|
|
|
Chris from Nailsea
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2015, 21:36:41 » |
|
Hmm.  Rather oddly, Alan Price's letter is dated 6 August 2014. You what??   |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
William Huskisson MP▸ was the first person to be killed by a train while crossing the tracks, in 1830. Many more have died in the same way since then. Don't take a chance: stop, look, listen.
"Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner." Discuss.
|
|
|
|
SandTEngineer
|
|
« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2015, 21:38:28 » |
|
Hmm. Rather oddly, Alan Price's letter is dated 6 August 2014. You what?? Perhaps the letter was drafted out then.......  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Electric train
|
|
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2015, 11:13:04 » |
|
To be replaced with .................  Railtrack .... ops already used that name. The problems with the GRIP▸ process its full of "products" and there is a whole load of people running around doing Stage Gates oh and don't get me started on "Reporting"  it is a mirco industry in its self. When it get to GRIP 6 commissioning and EIS▸ the way NR» 's contracts are written the majority of the money has been paid to the contractors so their project teams have moved on also within NR due to there being poor / non existent succession planning for its staff NR project team members apply for new jobs internally. Yes there is a lot NR can do internally to improve how it delivers projects but maybe the ORR» / DfT» also need to look at what processes they want how and what needs to be stage gated and reported. The ORR / DfT are not holier than thou in this they want on one hand renewals and enhancements delivered but on the other hand say but you still need to run the same if not more services to time. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
|
|
|
|
ellendune
|
|
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2015, 13:46:27 » |
|
Just changing the name won't help. There needs to be:
a) an agreed long term programme (beyond 5 years) (Government - DfT» , Treasury)
b) workforce planning to match (NR» )
c) an education system that turns out enough engineers of all grades and types (Government - DFEE) - this is not just needed for the rail sector!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SandTEngineer
|
|
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2015, 14:08:54 » |
|
Just changing the name won't help. There needs to be:
a) an agreed long term programme (beyond 5 years) (Government - DfT» , Treasury)
b) workforce planning to match (NR» )
c) an education system that turns out enough engineers of all grades and types (Government - DFEE) - this is not just needed for the rail sector!
My response to your three points would be: (a) No chance (b) No chance (c) No chance I'll get my hat and coat...........  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ellendune
|
|
« Reply #6 on: August 09, 2015, 20:17:52 » |
|
My response to your three points would be: (a) No chance (b) No chance (c) No chance I'll get my hat and coat........... I am rather inclined to agree with you |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SandTEngineer
|
|
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2015, 20:28:31 » |
|
Oh dear it gets worse http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33846756From the BBC»
Network Rail fined ^2m for delays
Network Rail has been fined ^2m by the rail regulator over train delays and cancellations in 2014-15.
The delays were mainly at London Bridge station, but also in Scotland.
Network Rail's performance on Southern, on Govia Thameslink (GTR) and in Scotland was "below expectations and missed punctuality targets", the Office of Rail and Road (ORR» ) said.
Network Rail has apologised to passengers for "disruption and frustration".
However, it said it had invested more than ^11m to "improve performance for Southern and Thameslink passengers" since the start of 2015.
Phil Hufton, managing director of network operations at Network Rail, said: "At London Bridge we are undertaking the biggest and most complex station and track redevelopment ever attempted on Britain's railways - while simultaneously continuing to keep services running."
Commuter chaos
Commuters using London Bridge began to face delays in January due to rebuilding work as part of the government-sponsored ^6.5bn Thameslink Programme.
In March, there were chaotic scenes at London Bridge, which rail union RMT▸ described as "life-threatening", as passengers jumped barriers to avoid crushes on the concourse.
The regulator said that Network Rail had failed to liaise properly with operators to understand the extent of the disruption, and had also used flawed data to compile timetables.
It said Network Rail had "significantly underestimated the impact of the Thameslink programme on performance, which was further exacerbated by a timetable that was not robust".
ORR chief executive Richard Price said: "The scale of the delays suffered by passengers was central to our decision to fine."
"The penalty sends a clear message to the Network Rail board: Network Rail must urgently rectify these errors and deliver the reliability of services that passengers have paid for," he added.
Errors in timetabling in Scotland were not picked up due to quality assurance issues there, ORR said.
The fine either has to be paid to the Treasury, or instead, the ^2m will have to be used to improve customer services beyond what is normally expected, a spokeswoman for the ORR said.
Job losses?
The Rail, Maritime and Transport union said the Network Rail fine was "a ludicrous way to run a railway" as it was "effectively the taxpayer fining themselves". Network Rail is a public-sector body.
RMT general secretary Mick Cash said: "The fines will have to be paid for by axing works or cutting staff, creating a vicious cycle of decline that is self-defeating and will just mean more fines and more cuts in the future, which is a nonsense."
He added that "fragmentation and a proliferation of contractors and agencies on our tracks... are compromising infrastructure projects".
A Network Rail spokesman said that it was too early to speculate as to whether the fine would lead to job losses.
The public sector body has already had to halt some rail improvement works, however.
In June a ^500m project to electrify the Midland Mainline was "paused" by the government. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Timmer
|
|
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2015, 20:36:25 » |
|
Not often I will find myself agreeing with RMT▸ 's Mike Cash but he's right, it is 'a ludicrous way to run a railway'.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SandTEngineer
|
|
« Reply #9 on: August 11, 2015, 10:23:32 » |
|
Personally I don't think NR» will take the slightest bit of notice of the fine. I find their response (the usual stuck record of how wonderful we are and we are delivering the biggest projects ever) to be beyond the pale. BR▸ delivered much bigger projects in its time with far bigger financial constraints. Of course the current NR management don't know that because they got rid of all the good and experienced staff who did  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Visoflex
|
|
« Reply #10 on: August 14, 2015, 11:03:40 » |
|
It could be argued that NR» is a civil engineering and heavy maintenance company that manages specialist contractors, doesn't run trains and therefore railway operating experience is not required. In a similar vein, personnel working for BAA and running Heathrow airport aren't required to be pilots. However, it is handy to know how much runway and parking space differing types of aircraft require at different times of the day and in different weathers. But there doesn't appear to be anyone in the very senior NR positions with any railway operating experience at all. Yes granted, there are those with experience in safety critical and heavily regulated industries, but not railways. They may well have worked on large complex projects with eye watering budgets, but don't appear to appreciate when a project is too complex for a given amount of time. When project people say a job will need a seven day possession, but the Train Operating Companies say that they are only prepared to grant a 5 day possession, then something has to give and will require an adult conversation to agree what will be re-scheduled or dropped. What is needed are senior people who can effectively challenge project teams but who can also square up to the DFT▸ , ORR» and TOC▸ 's and who can talk from a position of experience. They have the experience and gravitas to say that just ploughing ahead and trying to do seven days work in five is risk laden not "efficient" (a phrase much beloved of the ORR and our political masters), and here's the reasons why. The baby was thrown out with the bathwater in the early days of NR. See below http://www.cipd.co.uk/pm/peoplemanagement/b/weblog/archive/2013/01/29/backontrack-2006-06.aspxProject Violet identified many middle management types who would be surplus to requirements after the major re-organisation that was to follow; and those who were just "time serving" and under performing. Whilst granted it is often necessary to cull dead wood in any organisation, however unpalatable. But an organisation's corporate "experience" and "wisdom" lays with its middle managers. Those people who may well have been railway apprentices, learnt their trade, have done their time and been around the block a few times. Replacing these with enthusiastic (and cheaper) wide eyed, inexperienced civil engineering graduates brings new blood that is granted, but the checks and balances brought to the table by experience has been lost for ever. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 14, 2015, 18:04:21 by Visoflex »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Electric train
|
|
« Reply #11 on: August 14, 2015, 12:43:27 » |
|
Personally I don't think NR» will take the slightest bit of notice of the fine. I find their response (the usual stuck record of how wonderful we are and we are delivering the biggest projects ever) to be beyond the pale. BR▸ delivered much bigger projects in its time with far bigger financial constraints. Of course the current NR management don't know that because they got rid of all the good and experienced staff who did We have been told to take notice It could be argued that NR is a civil engineering and heavy maintenance company that manages specialist contractors, doesn't run trains and therefore railway operating experience is not required. In a similar vein, personnel working for BAA and running Heathrow airport aren't required to be pilots. However, it is handy to know how much runway and parking space differing types of aircraft require at different times of the day and in different weathers.
But there doesn't appear to be anyone in the very senior NR positions with any railway operating experience at all. Yes granted, there are those with experience in safety critical and heavily regulated industries, but not railways. They may well have worked on large complex projects with eye watering budgets, but don't appear to appreciate when a project is too complex for a given amount of time. When project people say a job will need a seven day possession, but the Train Operating Companies say that they are only prepared to grant a 5 day possession, then something has to give and will require an adult conversation to agree what will be re-scheduled or dropped. What is needed are senior people who can effectively challenge project teams but who can also square up to the DFT▸ , ORR» and TOC▸ 's and who can talk from a position of experience. They have the experience and gravitas to say that just ploughing ahead and trying to do seven days work in five is risk laden not "efficient" (a phrase beloved of the ORR and our political masters), and here's the reasons why.
The baby was thrown out with the bathwater in the early days of NR. Project Violet identified many middle management types who would be surplus to requirements after the major re-organisation that was to follow; and those who were just "time serving" and under performing. Whilst granted it is often necessary to cull dead wood in any organisation, however unpalatable. But an organisation's corporate "experience" and "wisdom" lays with its middle managers. Those people who may well have been railway apprentices, learnt their trade, have done their time and been around the block a few times. Replacing these with enthusiastic (and cheaper) wide eyed, inexperienced civil engineering graduates brings new blood that is granted, but the checks and balances brought to the table by experience has been lost for ever.
And it continues with DIME and then the Management Efficiencies last years where all the senior folk close to 40 years in the pension took cash and ran to the nearest contractor |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
|
|
|
|
Andrew1939 from West Oxon
|
|
« Reply #12 on: August 14, 2015, 16:32:02 » |
|
This type of fine ought to be directed to the management staff responsible, not to the company. How this could be done, I do not know, but someone in government or ORR» should be thinking if it is possible.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
chuffed
|
|
« Reply #13 on: August 14, 2015, 17:10:17 » |
|
Quote from Visoflex
"The baby was thrown out with the bathwater in the early days of NR» . Project Violet identified many middle management types who would be surplus to requirements after the major re-organisation that was to follow; and those who were just "time serving" and under performing. Whilst granted it is often necessary to cull dead wood in any organisation, however unpalatable. But an organisation's corporate "experience" and "wisdom" lays with its middle managers. Those people who may well have been railway apprentices, learnt their trade, have done their time and been around the block a few times. Replacing these with enthusiastic (and cheaper) wide eyed, inexperienced civil engineering graduates brings new blood that is granted, but the checks and balances brought to the table by experience has been lost for ever"
Same in the health service, Education, Defence, Foreign office....etc etc etc
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ellendune
|
|
« Reply #14 on: August 14, 2015, 20:25:28 » |
|
It is easy to blame NR» , but it can't be just them or we would not be hearing the same story from New Civil Engineer 16th - 23rd July 2015 - Does it sound familiar? Roads minister: I worry about capacity to deliver projects [May be behind pay wall] Roads minister Andrew Jones fears that the ambitious highways construction programme could be hit by the same crisis as the troubled rail investment plan.
[snip]
Jones is in charge of ensuring Highways England can effectively manage its own ^15bn programme - but admits to being worried.
^My concern is about delivery,^ he told the conference.
^The [rail] announcement 10 days ago [was because] delivery has faltered.
^It is about having the capacity to deliver. And it is what worries me most about the roads [investment]. I want Highways England ready to run with schemes worth ^3bn a year.^
Jones said sudden growth in the road building supply chain would have to coincide with surges in rail, nuclear power and flood defence work.
^All these projects have entered the competition for ambitious recruits,^ he said. ^The government^s commitment to create 3M apprenticeships will help. But we need the industry to get behind the plan, too.
^So when the road consultations have finished and the work goes out to tender, we will ask - do bidders have access to the skills to get the job done?^
[snip]
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
