CIVIL ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION
© Network Rail
Whilst allowing the democratic planning process to take place, this needs to be slick- er and more robust as it lays the founda- tion for the subsequent detailed design and construction. Engineers should be engaged early on to ensure that those decisions made are balanced, as problems can arise at later stages, increasing costs and extend- ing the programme.
Compensation to those affected needs to be appropriate and, even if over the market rate (provided it is not excessive), the sav- ings in time and therefore total cost both at inquiry stage and during construction could be signifi cant.
Crossrail and Thameslink have each taken approximately 18 years and the equiva- lent of two costly inquiries from intent to progress to obtaining Parliamentary ap- proval. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act was approved at the fi rst attempt, taking some nine years. The GWR also had two attempts to obtain Parliamentary approval, but Brunel took personal responsibility for driving the GWR through the process and achieved Royal Assent within two years. The proposals for both Thameslink and Crossrail were perceived to have fl aws and whilst design had been developed to a high level of detail (even tender documents had been produced for Crossrail) failure to ad- dress fundamental principles ultimately delayed both schemes. This cannot happen in the future and HS2 must not be rushed through the planning process as it too will suffer the fate of Thameslink and Crossrail and be delayed.
Network Rail have recently recognised the benefi ts of a more robust engineering approach in the earlier stages of scheme development by revamping their GRIP process to introduce Design Approval in Principle at an earlier stage. For on line enhancements, perhaps the blockade ap- proach of West Coast Main Line should be considered more widely for schemes such as London Bridge Station, Northern Hub and the electrifi cation schemes. Unplanned short notice possession overruns due to optimistic timescales are far more disrup- tive to commuters than planned closures where alternative travel arrangements can be made in advance.
Where projects have succeeded or phases have been successful there appears to have been a focused driving force behind them. It is unlikely that we shall ever see the likes of Brunel again, however there are engi- neers who have signifi cantly infl uenced engineering since the Victorian era and will have inspired many engineers. I was for-
36 | rail technology magazine Aug/Sep 11
tunate as a graduate engineer to meet Ove Arup and a story he told of designing and getting a footbridge constructed for a client for a fi xed budget was one that has stuck with me for over 30 years.
He, like Brunel, took a personal interest in obtaining approval, the design, construc- tion and cost. Whilst not of the same scale as the GWR, he was in his time involved in far larger projects; this was a demonstra- tion of what civil engineering is all about.
If the most recent major rail schemes are anything to go by, it will be some time be- fore construction works commence on HS2 and it will be the engineers of the future who will be delivering the project. Who knows what technology they will be using in design and construction in the future if the last 20 – 30 years are anything to go by. However, they will still need the vision, energy and passion that Brunel had almost 200 years ago. This vision needs to come from the engineering profession and not be left to ‘signature’ architects to promote future infrastructure projects.
Isambard Kingdom Brunel was probably the fi rst ‘signature’ engineer, but where will the ones for the future come from to deliver the 21st century UK infrastructure if we do not publicise the great achieve- ments of engineering more widely and at- tract the cream of the UK’s youngsters into the industry?
We need to be more overt in publicising what we do, explaining that the tallest building in Europe, introducing capacity upgrades whilst keeping the railway operational and designing and constructing new railway lines and stations over 30m below the streets of London would not become reality without the skills and ingenuity of engineers.
As a profession we need to strengthen our voice at the earlier stages of project development to ensure that unachievable promises are not made or that the cost implications of such promises are fully un- derstood so that the balance of cost, time
and requirements can be agreed at an early stage and not left to be resolved late in the project.
Engineers can, within reason, deliver most aspirations, but the question needs to be asked of those promoting schemes at the outset: “How deep are your pockets?” Just as for Brunel, engineers need to be allowed to engage with politicians, stakeholders and funders to demonstrate what is achiev- able by using the technology that is devel- oping all the time to produce, for example, virtual journeys, views from properties and representation of noise impact both during construction and in the fi nal state, virtual walkthroughs of interchanges, construc- tion phasing models and cost models that can be interactively linked to demonstrate cost impact of different design options.
It will be the young talent coming into the industry who will introduce such new and innovative approaches which would hope- fully speed up the planning and construc- tion process and deliver projects much quicker and within budget.
It is not the engineering managers of to- day that should be shaping the future, but young engineers. They should be encour- aged to contribute and infl uence the de- velopment of the profession with their 21st century ideas.
Dave Darnell is a chartered civil engineer, and having been project director on sec- tions of both the Crossrail & Thameslink schemes in the 1990s, he is currently WSP’s project director for London Bridge Station & Crossrail Bond St Station. He was also PD in the early stages of Paddington station span 4 roof renewal. He sits on both ACE & ICE’s (RCEA) Rail committees.
Dave Darnell FOR MORE INFORMATION
Visit
www.acenet.co.uk and
www.wspgroup.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92