Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2008 5:02:49 GMT
No, the staff are there purely because the OPO equipment initially installed did not meet any kind of standard (and has since been disconnected) and both platforms are category A. I believe the platform staff are over and above the establishment required to staff the station normally.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2008 21:55:11 GMT
Unfortunately what we've now got is an economic situation where the government won't be able to raise the cash to say for it. Let's not forget that large parts of the tube were built in the 1930s depression, and even that 30 years later the Victoria line was partly given the go ahead because it would create employment and stimulate the economy during a slowdown. Jubilee line? Baker Street to Charing Cross was built in the 1970s economic crisis and the JLE project began in the last recession. Why did all these things happen? Because big engineering projects create employment and stimulate the economy in times of crisis. Whatever the noise made about not being able to afford things, the government increases public borrowing and spending during recessions because it's the most effective way to push the economy back into gear. We've seen this already with the £50bn+ spent on the banks, and there'll be more to come. Crossrail will happen, not in spite of the financial crisis, but because of it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2008 22:21:08 GMT
It's a Keynesian method of taking the economy out of a rut - spending yourself out of a recession. Keynes said that it was better for governments to intervene.
If half the unemployed workforce are employed digging holes, and the other half employed filling them in, it is better than letting them be unemployed as they will spend money in the economy even though their jobs are essentially pointless.
Hence in 1929 for the New Works, the government were handing out loans for public infrastructure works with a low rate of interest in order to stimulate the economy and employ people.
The problem with the Crossrail project is that a significant amount of the money needed will come from private firms in the city. The JLE was supported by the Canary Wharf developers BUT they were in administration following the financial crisis, caused by a property crash. The banks which had bought out Olympia and York (the developers) weren't exactly obliging to spend money on the JLE, but did eventually.
|
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Oct 23, 2008 0:58:14 GMT
If half the unemployed workforce are employed digging holes, and the other half employed filling them in, it is better than letting them be unemployed as they will spend money in the economy even though their jobs are essentially pointless. It only works if you're employing them to do something useful, like build infrastrusture. Otherwise they might as well not be doing anything at all, and you're just printing money and giving it away, which is a good way to bring on hyperinflation and/or proper economic collapse. |
|
|
|
Post by miztert on Oct 23, 2008 10:38:34 GMT
No, the staff are there purely because the OPO equipment initially installed did not meet any kind of standard (and has since been disconnected) and both platforms are category A. I believe the platform staff are over and above the establishment required to staff the station normally. How did this utterly daft situation come about? And why was the station opened in the first place if the OPO kit wasn't up to standard? This is the kind of thing that bemuses me. I appreciate that the complex degree of bureaucracy involved in opening a new station means there is a tendency towards things becoming Kafkaesque, but that doesn't mean it should be acceptable. Or am I missing something? |
|
|
|
Post by upfast on Oct 23, 2008 10:46:41 GMT
No, the staff are there purely because the OPO equipment initially installed did not meet any kind of standard (and has since been disconnected) and both platforms are category A. I believe the platform staff are over and above the establishment required to staff the station normally. How did this utterly daft situation come about? And why was the station opened in the first place if the OPO kit wasn't up to standard? This is the kind of thing that bemuses me. I appreciate that the complex degree of bureaucracy involved in opening a new station means there is a tendency towards things becoming Kafkaesque, but that doesn't mean it should be acceptable. Or am I missing something? There was/is a similar situation at Heathrow Terminal 5. |
|
|
|
Post by ribaric on Oct 23, 2008 12:43:06 GMT
I spent 6 months representing LU operations (Trains Services) on the Wood Lane project at the time of the first ground breaking. The design meetings for the new station were indeed Kafkaesque and, sorry to say, our own engineering people were the most difficult and obtuse bunch of characters you could meet. I felt a mix of embarrassment being part of the LU team and had much sympathy with the designers and contractors. Frankly, I'm surprised anything got finished - even though it sounds a bit half-baked. It took ages for our people to accept that the track was too curved to build a standards-compliant Train/Platform interface. What did they want? To spend millions straightening out the track - brick arches and all. When asked for help in finding answers, the only constructive reply was "it's your problem, not ours".
|
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Oct 23, 2008 16:05:56 GMT
Was the construction project managed by Westfield like Shepherd's Bush Overground?
(which was built to a borderline compliant spec by Westfield without the signoff of Silverlink, TfL or ORR (responsible for health and safety))
|
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Oct 23, 2008 17:59:42 GMT
I spent 6 months representing LU operations (Trains Services) on the Wood Lane project at the time of the first ground breaking. The design meetings for the new station were indeed Kafkaesque and, sorry to say, our own engineering people were the most difficult and obtuse bunch of characters you could meet. I felt a mix of embarrassment being part of the LU team and had much sympathy with the designers and contractors. Frankly, I'm surprised anything got finished - even though it sounds a bit half-baked. It took ages for our people to accept that the track was too curved to build a standards-compliant Train/Platform interface. What did they want? To spend millions straightening out the track - brick arches and all. When asked for help in finding answers, the only constructive reply was "it's your problem, not ours". I have met the same situation. It would be so much better if there was a joint effort towards co-operation instead of the attitude that all problems are someone else's fault. HUGE amounts of money are wasted like this when a simple joint effort, sharing risks and benefits, would solve the problem at a fraction of the end cost. |
|
|
|
Post by ribaric on Oct 23, 2008 19:01:40 GMT
Answering cetacean. It wasn't either of those when I was there, it was run by Multiplex, an Australian company (same folks who built Wembley stadium). I am well out of date so maybe things changed later on. Getting things signed off is great in principle but in practice, the 'signers' usually have little or no responsibility to do so and, IME, tend to sit back and criticise from the edges with absolutely no consequences for them at all. It's not surprising when rumours start about people getting extensions built on their houses come sign-off time. Answering tubeprune.Sooooooo true. Frankly, my life in projects became a nightmare due to the very thing you talk about - we just couldn't get things done without busting the budget three-times over and extending the end date to 'goodness knows when'. In the end, it was the straw to break the camel's (mine!) back, so I'm now in retirement.... bitter ..... angst filled ..... vengeful...(not really)  ...
|
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Oct 24, 2008 16:19:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Oct 24, 2008 18:37:55 GMT
That's better than the posters at various stations that had "Station to close for 6 months" posters in big letters and "Shepherd's Bush Central Line" in tiny white writing above.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2008 11:48:35 GMT
I have met the same situation. It would be so much better if there was a joint effort towards co-operation instead of the attitude that all problems are someone else's fault. HUGE amounts of money are wasted like this when a simple joint effort, sharing risks and benefits, would solve the problem at a fraction of the end cost. Just curious, when did attitudes and cooperation between infrastructure/operations sides change? Was it with the recent PPP, the post-KX fire reforms, or before that - and is it the inevitable consequence of contracting out work instead of doing it in-house? I imagine that if there was (for entirely hypothetical example) an occasional problem with doors opening unexpectedly on the 09 stock the whole lot would just be withdrawn to depot and the builder left to sort it out while LU imposed penalties. In the old days a more pragmatic joint effort to solve the problem might have taken place. Or am I (not for the first time) completely wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by ribaric on Oct 26, 2008 19:19:16 GMT
Just curious, when did attitudes and cooperation between infrastructure/operations sides change? Was it with the recent PPP, the post-KX fire reforms, or before that - and is it the inevitable consequence of contracting out work instead of doing it in-house? A complex question Brian. My experience in projects only started after PPP but having worked with so many engineers the story seems to be like this: The old Chief Engineers Dept. (CED) used to design and build most things for LUL, they would also manage the contracts with outside specialists like Westinghouse etc.. The politicians considered CED to be slow, expensive and too much engineering based and not enough financial/business oriented. A charge hotly disputed by CED of course. Nonetheless, huge swathes of CED people were TUPE'd into the two InfraCos leaving only those behind who were needed to formally sign off (the engineering content) of projects as they were completed. So the "doers" were the former collegues (now privatised) of the sign-off people who remained with LU - now called the Engineering Directorate (ED). It's doesn't take a leap of faith to see how ED suddenly became engineering perfectionists whilst those who were now working for the InfraCos suddently became experts at corner cutting. It's also quite logical to assume that ED stalled Metronet into bankruptcy whilst Tubelines were able to be more bullish about the efficacy of their designs - so far. The argument never was between Operations and anyone else. We (Ops) clearly had an interest in seeing new and upgraded infrastructure projects coming to our assistance in operating the railway. Really, we were pretty much the customer but found ourselves caught up in a constant battle between the engineers, contracts people and lawyers. T'would make a great soap opera. |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,348
|
Post by Colin on Oct 27, 2008 2:52:32 GMT
I find your reply an interesting viewpoint........in particular: It's also quite logical to assume that ED stalled Metronet into bankruptcy whilst Tubelines were able to be more bullish about the efficacy of their designs - so far. My impression is that Tubelines seem to be far more adept at selecting/managing the work they do. For example, station upgrades; it is widely felt by most people I know that Tubelines are re-furbing their 'easier to do' stations first, and leaving the more complicated stuff for later on. Quick completion of projects meaning money is flowing better. Metronet on the other hand, having two thirds of the network to contend with, seem to be far less adept at project management. Again, most people I know seem to think that Metronet are/were trying to tackle far too much work at the same time, in the hope of making big bucks quickly and looking good by being able to claim superiority over Tubelines. I tend to agree with the thinking of "most people I know" - basically that Metronet created their own downfall by trying to go too big too quick. |
|
... 
