GWML Electification

[jjb1970]

I can forsee an enquiry in the future on the conduct of this project but as usual it will probably be just a white wash,is this the end of electrification in England and Wales ?

I don't think it'll be the end of electrification, although it'll set the cause back. There are still sound reasons for electrifying, what will change I think is electrification delivery and I do think this debacle has implications for the future of NR. I can see their role being reduced to managing existing infrastructure, with electrification being taken away from them (I'm hoping that NR will survive as for all their faults I do not think it would help the railways to break the company up or to privatise it). I really hoped the pause of a while ago was used to reset things but clearly that didn't happen. Whilst I support electrification I think that there should be some sort of moratorium on further schemes while the whole approach to managing electrification is reviewed and a more realistic cost and delivery arrangement established as clearly things cannot continue as they have been.

Edited November 22, 2016 by jjb1970

[The Stationmaster]

I don't think it'll be the end of electrification, although it'll set the cause back. There are still sound reasons for electrifying, what will change I think is electrification delivery and I do think this debacle has implications for the future of NR. I can see their role being reduced to managing existing infrastructure, with electrification being taken away from them (I'm hoping that NR will survive as for all their faults I do not think it would help the railways to break the company up or to privatise it). I really hoped the pause of a while ago was used to reset things but clearly that didn't happen. Whilst I support electrification I think that there should be some sort of moratorium on further schemes while the whole approach to managing electrification is reviewed and a more realistic cost and delivery arrangement established as clearly things cannot continue as they have been.

 

There are certainly plenty of contractors involved on the GWML scheme plus a huge amount of contracted plant.  The impression I have formed - from outside the fence - all the way through what I have seen of the project thus far is that the biggest failings are failure to exploit possession opportunities and associated possession planning/possession workload planning and review  (effectively criticised by the NAO - although the staggering thing it was recognised at that level and seemingly not much nearer the project workface).  And with that - and clearly closely linked to it in various ways the entire management of the project and integration of work phases, bringing forward materials and plant and training and putting in place labour.

 

Now that key project management and possession planning role needs people who know what they're at and who are in close touch with the operational management of the railway although some of it is very straightforward project management which only needs technical understanding if not actual technical knowledge.  To get many of the interfaces (buzzword I'm sorry) working properly you need to be inside the door and not having to knock on it every time you want/need to get in.

[Zomboid]

There won't be any new schemes for a while simply because the industry has enough going on already.

The next few years, if anything is done, will be spent finishing the schemes we already know about - EGIP, GW, MML, TPE.

The wildcard there is Scotland, where I believe there is an aspiration to completely electrify the central belt, and Westminster has no control with transport being devolved to Holyrood.

It would be silly to throw out all the experience that has been gained over the last few years by stopping for another 20 years unless we want to make the same mistakes again next time round.

[corneliuslundie]

Similarly, the Welsh Asembly has aspirations for electrification of the Valleys and Cardiff to Swansea, and wants infrastructure devolved from NR as far as I understand the news report I have seen. The plan is for the new franchisee to oversee the electrification and then run the service on a not for profit basis (I haven't worked out not for who's profit as I can't see benevolent franchisees queueing up to not make any money). There was a news item in Modern Railways, which is what I am basing my scant knowledge on.

But I can't see it happening in the life of the next franchise for the reasons stated above - basically, no one to do it.

Jonathan

[APOLLO]

Good luck to the Scots. They have rebuilt the Waverley line and are looking to extend it to Hawick. Other lines rebuilt also. I'm sure they will get to grip with electrification soon, and show us sassenachs up in the process !!!

 

Brit15

[lmsforever]

Article in Rail about the debacle good explanation of what has gone wrong and confirms that civil servants are incapable of running projects such as this one .

[jamie92208]

I've finally realised what went wrong. The Project Managers and Daft staff must all have gone to Trump University they are managing about as well as The Donald's transition team.

 

Jamie

[jjb1970]

It would be silly to throw out all the experience that has been gained over the last few years by stopping for another 20 years unless we want to make the same mistakes again next time round.

I wouldn't advocate a 20 year delay. I agree with the Statiomaster that the fundamental problems are basic project management defficiencies. Those defficiencies should be able to be addressed relatively quickly. Part of that may include revising a lot of planning assumptions and working methods. To me it seems clear NR are not delivering GWML in a timely efficient manner. This is compounded by the ORR air gap idiocy. Unless something improves, and improves massively, then I wouldn't blame the bean counters in Whitehall for redlining any further electrification requests.

[PenrithBeacon]

In the mid 1980s I attended my first project management course. As the civil engineering sector were pretty well the only people who were using project management techniques we were instructed in things like critical path analysis and then told to go away and apply it to telecoms! This with the caveat that we shouldn't fall into the traps that the TSR2 team had managed to get themselves into.

 

The point here is that civils invented project management techniques and it's come to a pretty pass when NR have forgotten 40 years or so experience. This is basic stuff

 

You don't manage a project as the GWML Electrification has been managed and that should have been clear to all. This isn't new stuff it's a fundamental part of engineering in all its forms now.

 

Regards

[cheesysmith]

How much of the problems have come about because that they ran into problems at the beginning with pilling the foundations and didn't have the HOPS avalible to do as much of the work as originally planned? This resulted in a piece meal work pattern and a mad rush to get something done as they were working to a outside set deadline by the new DaFT trains having been already ordered. Also, with the new standard electrification kit being designed and developed as the work progressed also limited the options avalible.

 

How to do it better next time. When they do get round to MML, to avoid the problems that have come up, would need to start at the basics. First, a good survey of what's already there (to avoid the surprises like buried cables). Then allowing the HOPS to work its way along as a proper production line like it was intended instead of a bit here and there. Then more standardised use of the f&f kit to avoid the use of different piles etc as much as possible. And a timescale that allows for slippage without the mad panic of just throwing resources at it to get results that seams to have happened on the GWML. But most of all, a proper survey first to allow a realistic plan of the works involved, not the making it up as they go along as the GW works have become.

 

As to the new standards on clearances, just do a full survey of the route involved, and tell the DaFT how much it would cost at the present standards and how much it would cost to the old 200mm standards. Then ask DaFT if it wants to pay?

[2750Papyrus]

In the mid 1980s I attended my first project management course. As the civil engineering sector were pretty well the only people who were using project management techniques we were instructed in things like critical path analysis and then told to go away and apply it to telecoms! This with the caveat that we shouldn't fall into the traps that the TSR2 team had managed to get themselves into.

 

The point here is that civils invented project management techniques and it's come to a pretty pass when NR have forgotten 40 years or so experience. This is basic stuff

 

You don't manage a project as the GWML Electrification has been managed and that should have been clear to all. This isn't new stuff it's a fundamental part of engineering in all its forms now.

 

Regards

 

Sorry, but I can't let this go unchallenged.

 

To the best of my knowledge, the first recorded application of modern critical path technique was by the USN on the Polaris programme. I was taught CPM at Uni (mechanical engineering) in the late 60's and used it in a manufacturing project environment before joining ICL in 1970 at West Gorton as a PERT engineer, primarily on software development.  Subsequently I moved to Hatfield and spent the rest of my working life in defence and aerospace.  At that time, the industry was heavily into (mis)using critical path techniques, to the extent the acronym was believed to stand for "Persistent Evasion of the Real Truth". 

 

I am afraid, therefore, that claimimg Civils invented project management in the 1980's just isn't true.  However, I did once discover a reference to the use of barcharts in the building of a 12th/13th century cathedral in France but with the caveat that the project finished 80 years late!

 

The biggest development in pm techniques in my working life was the recognition of risk and the development of techniques to manage it but the biggest problem remains the politics of funding.

[PenrithBeacon]

Actually I said "As the civil engineering sector were pretty well the only people who were using project management techniques" not that they invented them or that they were the only user. I didn't claim that they invented the methodology.

 

I first came across the technique in a pamphlet issued by the 'Draughtsman's and Allied Technicians Association' (DATA) in around 1966. I still have it, it's on the top shelf above this computer.

 

The point is that project management techniques are not new. They have been with us for ages and there is no excuse at all for NR to get this project so wrong. This is particularly true since the early 90s when project management software was released that could run on a PC and the development of techniques like PROMPT. I'm sure that those early packages have been replaced many times over since I retired in 2000 but they are part of the mainstream now. They are no longer 'cutting edge' and there is no excuse for not using them and not getting it right.

Edited November 23, 2016 by PenrithBeacon

[jjb1970]

There is a very significant letter in the latest Modern Railways from a guy at the European Agency for Railways which is well worth reading and should hopefully be digested by NR and ORR.

[Edwin_m]

I have no doubt the people involved have prepared lots of impressive charts with PM software, and they almost certainly cover entire walls of certain offices. 

 

The snag is the usual one of garbage in garbage out.  When preparing and monitoring the plan, the planners need to understand (or have it explained by someone that does understand) things such as:

• Realistic task duration
• Resource constraints not only for people and plant working in several places but also for possessions. 
• Dependencies (all the activities that need to be at a particular state of completeness before another activity can start)
• Completion (when someone reports a task as 50% complete, does this mean they have completed 50% of the work or just spent 50% of the budget?  Is completing the rest of it going to be hit by resource constraints that nobody thought of?  Are the completion states in successive updates following the familiar sequence of 80%, 90%, 95%, 99%, 99.5%?  Has anybody checked on site that what is claimed has actually been done?)

[D1059]

There is a very significant letter in the latest Modern Railways from a guy at the European Agency for Railways which is well worth reading and should hopefully be digested by NR and ORR.

 

Please enlighten us   - I'm nowhere near a copy in the near future

[Budgie]

You may think this is off-topic, naive, or just plain stupid.

 

If all this 25kV ac electrification is so expensive and difficult, why not do a preliminary electrification at 750v dc, using third rail, to be converted to 25kV (much) later? Yes, I know that all new electrification must be 25kV overhead; but that rule can be changed.

[Geoff Endacott]

Maybe I should follow prototype railway practice and delay Trainwest 2017 until 2024.

 

Geoff Endacott

[Zomboid]

Ground level live equipment isn't as safe, and at 750V you can't get enough power to the trains for 125mph operation. I think 100 is as fast as you can get a reliable supply from the shoes.

Also it wouldn't be much cheaper - lower bridge engineering costs, but much more trackside cabling, a substation every 2km (with high voltage distribution equipment, rectifiers and DC distribution kit), which would mean a lot of land purchase in the middle of cities and the like.

[jamie92208]

Ground level live equipment isn't as safe, and at 750V you can't get enough power to the trains for 125mph operation. I think 100 is as fast as you can get a reliable supply from the shoes.

Also it wouldn't be much cheaper - lower bridge engineering costs, but much more trackside cabling, a substation every 2km (with high voltage distribution equipment, rectifiers and DC distribution kit), which would mean a lot of land purchase in the middle of cities and the like.

 

Those economics of High voltage AC overhead versus 3rd rail DC were worked out by the Midland Railway in the 1890's when they looked at doing Bedford to St Pancras.  the cabling and substation costs knocked 3rd rail even then.  Though they were proposing manned substations for rotary converters every 7 miles to be fair. 

 

Jamie

[PenrithBeacon]

<p>

 

I have no doubt the people involved have prepared lots of impressive charts with PM software, and they almost certainly cover entire walls of certain offices.

 

The snag is the usual one of garbage in garbage out. When preparing and monitoring the plan, the planners need to understand (or have it explained by someone that does understand) things such as:

• Realistic task duration
• Resource constraints not only for people and plant working in several places but also for possessions.
• Dependencies (all the activities that need to be at a particular state of completeness before another activity can start)
• Completion (when someone reports a task as 50% complete, does this mean they have completed 50% of the work or just spent 50% of the budget? Is completing the rest of it going to be hit by resource constraints that nobody thought of? Are the completion states in successive updates following the familiar sequence of 80%, 90%, 95%, 99%, 99.5%? Has anybody checked on site that what is claimed has actually been done?)

My experience suggests that there is a lot of truth here. Another aspect is that project management demands a lot, huge amounts of discipline and a work ethic which many members of a project team are not willing to offer.

 

Most of the time of a project manager seems to me to be in managing the team and not the technical issues that arise.

 

Also there is the issue of the departmental commitment. When I was involved in these things many projects failed because although they started out with a viable project plan (they had to because the bean counters wouldn't give them the budget unless they had) all commitment to it went out of the window afterwards and the same old undisciplined approach manifested itself. The result overspend and project failure.

 

Bearing in mind that one of the features of NR and its predecessor is a lack of discipline I would mind betting that this is the problem.

 

Regards

[The Stationmaster]

How much of the problems have come about because that they ran into problems at the beginning with pilling the foundations and didn't have the HOPS avalible to do as much of the work as originally planned? This resulted in a piece meal work pattern and a mad rush to get something done as they were working to a outside set deadline by the new DaFT trains having been already ordered. Also, with the new standard electrification kit being designed and developed as the work progressed also limited the options avalible.

 

How to do it better next time. When they do get round to MML, to avoid the problems that have come up, would need to start at the basics. First, a good survey of what's already there (to avoid the surprises like buried cables). Then allowing the HOPS to work its way along as a proper production line like it was intended instead of a bit here and there. Then more standardised use of the f&f kit to avoid the use of different piles etc as much as possible. And a timescale that allows for slippage without the mad panic of just throwing resources at it to get results that seams to have happened on the GWML. But most of all, a proper survey first to allow a realistic plan of the works involved, not the making it up as they go along as the GW works have become.

 

As to the new standards on clearances, just do a full survey of the route involved, and tell the DaFT how much it would cost at the present standards and how much it would cost to the old 200mm standards. Then ask DaFT if it wants to pay?

 

I can remember seeing on various office walls in the past a very simple little note which read -

 

'When you're up to your a*se in alligators it's very easy to forget that the objective was to drain the swamp'

 

Same with this and any other project - the alligators (e.g. late delivery of the high output train) have to be dealt with but don't overlook the fact you still have a  large project to manage (draining the swamp) and a need to make sure it comes together in a  logical order with materials arriving on site in a timely manner and so on in order that they can be installed in a logical order.

 

I've no doubt, as Edwin has said, that at various times on this project there was a large amount of RIRO going on and, quite likely, more interest in spread sheets and gant charts or whatever rather than actually going out on a train and looking out of the window.  But on the other hand I suspect - from the pace of work on various sections of route - that while there might have been ignorance about how work could or could not be progressed within possessions there was little or no push to actually get possessions in the first place let alone properly exploit them once they were obtained (which was hardly a difficult thing to manage.  Some of these processes are so basic to just about every aspect of infrastructure engineering work that there should be no difficulty understanding and managing them.

 

Despatching a train into an overnight possess simply to unload two foundation tube piles and not even getting them unloaded (as I'm told happened on at least one occasion) is the sort of basic detail that firstly shouldn't be that wrong to start with and secondly should have been picked up to ensure that it never happened again - but I bet it did.  Spending several hours arguing over whether or not a crane should or couldn't be propelled several miles over live railway to reach a possession site simply shouldn't happen - it should have been dealt with at a pre-planning meeting, assuming there ever was one.  All very basic stuff and when jobs don't happen the Project Manager should be ensuring the reasons why are sought out and ciorrective action is taken - shouldn't really be necessary but once it starts falling apart then the PM should be asking questions and taking the necessary action.

Edited November 23, 2016 by The Stationmaster

[The Stationmaster]

My experience suggests that there is a lot of truth here. Another aspect is that project management demands a lot, huge amounts of discipline and a work ethic which many members of a project team are not willing to offer.

 

Most of the time of a project manager seems to me to be in managing the team and not the technical issues that arise.

 

Also there is the issue of the departmental commitment. When I was involved in these things many projects failed because although they started out with a viable project plan (they had to because the bean counters wouldn't give them the budget unless they had) all commitment to it went out of the window afterwards and the same old undisciplined approach manifested itself. The result overspend and project failure.

 

Bearing in mind that one of the features of NR and its predecessor is a lack of discipline I would mind betting that this is the problem.

 

Regards

 

The BR attitude, in my experience - always strongly defended by the technical depts - was that it was their job to manage technical matters and the PM's job to manage the overall project with the specific objectives of bringing what was required and had been authorised on time and within budget.  But if things started to go awry then it was the PM's job to try and get them back on course by making sure the technical depts were doing what they were supposed to be doing etc - so constant measurement of sheme works against plan and if that wasn't happening finding out why.

 

On one big job which I specified the requirement for and set the required 'in service' date it was necessary to quadruple just under 4 miles of railway with the various connections at each and resignal.  One my specs were agreed and the scheme plans for layout and signalling were signed off and authority given the Project Manager had the simple task of sitting above the technical depts who were going to deliver it.  As it happened the actual formation and drainage work and plain line track laying was split evenly between two separate parts of the civil engineers organisation and it quickly became apparent that one group were fairing far better and getting their work done more quickly than the other group.  The PM duly saw this for himself from trains passing the sites as well as progress reports and looked into what was happening and why.  The result was very simple - one group was gaining time hand over fist while the others were losing it almost as fast but could do nothing to get back what they were losing, so the PM took the work away from them and gave it to the other group; job actually finished on time due to some very hard work and pushing in of resources by the other group.   That's how a PM should, if necessary work - keep things on track and get them back there if they go awry, buut the PM needs to know what is happening in order to do that.

[Siberian Snooper]

I was involved in project management from '79 and I believe that ship project management had been in use by the MOD well before I joined.

[jjb1970]

Please enlighten us   - I'm nowhere near a copy in the near future

 

On the safety clearance issue they've basically noted that the laws of physics are the same of both sides of the channel and indicated an openness to analyse the tighter air gaps previously used in the UK. 

[AberdeenBill]

Talking of Europe, here is how the French do it for LGVs: catenary masts before track...   https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cat%C3%A9naire+du+midi&espv=2&biw=1600&bih=780&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDkriZu7rQAhUhCsAKHTqHD_4QsAQIKQ#imgrc=dvf8AXCKV1asKM%3A   

 

http://www.lgv-sea-tours-bordeaux.fr/commune/la-couronne/24/infos-chantier/la-pose-des-poteaux-catenaires-avance-vers-les-deux-sevres/1302/

 

Bill