Thames Valley infrastructure problems causing disruption elsewhere - 2014

[whole diary]

[stebbo]

But Network Rail is responsible for hiring the contractors and is responsible for the proper operation of the track and signalling. The pressure needs to go on Network Rail who, in turn, should sort their contractors out.

But the choice of contractor, how many, the overall work plan and oversight of the scheme is Network Rail's responsibility. These incidents seem to have been going on far too long and are too frequent. If I were a government minister I'd be looking to haul somebody at Network Rail over the coals; if I were a director at Network Rail I'd be looking to sort this out quickly and once and for all before the minister telephones. Yes, accidents happen but as was said on this theme in, I think, "Goldfinger" the third or fourth time it's "enemy action"

[ChrisB]

Does this apply to Crossrail works too?

[stebbo]

Not entirely sure with Crossrail but if the Government has allowed a separate body to work on Network Rail property or if NR^» (Network Rail - home page) don't have some responsibility for the work then they're barking mad as the scope for confusion is enormous.

[Electric train]

The problem with major works on and around aging infrastructure is the fragility of it, more often than not a fault will appear days or even weeks after a work activity, within projects we do our very best to plan out these risks, to stage works to remove fragile equipment which can be very costly because it may not be required at that stage and my have to be reworked.  Risk assessments are carried out for each worksite, plans are drawn up on how to protect assets in the work area and even teams held on standby just to carry out faulting and repairs if the risk is deemed to be very high.

There are penalties imposed on contractors if they cause train delays as a result of their activities, however these are limited in the terms of the contracts, if there were no limits contractors would not bid for the work.  

Sitting in a please explain why meeting with program directors, or even Network Rail (NR^» (Network Rail - home page)) executive members and TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) executives is definitely a no coffee or biscuits meeting and you have to have all of the answers ready.  I have known it where it has been recommended to senior project managers that they consider a career change

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronym

[Electric train]

Not entirely sure with Crossrail but if the Government has allowed a separate body to work on Network Rail property or if NR^» (Network Rail - home page) don't have some responsibility for the work then they're barking mad as the scope for confusion is enormous.

NR are managing all of the "on network" Crossrail works

[TonyK]

The problem with major works on and around aging infrastructure is the fragility of it, more often than not a fault will appear days or even weeks after a work activity, within projects we do our very best to plan out these risks, to stage works to remove fragile equipment which can be very costly because it may not be required at that stage and my have to be reworked.  Risk assessments are carried out for each worksite, plans are drawn up on how to protect assets in the work area and even teams held on standby just to carry out faulting and repairs if the risk is deemed to be very high.

There are penalties imposed on contractors if they cause train delays as a result of their activities, however these are limited in the terms of the contracts, if there were no limits contractors would not bid for the work.  

Sitting in a please explain why meeting with program directors, or even NR^» (Network Rail - home page) executive members and TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) executives is definitely a no coffee or biscuits meeting and you have to have all of the answers ready.  I have known it where it has been recommended to senior project managers that they consider a career change

Very true. We had a fused switched spur to a boiler that worked fine for many years, until the day it was switched off, then on again (or not, as it turned out). The slightest push in the wrong place can be too much for something that has given no previous problems, especially when the policy for replacement is not "just in time", but "well overdue".

[a-driver]

Sitting in a please explain why meeting with program directors, or even Network Rail (NR^» (Network Rail - home page)) executive members and TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) executives is definitely a no coffee or biscuits meeting and you have to have all of the answers ready.  I have known it where it has been recommended to senior project managers that they consider a career change

I can imagine.  When we had that High Speed Train (HST^▸ (High Speed Train)) fail at Pewsey for several hours our MD bought everyone involved into a meeting including the driver.  Most thought this was going to be a laid back, friendly chat where we pull the wool over the MDs eyes, turned out the MD tore strips off just about everyone involved. 
Just because a person or organisation gives a public impression that they don't care, that they're laid back, disinterested doesn't mean to say that that's the case behind closed doors.
I think a few people sat up and took notice after that meeting.

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronym

[ellendune]

But Network Rail is responsible for hiring the contractors and is responsible for the proper operation of the track and signalling. The pressure needs to go on Network Rail who, in turn, should sort their contractors out.

But the choice of contractor, how many, the overall work plan and oversight of the scheme is Network Rail's responsibility. These incidents seem to have been going on far too long and are too frequent. If I were a government minister I'd be looking to haul somebody at Network Rail over the coals; if I were a director at Network Rail I'd be looking to sort this out quickly and once and for all before the minister telephones. Yes, accidents happen but as was said on this theme in, I think, "Goldfinger" the third or fourth time it's "enemy action"

Yes but this pressure needs to go all the way down to those who actually cause the damage. Yes Network Rail (NR^» (Network Rail - home page)) are responsible for selecting their contractors, but their contractors are then responsible for carrying out the work properly.  If Network Rail (NR) do not push on their contractors then they are truly the only ones to blame as nothing will change. It is the contractors who can make a change.  I would like to see some uncomfortable meetings between the CEO^▸ (Chief Executive Officer) of Network Rail (NR) and the CEO of the contractors concerned. 

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronym

[SandTEngineer]

Hmmm.  With both my previous client hats on and my current contractors hat on ( ) my experience is that getting two MDs to have an argument doesn't get the industry anywhere.  The railway industry needs to work together to achieve success and avoid failures such as those discussed above. Shouting at each other and sacking people never solves anything but just makes it worse as you then lose the knowledge of whats gone on before.  I once worked for a business called 'Railtrack' whose policy was to 'shout and sack' and look what happened to them 

[stebbo]

But this is becoming a major problem that can't go unaddressed. I'm glad to hear these meetings are not coffee and biscuits affairs - but sooner or later somebody has to carry the can.

I agree that the contractors and sub-contractors are legally responsible for carrying out the work - that's the way the law works with chains of indemnities and warranties. But somebody at Network Rail has to carry the can as they appoint the contractors and supervise them and are the guys at the top ultimately responsible. If somebody at the top got demoted or worse it might send a message that things are being done. If this sort of shambles occurred in the private sector I know there would be consequences for somebody.

The contractors have to get the message that passengers (and I assume FGW^▸ (First Great Western)) are rightly very very angry.

[SandTEngineer]

But this is becoming a major problem that can't go unaddressed. I'm glad to hear these meetings are not coffee and biscuits affairs - but sooner or later somebody has to carry the can.

The contractors have to get the message that passengers (and I assume FGW^▸ (First Great Western)) are rightly very very angry.

I think you missed my point.  I didn't say that it shouldn't be seriously addressed but there are good ways and bad ways of achieving that.  You seem to be suggesting that those of us who work at the 'coal face' in the contracting industry don't care which is in fact far from the actual truth. I get just as frustrated as anybody else when the delays occur but at least I understand that we all live in an imperfect world and that there will always be good times and bad times.

[stebbo]

I understand your problem only too well. But if problems keep happening and p****ing off the paying public, who's going to take the can? Something has to happen to sort it.

[stuving]

I suspect that having contractors be more careful isn't the whole answer.

Network rail still operate the infrastructure, and do most of the testing. They also have to set out the processes for doing the work, and coordinate the various bits of NR^» (Network Rail - home page) and other parties as well as the upgrade contractors. So the first questions is whether the processes defined are realistic.

Given that the work has do be done in a very confined space and time, at night (and even with a lot of lighting there are dark areas), and what's there is not perfectly documented, there is a lot of scope for things to go wrong. So the process has to cover all those possibilities. There are several cases where similar required processes were not. For example, the mandatory use of organophosphate sheep dip, where the rules were supposedly able to protect farm workers being harmed by what was a known toxin. After many years of argument, it was finally admitted by government that perhaps a farmer working with limited time, money, and hands in lousy weather and with a bunch of very stroppy sheep could not be expected to always use the protective clothing and methods without lapses. This could be something similar.

I'm sure the work involves a lot of moving cables out of the way before doing something (like drilling a hole). Moving a cable is likely to trigger a problem, and it may be latent - i.e. not cause a visible signalling fault until you do something else, perhaps miles away, and much later. How much testing do you do after such each cable move? The probability of this happening in any one instance is low, but if you do enough of them, on cables unmoved for a long time ...

I would also note that identifying and shaming those who do cock up, or extracting penalty payments, is only a means to and end. What is needed is fewer of these events in the future. Too much time spent playing pass the penalty parcel is a distraction, and one that is already too prevalent in both the rail and construction industries.

[ChrisB]

The equipment is seriously old & hasn't been moved for years (if at all) - if it has to be moved to get the OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") in place, what to do if its fragile & breaks every move?....difficult.

[SandTEngineer]

OK then perhaps this will cheer everybody up http://railnews.mobi/news/2014/10/10-network-rail-says-sorry-for.html