Return to Archive -by date - by topic.
How come the customer was less informed that Modern Railways' two book ends?
Back in April Network Rail unveiled its latest business plan. At the trade and technical-press briefing, sitting should to shoulder were Williams A and Ford R. And, of course, we asked about the Portsmouth debacle.
Modesty was impossible. ‘If you are an informed customer, how come you told SWT that the signalling would be commissioned in when Mr Williams and I, not to mention all the signal engineers we might talk to, knew it wasn't going to happened'? And, dear reader, Henderson the Engineering (as opposed to Henderson the Finance) could only waffle and had to be rescued by Deputy Chief Executive Iain Coucher.
As always with Iain it was a smooth and expert transition. This was a type of contract which would not be replicated. There were also technical issues, such as wrong side failures with Siemens' own axle counter equipment in Germany which necessitated a change to another manufacture. There were technical problems on cable joints, while existing installations of the Siemens telephone concentrator to be used on the scheme had also had problems.
Yes, but why didn't you see it coming? And whatever happened to once bitten, twice shy?
Well, Iain admitted that Network Rail had been quite worried before the first planned commissioning over the Christmas 2006 period, but there wasn't a Plan B and the information at the time was not quite right. ‘We could phase it in now, but we want to wait until after the summer'.
Pretty feeble stuff by Iain's standards and the original question of why everyone saw it coming, except Network Rail didn't, remained unanswered. Now it seems that the Office of Rail Regulation is not impressed either.
Because on 6 June ORR announced that weaknesses in the planning and execution of the Portsmouth resignalling scheme had caused Network Rail to breach Condition 7 of its network licence. Condition 7 requires Network Rail to secure:
“(a) the operation and maintenance of the network;
(b) the renewal and replacement of the network; and
(c) the improvement, enhancement and development of the network,
in each case in accordance with best practice and in a timely, efficient and economical matter so as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of persons providing services relating to railways and funders in respect of:
(i) the quality and capability of the network; and
(ii) the facilitation of railway service performance in respect of services for the carriage of passengers and goods by railway operating on the network."
Not only did Portsmouth represent multiple breaches it is still an on-going breach. Informed Sources suggest that commissioning will not now take place until Easter 2008. This is partly the result of the project losing its place in the commissioning programme of successful projects. And this programme itself is limited by the availability of qualified testers.
With only five services an hour still able to run instead of the normal seven ORR decided to review the planning of the scheme and Network Rail's management of the prime contractor, Siemens Transportation Systems. The review concluded that Network Rail ‘failed adequately to evaluate and mitigate the risks associated with the project', and manage its contractor in line with best practice.
In particular, added ORR, the Company failed to consider and plan for the possibility of an extended overrun of the commissioning works, and the consequential effect on passengers. Hence the company breached its licence.
Even mild mannered ORR Chief Executive, Bill Emery got tetchy. ‘We expect Network Rail to ensure that it completes the signalling work at Portsmouth in line with its revised timescale and to apply the lessons it has learnt here to future decisions'.
Meanwhile, ORR has asked Network Rail to provide further information on the costs associated with the problems at Portsmouth . And these could increase if ORR imposes a financial penalty for the breach of its licence.
And before readers write in, mea culpa, I did forget to ask which summer.
Alycidon Rail, this column's on-line support system, has been developing steadily and I thought it might be worthwhile reminding readers the resources available.
First of all there is Rapid Update, which, er, provides updates on topical matters. In a similar vein there is Professional Stuff which contains source material ranging from the RAIB's preliminary report on Grayrigg to the 2005 DDA Act.
You can also sign up for e-Preview, my monthly e-mail previewing and updating the upcoming Informed Sources and sent out on the Monday in the week of publication. I gather that e-Preview has been categorised as spam by Network Rail, which I take as a backhanded endorsement.
In terms of resources, there is an Archive of Informed Sources columns back to January 2000 by both date and topic. The archive also includes articles which I think might be of interest, plus Railtalks where I have produced the first draft.
After positive feedback on a sample, there is now a section in the archive containing Powerpoint presentations I have made to conferences and institution meetings.
In the Analysis section there are copies of charts and graphs I have produced for the column, including the definitive timetable for the current Periodic Review.
In now realise that the Topical Rail Acronym Converter ( TRAC ) was a pioneering wiki. Readers regularly send in additions and get an acknowledgement. Can't tell you TARA from your MARA? Log on to TRAC .
Finally there is lots of background on Modern Railways, Informed Sources plus a biographical note. There is also the Informed Sources Primer which fills in the back-story of a column which has now been running for 24 years.