Uncle Roger’s Latest Blog

[david.hill64]

Roger Ford’s latest ezine is its usual wonderful affair. In it he mentions that the cost of reinstating 3 freight loops on the ECML has risen from £35 million to £127 million and the cost of reinstalling the fourth track between Huntingdon and Woodwalton has gone up from £85 million to £190 million.

 

Can anyone offer any insight into why this should be?

[SwissRailPassion]

Taxis

[The Stationmaster]

Roger Ford’s latest ezine is its usual wonderful affair. In it he mentions that the cost of reinstating 3 freight loops on the ECML has risen from £35 million to £127 million and the cost of reinstalling the fourth track between Huntingdon and Woodwalton has gone up from £85 million to £190 million.

 

Can anyone offer any insight into why this should be?

 

Lunacy?

[Legend]

Roger Ford’s latest ezine is its usual wonderful affair. In it he mentions that the cost of reinstating 3 freight loops on the ECML has risen from £35 million to £127 million and the cost of reinstalling the fourth track between Huntingdon and Woodwalton has gone up from £85 million to £190 million.

Can anyone offer any insight into why this should be?

WHere can you find the eZine David? I always like Roger Fords articles in Modern Railways and Ian Walmsleys . Voices of reason on what seems to be a world going mad .

[david.hill64]

WHere can you find the eZine David? I always like Roger Fords articles in Modern Railways and Ian Walmsleys . Voices of reason on what seems to be a world going mad .

http://live.ezezine.com/ezine/archives/759/759-2018.02.19.04.28.archive.txt

[Ron Ron Ron]

The cost of any major work within or for the public sector has always been inflated, but in more recent times, those costs have spiralled out of control, whether it's railways, roads, hospitals or anything you care to think about.

Even in the private commercial world, costs in the U.K. appear to be much higher than in other countries.

Excessive overheads and costs are one of the main causes of the UK's poor levels of productivity.

[Oldddudders]

The cost of any major work within or for the public sector has always been inflated, 

 

I have to challenge that. When BR was overwhelmingly direct-labour, I think costs were moderate, there was no profit-motive, and after all the money went nowhere except to external suppliers of specialist kit. It was only when the engineering became increasingly outsourced, as it almost all is now, that costs spiralled as everyone in a long chain of suppliers and sub-contractors added profit and contingency. And the safety systems now required add lugubriety to works that was simply unknown 50 years ago. People's productive time on the live railway is now a much smaller percentage of their paid time than was the case then.

['CHARD]

Taxis

 

Help me out here. 

[JeffP]

Wasn't Roger Ford the first man to refer to the "boiling frogs" idea? Wherein you increase prices subtly, but steadily, until they are just about beyond belief, but the customer sees only the recent relatively small increase?

 

I'm pretty sure I read in one of his articles of a holding siding which was to be constructed for Cotswold rail? The then contractor just kept going back to CR (??) and demanding ever more for the same job, despite the TOC having previously signed contracts with them at a lower price. eventually the TOC told them to go away and it never got built?

 

I had a serious conversation with my brother in law, a senior civil engineer down south. I started off by asking him if he thought it right that companies like his could bid to build something for the public, then come back to the public purse three quarters the way through the build and demand more or it wouldn't get finished?

He tried to defend that, but myself I cannot believe that there aren't penalties written in to the contract BOTH WAYS?

 

And if you UNDERBID for work, and then have to go back for more, are you not guilty of "obtaining goods by deception"?

 

Yet still it seems to go on. And here in the UK, we marvel at anything that comes in on time and on budget.

Why? The French seem able to do it, and quicker than we ever do.

In the 90's we built a 12 mile stretch of the A1, on an existing flat alignment, taking what had been 2x2 up to 2x4 lanes. It's nice, although doesn't drain well. During the build, which took around 4 years, travelling through it was misery.

In THE SAME TIME as it took us to build that, the French pushed their A75 2x2 lane motorway across the Cevennes around 60 miles, including numerous bridges, two service areas, two rest areas, tunnels etc, and some of it at 1100m high!!!

 

If they can, why can't we? why is our stuff always so expensive and takes so long to do.

[The Stationmaster]

http://live.ezezine.com/ezine/archives/759/759-2018.02.19.04.28.archive.txt

 

I must admit that I'm trying very hard to understand what the 'Traffic Management' software is all about as basically it seem to be nothing more than trying to use a machine (thus far in technology a device incapable of original thought) to do something any competent railway operator can do in his/her head/on the back of a sheet of scrap paper.  Am I right or am I going daft, or has human ingenuity in this country really gone to the dogs?

[St. Simon]

I must admit that I'm trying very hard to understand what the 'Traffic Management' software is all about as basically it seem to be nothing more than trying to use a machine (thus far in technology a device incapable of original thought) to do something any competent railway operator can do in his/her head/on the back of a sheet of scrap paper.  Am I right or am I going daft, or has human ingenuity in this country really gone to the dogs?

 

Hi Mike,

 

From what I understand, it is a much more sophisticated version of Automatic Route Setting with added extras to take into account other things such as train maintenance routines and such like. I think it also far quicker than a human and can do 2 or three separate calculations simultaneously where as a human can only undertake one. I think also it presents the solutions to resolving disruption so that a signaller can just make a single selection rather than having to do it all himself, again taking time.

 

It is a little bit to with ergonomics, making sure the signallers can deal with additional information and situations effectively and safely.

 

Somebody might have to confirm all that, but I think that's the jist of it!

 

Simon

[F-UnitMad]

Taxis

 

Help me out here. 

Probably meant to be "Taxes"...??

[Ron Ron Ron]

In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxis.

 

....That is, until Uber came along.

 

 

 

.

[david.hill64]

I must admit that I'm trying very hard to understand what the 'Traffic Management' software is all about as basically it seem to be nothing more than trying to use a machine (thus far in technology a device incapable of original thought) to do something any competent railway operator can do in his/her head/on the back of a sheet of scrap paper. Am I right or am I going daft, or has human ingenuity in this country really gone to the dogs?

Gone to the dogs I think.

 

When the specifications for Taiwan High Speed Rail were written they included a requirement for an Automatic Route Setting system that was remarkably similar to the BRResearch developed system. Not really surprising as the specs were written by two ex BR signalling engineers including a former IRSE president. The French head of infrastructure queried whether such functionality was achievable and was astonished to be told it was already in daily use.

 

When the Japanese submitted their winning bid they claimed to be compliant with these requirements, but their interpretation of them was that the system should be able to produce a train graph so that the signallers could better work out what to do.

 

It seems that NR’s distrust of Resonate as it now is has lead them to expect lower functionality. I hope that the additional tools now being implemented by Resonate in record time really do work, but as Roger suggests in his article, it is more likely that DfT will choose an untried system.

[The Stationmaster]

Hi Mike,

 

From what I understand, it is a much more sophisticated version of Automatic Route Setting with added extras to take into account other things such as train maintenance routines and such like. I think it also far quicker than a human and can do 2 or three separate calculations simultaneously where as a human can only undertake one. I think also it presents the solutions to resolving disruption so that a signaller can just make a single selection rather than having to do it all himself, again taking time.

 

It is a little bit to with ergonomics, making sure the signallers can deal with additional information and situations effectively and safely.

 

Somebody might have to confirm all that, but I think that's the jist of it!

 

Simon

 

Thanks Simon.  I reckon more than a few of the ex Controllers with whom i lunch occasionally would be quite upset to hear that they could only undertake one simultaneous calculation when making decisions like that.  When I used to do emergency timetabling I had to do three things near simultaneously for each train - train diagram, crew working, and pathing and it is actually remarkably easy for the right sort of human mind to do that and do it with the necessary original thinking which a computer based system is unlikely to have.  Equally of course some human minds just don't work that way - but there are no doubt plenty which do.

 

If a computer based system is required to do such thing it will have to work off numerous relational databases and even BR ARS couldn't do all of that when it came to options on complex track layouts with multiple choices of routes.  The US system being worked up for the WCML fell noticeably short of it although judging by some ISA work (Independent Safety Assessment) I did on it part of the problem was due to those giving information to the specifiers failing to understand how certain things worked on the real railway.  aAnd the most sophisticated system on the face of the planet wont work unless the specification is correct - and that's way beyond DafT's knowledge and definitely some way from wholly within NR's.  And the important thing, which is probably nigh impossible with any computer system comes back to that original thinking bit - every now and then in order to make something work you have to bend or break some of the 'rules' that would be built into a computer program, that's the real difference between an experienced person and a machine.

 

I might well be called cynical, and undoubtedly 'old fashioned' but unless relational database computing has taken incredibly massive steps forward since I was last looking at far simpler needs for computerisation requiring relational databases and 'rules'19 years ago I doubt something called for by DafT stands the slightest chance of delivering a truly effective system for efficient train working in times of perturbation.  But on the other hand if it delivers something better than the 'drop the handle and everything stop' attitude of certain current NR Control Offices maybe it will be an advance?

[Western Dave]

I must admit that I'm trying very hard to understand what the 'Traffic Management' software is all about as basically it seem to be nothing more than trying to use a machine (thus far in technology a device incapable of original thought) to do something any competent railway operator can do in his/her head/on the back of a sheet of scrap paper.  Am I right or am I going daft, or has human ingenuity in this country really gone to the dogs?

It’s gone to the dogs and dog... everyday I come home wondering what the #@#@ this county will be like in another few years

We call it deskilling amongst other things ....

[jim.snowdon]

Rumour has it that the ability to think and apply sensible operating principles counts against prospective applicants wanting to work in the new route control centres. It goes with the pervading attitude that the Rule Book is there to be followed to the letter, not understood and its principles applied to the situation. It fits with the MOM who, when the fitters turned up to sort out a major, and disabling, shoegear failure that was stopping traffic, considered it more important to send them away for want of the "correct" (as against appropriate) PPE than it was to assess the situation, get trains on the move again and then deal with the PPE issue.

 

Jim

[jjb1970]

What was the problem with the PPE worn by fitters in the incident above?

[ForestPines]

I might well be called cynical, and undoubtedly 'old fashioned' but unless relational database computing has taken incredibly massive steps forward since I was last looking at far simpler needs for computerisation requiring relational databases and 'rules'19 years ago I doubt something called for by DafT stands the slightest chance of delivering a truly effective system for efficient train working in times of perturbation. But on the other hand if it delivers something better than the 'drop the handle and everything stop' attitude of certain current NR Control Offices maybe it will be an advance?

As it happens, there have been huge changes in database design and practice over the past 20 years. This has included a big trend towards non-relational databases, but also a huge growth in "data warehousing", which is all about the analysis of large amounts of data from multiple different sources.

 

Like everything software, though, the big stumbling block is the skill level of the developers. In my experience as a lead software developer: because most software developers in this country work as independent contractors or in small teams, most of them have a very exaggerated view of their own skill level.

[Oldddudders]

As it happens, there have been huge changes in database design and practice over the past 20 years. This has included a big trend towards non-relational databases, but also a huge growth in "data warehousing", which is all about the analysis of large amounts of data from multiple different sources.

Like everything software, though, the big stumbling block is the skill level of the developers. In my experience as a lead software developer: because most software developers in this country work as independent contractors or in small teams, most of them have a very exaggerated view of their own skill level.

Isn’t it the quality of the initial spec that makes or breaks a software project? If the specifier only has a vague idea of what is wanted, then the developers have to make the best of it, by guess or by God. More time invested in a tight, unambiguous spec saves wasted time on erroneous assumptions later. A decent business spec should enable a very specific tech spec, making code-cutting straightforward. Or has the world changed since I was slightly involved in such a project?

[jjb1970]

Isn’t it the quality of the initial spec that makes or breaks a software project? If the specifier only has a vague idea of what is wanted, then the developers have to make the best of it, by guess or by God. More time invested in a tight, unambiguous spec saves wasted time on erroneous assumptions later. A decent business spec should enable a very specific tech spec, making code-cutting straightforward. Or has the world changed since I was slightly involved in such a project?

 

 

That's not a software issue, in most projects of any size it is essential to understand what you want and need (noting the two are often not the same) and to develop a sound specification. Get that wrong and it is extremely difficult (and expensive) to correct it later. And that means spending a decent amount of money before you go anywhere near signing contracts. That spend can either be internal (if you have the internal resource with the correct capabilities) or external, who does it is less important than that the groundwork is done by people who know what they're doing. Unfortunately, that is then derided as wasted money in some quarters. I do have sympathy for the public sector in this respect. Private companies often spend a lot of money in these early stages, often with external parties, as its importance is recognised and it is costed in. When a public body like the MoD does it they know some smartie pants political idiot will stand up in the house and deride it as waste, tax payers money being thrown away, filling the pockets of rapacious private companies (or even worse, consultants) etc, aided by dippy op-ed articles in the press.

[uax6]

Rumour has it that the ability to think and apply sensible operating principles counts against prospective applicants wanting to work in the new route control centres. It goes with the pervading attitude that the Rule Book is there to be followed to the letter, not understood and its principles applied to the situation. It fits with the MOM who, when the fitters turned up to sort out a major, and disabling, shoegear failure that was stopping traffic, considered it more important to send them away for want of the "correct" (as against appropriate) PPE than it was to assess the situation, get trains on the move again and then deal with the PPE issue.

 

Jim

 

Sadly if he had let them go on the track, he would probably have lost his job...

 

Andy G

[Zomboid]

The prevailing attitude (quite rightly IMO) is to stop the job if you don't think it can be done safely. I don't know about PPE issues, I guess that would depend on what the specific problem was, but building a culture where you do it safely or not at all is how the UK rail industry has achieved a pretty exemplary safety record.

 

A down side is that it does result in some jobs being stopped when the safety system was actually adequate. The idea though is not to stop the job, it's to make sure that all jobs are done safely.

[Edwin_m]

Wasn't Roger Ford the first man to refer to the "boiling frogs" idea? Wherein you increase prices subtly, but steadily, until they are just about beyond belief, but the customer sees only the recent relatively small increase?

 

I'm pretty sure I read in one of his articles of a holding siding which was to be constructed for Cotswold rail? The then contractor just kept going back to CR (??) and demanding ever more for the same job, despite the TOC having previously signed contracts with them at a lower price. eventually the TOC told them to go away and it never got built?

 

I had a serious conversation with my brother in law, a senior civil engineer down south. I started off by asking him if he thought it right that companies like his could bid to build something for the public, then come back to the public purse three quarters the way through the build and demand more or it wouldn't get finished?

He tried to defend that, but myself I cannot believe that there aren't penalties written in to the contract BOTH WAYS?

 

And if you UNDERBID for work, and then have to go back for more, are you not guilty of "obtaining goods by deception"?

 

Yet still it seems to go on. And here in the UK, we marvel at anything that comes in on time and on budget.

Why? The French seem able to do it, and quicker than we ever do.

In the 90's we built a 12 mile stretch of the A1, on an existing flat alignment, taking what had been 2x2 up to 2x4 lanes. It's nice, although doesn't drain well. During the build, which took around 4 years, travelling through it was misery.

In THE SAME TIME as it took us to build that, the French pushed their A75 2x2 lane motorway across the Cevennes around 60 miles, including numerous bridges, two service areas, two rest areas, tunnels etc, and some of it at 1100m high!!!

 

If they can, why can't we? why is our stuff always so expensive and takes so long to do.

The "demanding more to finish the job" is probably around something that wasn't included at the time of letting the contract.  For example if an unexpected cable route had been unearthed it would cost more to move it.  Some contractors play the game on this, for example they might have some knowledge or suspicion the cable route is there but as it isn't mentioned in the contract they keep quiet and see it as a juicy variation.  On the other hand if they price it in they will lose the work to someone who either didn't foresee the problem or chooses to game it.  I'm not saying the contractor was right or wrong in this particular case, but these things tend to happen especially when the buyer doesn't have much technical knowledge. 

[truffy]

Roger Ford’s latest ezine is its usual wonderful affair. In it he mentions that the cost of reinstating 3 freight loops on the ECML has risen from £35 million to £127 million and the cost of reinstalling the fourth track between Huntingdon and Woodwalton has gone up from £85 million to £190 million.

 

Can anyone offer any insight into why this should be?

Carillion underquoted? Possibly.