David Hansen wrote in message . ..
I think this is the problem. The report presents a view and I have
no doubt has been Campbelled to give maximum support to that view.

On the contrary, the report suffers from being written in unexplained
engineering language and fails to really convey the sheer
improbability of events. I do agree that it raises as many questions
as it answers probably due to the speed it's been produced.

However, it does not tell us why the power supply to (part of) the
underground failed for such a long time. No doubt the report's
authors will claim that this is nothing to do with them, but is the
responsibility of another company. The Michael Howard approach. The
mass media have been deflected, at least for the moment, but I
imagine party politicians and others are still looking for a proper
explanation.

Yes, LU's loss of power was indicated, though not explicitly stated,
to be EDF's fault. They went into some detail about how 'we
understand..' EDF were operating their system and their contigency
plan that should've reconnected LU almost immediately but not why they
didn't (I suspect EDF were simply overwhelmed by the scale of the
event). NG made it clear that through-out they were able to supply
EDF's full Wimbledon load including LU. It comes down to NG's and
EDF's seperate Wimbledon sub-stations being operated independently
when really they should be treated as one unit but I don't think
that's a recent problem.