Scottish Electrification updates & discussion

[edwin_m]

I'm not so sure about that.

Network Rail would have to make the supplier sign a contract to that effect - at which point the price they were paying would go up by a factor of several*. A bit similar to why if your train is late you can only claim up to the value specified in the Charter, even if it means you miss an interview for a job which would have earned you £200kpa for life.

*this may of course be one reason why electrification is so expensive these days.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Network Rail would have to make the supplier sign a contract to that effect - at which point the price they were paying would go up by a factor of several*. A bit similar to why if your train is late you can only claim up to the value specified in the Charter, even if it means you miss an interview for a job which would have earned you £200kpa for life.

*this may of course be one reason why electrification is so expensive these days.

That seems grossly unfair. A supplier provides a defective part that has to be taken out reinstalled and they only have to pay for the defective part wow

 

[najaB]

Network Rail would have to make the supplier sign a contract to that effect - at which point the price they were paying would go up by a factor of several...

And that's the point where I expect Network Rail to say "Thank you very much for coming, don't let the door hit you on the way out."

Putting your price up because of a clause saying you're responsible if the parts don't meet spec? That's pretty much admitting you plan on delivering sub-standard parts.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

And that's the point where I expect Network Rail to say "Thank you very much for coming, don't let the door hit you on the way out."

Putting your price up because of a clause saying you're responsible if the parts don't meet spec? That's pretty much admitting you plan on delivering sub-standard parts.

Exactly my thought too

 

[hwl]

There is comment under the Scotsman article suggesting the issue is to do the the wires slipping out of the connections at the tensioners:

Comment by "the ghost of Sir Willim Athol_2"

The fault is to do with the mechanical coupling of the overhead wires to the tensioning system at regular points across the route; about every kilometre. The tensioning system is designed to keep the overhead wire lengths really tight, so they don't sag in hot weather, high winds or when loaded with snow. The ends of the copper wires in one or two locations are slipping through the couplings and are not being gripped properly. The couplings are of a design used throughout the world. They have an internal swedge and ferrule type arrangement designed to grip the wire harder the more the wire is pulled. The cause of the wire slippage will have to be identified. It may be installation error, or a manufacturing defect or tolerance error. This will require mechanical testing and refitting of all similar wire couplings along the route or replacement with a coupling design by another manufacturer if the fault can't be identified. The wires are under considerable tension which makes removing and replacing the couplings quite tricky.

 

[jopsuk]

If true, then:
it isn't the sort of thing that could be readily detected earlier
it is rather embarrassing for the manufacturer
even if it is just one or two, it is understandable why they need to at least check every part

 

[Ploughman]

Might not be the manufacturer.
It could be down to the installer.

 

[InOban]

Which is where it is advantage that these major infrastructure contracts are outsourced, so if it's poor installation, they will be liable. Who is it for EGIP? Carillon?

 

[edwin_m]

And that's the point where I expect Network Rail to say "Thank you very much for coming, don't let the door hit you on the way out."

Putting your price up because of a clause saying you're responsible if the parts don't meet spec? That's pretty much admitting you plan on delivering sub-standard parts.

They wouldn't actually submit a price then increase it. All bidders would bid against a particular specification and draft contract, and any company that wants to stay in business would look at these very closely in respect of liabilities. If there are major cost risks that they can't control (What if your component breaks because a sub-component you buy in is defective? Will the people replacing your component on site do so efficiently, knowing someone else is paying?) then they will either seek to pass on the liability to someone else, or will increase the price as actual or virtual insurance against having to face this liability in future. The liability also includes the huge legal costs of fighting the cases that would almost certainly arise from any claim.

 

[najaB]

If there are major cost risks that they can't control (What if your component breaks because a sub-component you buy in is defective?)

That's why you test and insist that your sub-component supplier has a well-defined QA process. If not, then the liability stops with you.

...or will increase the price as actual or virtual insurance against having to face this liability in future.

If you increase your price to that extent then there's no way you're going to be competitive. NR's contracts teams already have a pretty good idea how much everything should cost.

 

[PaulMK]

Is there another approved supplier for the coupler? It's potentially not the first time Nwk Rl have had this problem (or so I have heard)

 

[snowball]

Comment by "the ghost of Sir Willim Athol_2"

They have an internal swedge and ferrule type arrangement

What a splendid phrase! I'd heard of ferrules but not swedges.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Which is where it is advantage that these major infrastructure contracts are outsourced, so if it's poor installation, they will be liable. Who is it for EGIP? Carillon?

For EGIP the contractors are ABC (Alstom Babcock Costain JV) and Morgan Sindall.
The Series 2 autotensioner design looks the same as that used by different contractors on other recent schemes.
These include the NW routes, and also the R&C and Stepps/Cumbernauld routes already completed in Scotland by Carillion.
Carillion is now doing the Shotts route.
There are 4 tensioners at intervals of about a kilometre along the route (at the end of each wire run, and at the start of the next, on both lines).
So maybe 200 in total between Glasgow and Newbridge Jn.
Plus those beginning to be installed on the Cumbernauld-Greenhill Lower route.
NR's Infrastructure Projects group are in overall control of all the electrification projects, they are not local schemes.

 

[edwin_m]

NR's contracts teams already have a pretty good idea how much everything should cost.

Perhaps they should communicate that knowledge to others within the organisation?

 

[InOban]

For EGIP the contractors are ABC (Alstom Babcock Costain JV) and Morgan Sindall.
The Series 2 autotensioner design looks the same as that used by different contractors on other recent schemes.
These include the NW routes, and also the R&C and Stepps/Cumbernauld routes already completed in Scotland by Carillion.
Carillion is now doing the Shotts route.
There are 4 tensioners at intervals of about a kilometre along the route (at the end of each wire run, and at the start of the next, on both lines).
So maybe 200 in total between Glasgow and Newbridge Jn.
Plus those beginning to be installed on the Cumbernauld-Greenhill Lower route.
NR's Infrastructure Projects group are in overall control of all the electrification projects, they are not local schemes.

Thanks for that detailed response. Much appreciated.

 

[paul1609]

For EGIP the contractors are ABC (Alstom Babcock Costain JV) and Morgan Sindall.
The Series 2 autotensioner design looks the same as that used by different contractors on other recent schemes.
These include the NW routes, and also the R&C and Stepps/Cumbernauld routes already completed in Scotland by Carillion.
Carillion is now doing the Shotts route.
There are 4 tensioners at intervals of about a kilometre along the route (at the end of each wire run, and at the start of the next, on both lines).
So maybe 200 in total between Glasgow and Newbridge Jn.
Plus those beginning to be installed on the Cumbernauld-Greenhill Lower route.
NR's Infrastructure Projects group are in overall control of all the electrification projects, they are not local schemes.

A genuine question that i do not know the answer to but if the couplers have failed would you not have stressed the cable underneath it and have to either cut off the end of the cable or replace it?

 

[InOban]

They've also tweeted that the bridge at West Handaxford (south east of Fauldhouse) is completed this week.
https://twitter.com/shottslineelec/status/864078830075564036?s=09

That makes 15 bridges out of 19 complete, with Station Road, Shotts underway.

Not sure which the last 3 structures are but hopefully work will start soon on them.

There's a reference on the EGIP Twitter to preparatory work for a bridge at Addiewell, so presumably that's one of the final three.

 

[QueensCurve]

Because the HSE/ORR don't see it as a mistake?

That seems to hit the nail on the head.:cry:

 

[QueensCurve]

I'm probably taking this down the wrong path, but when I was down in London, SWT routes are powered by 3rd rail rather than overhead lines.

Instead of overhead lines, could Scotrail have went down the 3rd rail option?

Absolutely not Please don't wake up the 3rd rail lobby.

 

[QueensCurve]

I'm not so sure about that.

Presumably it would depend on whether or not the contract provided for liquidated damages?

 

[edwin_m]

Presumably it would depend on whether or not the contract provided for liquidated damages?

Liquidated damages are a fixed amount agreed in the contract to be payable under certain circumstances, for example 1% deduction per week for late delivery. The buyer can claim these without having to prove any financial loss. I don't think that applies here.

Loss of revenue by Network Rail due to defective components would be "consequential damages". Who pays the extra costs to replace defective components will depend on the contract(s) involved.

 

[92002]

Liquidated damages are a fixed amount agreed in the contract to be payable under certain circumstances, for example 1% deduction per week for late delivery. The buyer can claim these without having to prove any financial loss. I don't think that applies here.

Loss of revenue by Network Rail due to defective components would be "consequential damages". Who pays the extra costs to replace defective components will depend on the contract(s) involved.

If the issues lie with the wire tensioners, these are specified by Network Rail and installed by the chosen contractor.

It will also apply to completed schemes in the last few years which have the same specification. Like Liverpool to Manchester and Machester to Bolton and Preston to Blackpool.

Any remedial works will also need to be financed by Network Rail. It's their specifications and design. With contractors getting paid to update the problem.

 

[najaB]

Any remedial works will also need to be financed by Network Rail. It's their specifications and design. With contractors getting paid to update the problem.

The depends on if the problem is the design, how it was manufactured or with how it was installed. In the first case it would be NR paying, in the latter two it would be the manufacturer/contractor.

 

[McRhu]

Disaster for Scotland! (c) Arthur Monford How on earth did it get to this stage without the problem being realised? Obfuscation, Smoke & Mirrors, Farragos and Institutional Institutionery! This really must be one more nail in the coupon for electrification.*Was IIIb ever this problematical?

 

[najaB]

I meant to comment on this earlier.

A bit similar to why if your train is late you can only claim up to the value specified in the Charter, even if it means you miss an interview for a job which would have earned you £200kpa for life.

This isn't right. What the Passenger Charter says that the TOC will accept claims up to the levels specified. You are free to make a larger claim but it will have to be assessed by the court. If you can prove to the court that your claim is realistic and the TOCs failure was foreseeable then the TOC may find themselves on the hook.

 

[Clansman]

Did Network Rail have the same issues as they currently do on Edinburgh to Glasgow electrification works, whilst doing up Airdrie to Bathgate?

Seems ridiculous at how far this project has been pegged back - you'd have thought that lessons had been learned from any mistakes of Airdries to Bathgate and indeed previous electrification projects across the country.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Did Network Rail have the same issues as they currently do on Edinburgh to Glasgow electrification works, whilst doing up Airdrie to Bathgate?

I'm pretty sure Airdrie-Bathgate was Mk3b or similar. So was Paisley Canal.
Series 2 began with Chat Moss and subsequent NW lines, and I've not heard of any autotensioner problems there.
Cumbernauld and Whifflet were next, again no problems reported (though line speeds are quite low there).

 

[snowball]

If the issues lie with the wire tensioners, these are specified by Network Rail and installed by the chosen contractor.

It will also apply to completed schemes in the last few years which have the same specification. Like Liverpool to Manchester and Machester to Bolton and Preston to Blackpool.

There are almost no wires up yet on Manchester-Bolton-Preston-Blackpool so at least they may be able to avoid having to correct problems after installation - provided different bits of NR are talking to each other.

Edit: in fact there are probably exactly no wires up that are part of that project. The bits I was thinking of that are up probably come under the Ordsall Chord. Though of course they may have the same problem.

Liverpool-Manchester has been operational for two years (some of it for almost 3.5) so perhaps any major problems with tensioners there would have shown up by now.

 

[edwin_m]

I meant to comment on this earlier.

This isn't right. What the Passenger Charter says that the TOC will accept claims up to the levels specified. You are free to make a larger claim but it will have to be assessed by the court. If you can prove to the court that your claim is realistic and the TOCs failure was foreseeable then the TOC may find themselves on the hook.

Pretty sure the NRCoC limits liability in that situation.

 

[najaB]

Pretty sure the NRCoC limits liability in that situation.

Nope. The NRCoT replaced them last year, and in any case they wouldn't prevent you from suing for consequential losses. If the breach is egregious enough the Court may set the limitation of liability clause aside.