Great Western Coffee Shop

According to Rail 918, GRIP is no more. Is anyone sad to hear this?

I agree with NR's comments frankly - it takes far too long & is far too costly. However, it's replacement may be worse, so I reserve my thoughts on its replacement until it's in the public domain

If the problem with GRIP was that people - and I guess he means NR's staff - don't use it intelligently, how will replacing it help? I mean, does he think they can build the intelligence into the process instead? 

Its not only NR staff, Suppliers (contractors) are ridged on not progressing unless a process is complete, often not trusting designs, data etc provided by another contract.  DfT and ORR are rigorous about it.

There are some good parts in the GRIP process but I agree with Andrew Haines its un workably complex 

If it's replaced by something simpler, with fewer steps, that should cut down the opportunities for unintelligent application. It should certainly reduce delays by reducing steps. If it's replaced by something simpler...

What I thought was the issue - confirmed by that Andrew Haines quote - is that each of the stages is needed in some projects, and all are needed in big ones, but that in a lot of smaller projects some can be omitted (or signed off two at at time). So it's the driver's manual that needs changing - or who gets to be the driver.

The GRIP process when applied as intended is a reasonable process.  GRIP is a series of "products" some mandated at certain stages other are optional.  One of the issues I have come across is where a Project Manager or a Scheme PM follow GRIP to the letter and not the intent of GRIP, even more worrying is when they insist on a product in GRIP but do not understand what they are actually asking form.  PM's are not the only one the Project Engineers can insist on a process because its in GRIP but actually may not be required.

GRIP does need an overhaul ................. there will be some railway project people at a loss or even bereaved when the GRIP goes or gets changed

In my understanding GRIP is particularly bad at dealing with schemes that are not sponsored by 'the railway'.

Such a scenario might occur when an external sponsor - let's say, for example, North Somerset - knows that it wants a new railway connection, and has commissioned reports which satisfy it that passenger numbers make it viable. The customer has in effect completed GRIP 1 and 2, and has determined in outline what it required of GRIP 3. They then have to pay NR to second-guess their conclusions, including NR determining whether the customer really needs the line at all. It's like going to a TV showroom and being asked by the sales person if you've considered reading a book instead. The process can take many years to get back to the point where NR agree that the customer was right to ask for a new line.

GRIP may have the potential to work very well when the railway is deciding its own priorities, but it doesn't seem to work when someone else is paying.

According to my spies, GRIP is to be replaced by PACE:

Source: Toby Elliott, Network Rail

One wonders if this will increase the pace that new projects progress?...

The limiting factors in rail projects are funding, which a change to GRIP may reduce overheads therefore more money to do more work.

However the biggest limitation is access ie no trains running to allow work to take place, some tasks can be done during while trains are running, but the ORR are making in increasingly difficult to have staff out on the railway when trains are running