangled, which I inferred had been struck by that Train.

--
Peter Byrne Still Fading and Dying....

Replace Junk with Pete to send an e-mail