View Single Post
  #13   Report Post  
Old February 9th 17, 04:39 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
Roland Perry Roland Perry is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2003
Posts: 10,125
Default Network Rail "incorrectly designed" the Gospel Oak - Barking improvements

In message , at 15:43:03 on Thu, 9 Feb 2017,
Anna Noyd-Dryver remarked:
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.


And were "lessons learnt", no obviously not.
--
Roland Perry