Following on from the little matter of Network Rail utilising the Christmas break for engineering works, the whole thing appears to have gone tits up.
Network Rail has come under fire after it emerged that the company was warned nearly a month ago that engineering works would not be finished on time.
Nothing new, there, then. And if Libby Purves were to write another article criticising Network Rail for piss-poor planning, she would have a valid point.
Engineering works have always tended to be planned on the optimistic side. I recall the regular overruns on a Monday morning during my signalling days – and that was over a decade ago. The rules of the route govern when operators have access to the infrastructure – and this includes the infrastructure owner for the purposes of maintenance and renewals. Britain’s railways operate at a high volume – in some cases, pretty much at maximum saturation. This means that access for the maintenance and renewals engineers is limited to start with. It’s hardly surprising if they then try to squeeze the proverbial quart into the gill cup they are dealt.
At the time it said there was no problem, only to ask for a one-day extension a week later. Network Rail repeatedly appealed for more time after Christmas.
Business as normal, then.
One rail insider said: “It was common knowledge within the industry that there was a strong risk that the original timetable was falling apart.”
“But they appeared blind to the risk. It was almost as if they stuck their heads in the sand.”
Contractors working on parts of the West Coast mainline also said that the deadline of Dec 30 could not be met. Network Rail assured Virgin Trains, which uses the network, that services would be able to resume as planned. Engineers at the signalling scheme at Rugby also made their fears known in early December.
Again, I’m not surprised. The engineers working on the project will have been aware of just how optimistic the plans were. That no one listened doesn’t surprise me either. I had a career’s worth of being ignored when I tried to raise concerns. Network Rail may well be right to dismiss Bechtel for their project management failings, however, it is unlikely that this will solve the core problem of inadequate access for large projects and simply taking it in-house is unlikely to resolve it either.
However, I’ll leave the final word to my erstwhile boss, Iain Coucher:
We tried to put too much work into too short a space and I want answers to questions as to why reassurances weren’t met. We need to get to all the facts.
Um, yes, Iain, I think you just answered your own question there…