Leeds & Liverpool breach

[ditchcrawler]

7 hours ago, Slow and Steady said:

Contractors make their money by looking for problems they can list and charge as "extras". To avoid them doing so takes proper planning and oversight. They will be rubbing their hands together gleefully at working through the weekend I'm sure.

That reminds me of my days as an apprentice sparky house bashing. One of the builders that we worked for was renowned and the price of a property could almost double by the time he had built it. Almost £6,000 for a bungalow. I was on £3 10s a week 5 and a half days

[Tracy D'arth]

Damian in the Boaters Update just released strangely makes no mention of vandalism on the repair to the L&L.........................................................

[Mike Todd]

22 hours ago, cuthound said:

 

I've often said that the specification is the playing field upon which the game if contracting is played.

 

The contractor reads the specification looking for omissions and/or areas that are not crystal clear and exploits them.

The simple approach to contracting is: 'write a specification, call for tenders, review and select, monitor performance against spec'. This works well with new work but is fatal if applied too rigidly with repair and renew. In this case whilst it is possible to spec the type and quality of individual work items, it is often only possible to define the work to be done once the original has been exposed and investigated. Hence such contracts are more likely to contain a rate basis with supplementary contracts added as the work proceeds.

 

It should be obvious that the best that can be said about such a contract at the outset is that it is estimated  that it will cost xxx. It is in the nature of things that the unforeseen and unforeseeable extend the scale and scope but it is rarely correct to say that the project has overspent in a contractual sense. It may end up costing twice the estimate but with the contractor coming within agreed costs.

[cuthound]

1 minute ago, Mike Todd said:

The simple approach to contracting is: 'write a specification, call for tenders, review and select, monitor performance against spec'. This works well with new work but is fatal if applied too rigidly with repair and renew. In this case whilst it is possible to spec the type and quality of individual work items, it is often only possible to define the work to be done once the original has been exposed and investigated. Hence such contracts are more likely to contain a rate basis with supplementary contracts added as the work proceeds.

 

It should be obvious that the best that can be said about such a contract at the outset is that it is estimated  that it will cost xxx. It is in the nature of things that the unforeseen and unforeseeable extend the scale and scope but it is rarely correct to say that the project has overspent in a contractual sense. It may end up costing twice the estimate but with the contractor coming within agreed costs.

 

Which is why in my earlier post I said "Standard practice when I was working, with the exception of work where you were unsure what was needed until it was started. Then you pre agreed hourly rates for the work and materials on a cost plus basis."

[jonathanA]

On 08/04/2022 at 20:30, Tracy D'arth said:

Damian in the Boaters Update just released strangely makes no mention of vandalism on the repair to the L&L.........................................................

And you sure your looking  at this weeks ? The one I've just read has a big article and loads of pics all about it

[Tracy D'arth]

43 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

And you sure your looking  at this weeks ? The one I've just read has a big article and loads of pics all about it

Yes, my point, there is no mention of delays due to the previously declared vandalism.

[jonathanA]

Yes sorry senior moment... 

 

Guess we should be grateful the breach wasn't blamed on 'vandalism' 🙂

[Tracy D'arth]

6 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

Yes sorry senior moment... 

 

Guess we should be grateful the breach wasn't blamed on 'vandalism' 🙂

Well, now you mention it.......................................................

 

Don't give Parry any ideas!

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Well, now you mention it.......................................................

 

Don't give Parry any ideas!

 

 

They used that a 'couple of years' ago with the Middlewich breach - "Vandalism" opening both top and bottom gates (or something similar)

[TheBiscuits]

I've been told this evening that the worst "vandals" were seen wearing hard hats and safety boots.

 

I think I should probably stop there ...

[Pagefield]

Today 

[Pagefield]

Friday

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

They used that a 'couple of years' ago with the Middlewich breach - "Vandalism" opening both top and bottom gates (or something similar)

An information request found out that CRT had failed to follow the recommendation of an inspection that required them to carry out repairs to raise the "freeboard" of the embankment. 

 

####### Edited to add - The overflow weir, was found to have been upgraded from "E" to "D" despite no work having been carried. out on it. 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Allan(nb Albert)

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, jonathanA said:

Yes sorry senior moment... 

 

Guess we should be grateful the breach wasn't blamed on 'vandalism' 🙂

Like the Northampton Arm

[DandV]

On 10/04/2022 at 00:31, Mike Todd said:

The simple approach to contracting is: 'write a specification, call for tenders, review and select, monitor performance against spec'. This works well with new work but is fatal if applied too rigidly with repair and renew. In this case whilst it is possible to spec the type and quality of individual work items, it is often only possible to define the work to be done once the original has been exposed and investigated. Hence such contracts are more likely to contain a rate basis with supplementary contracts added as the work proceeds.

 

It should be obvious that the best that can be said about such a contract at the outset is that it is estimated  that it will cost xxx. It is in the nature of things that the unforeseen and unforeseeable extend the scale and scope but it is rarely correct to say that the project has overspent in a contractual sense. It may end up costing twice the estimate but with the contractor coming within agreed costs.

Certainly in NZ, and I strongly suspect also in the UK, is a huge degradation in the  inhouse engineering skillsets of organisations that need to purchase significant amount of specialist services

Instead the prevailing mantra is, when they often belatedly  realise there is a need for specialist advice,  tame consultants are employed to scope and then oversee a project, to be undertaken by a contractor, or contractors.

 

There are a number of significant failure points in this approach.

Firstly the organisation lacks sufficient ability to identify and assess potential service or asset failures, until they have either failed, or potential failure is now blindingly obvious. Empowered Inhouse ability is invariably better aligned with the specific organisation vulnerabilities, then any consultants waiting for a call.

 

Secondly  organisations far too often  simply lack the necessary  skills to then adequately brief, evaluate, select, and then monitor the consultants that they employ to adequatly identify and scope the actual problem and remedial work required.

 

Just far too many organisations have become naive purchasors of "expert services" sheltering behind "we employed experts"

 

The number of high profile IT failures indicates this problem is not confined to just engineering.

 

 

[TheBiscuits]

1 hour ago, Pagefield said:

 

 

 

That's a very interesting photo.

 

If there is a three and a half inch (105mm) sacrificial wear strip on each gate, are CRT expecting lots of boater damage or is the lock collapsing?

 

If they have deliberately added a bit extra to keep a subsiding lock working for the next few years, that's excellent planning from CRT. 

 

If they are expecting extra boat damage, why only on 73?  Are we expected to be more careful on the rest of the flight?

[jonathanA]

105 mm is a little over 4 inches.....😀

 

I thought it was standard practice now to include a wear strip or is that only for metal gates? 

 

 

[TheBiscuits]

7 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

105 mm is a little over 4 inches.....😀

 

I thought it was standard practice now to include a wear strip or is that only for metal gates? 

 

 

Duh, yeah.

 

A wear strip, sure, but they aren't usually that thick.  

 

2" is more usual, and less is common.

 

4" on each gate is a hell of a gap!

[TheBiscuits]

 

Also, thinking about it some more, it's 4" on the thick part of the taper.  It will be less than that on the skinny side.

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, DandV said:

Certainly in NZ, and I strongly suspect also in the UK, is a huge degradation in the  inhouse engineering skillsets of organisations that need to purchase significant amount of specialist services

Instead the prevailing mantra is, when they often belatedly  realise there is a need for specialist advice,  tame consultants are employed to scope and then oversee a project, to be undertaken by a contractor, or contractors.

 

 

 

Call a consultant a contractor and some of them get very upset.

[DandV]

4 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Call a consultant a contractor and some of them get very upset.

 

A consultant is the lad who knows 57 positions  in the Karmasutra but has yet to get himself a girlfriend.

[jonathanA]

8 hours ago, DandV said:

 

A consultant is the lad who knows 57 positions  in the Karmasutra but has yet to get himself a girlfriend.

 

I like that!

 

The one I always use is 

A consultant is the person who borrows your watch to tell you the time...

[cuthound]

19 hours ago, DandV said:

Certainly in NZ, and I strongly suspect also in the UK, is a huge degradation in the  inhouse engineering skillsets of organisations that need to purchase significant amount of specialist services

Instead the prevailing mantra is, when they often belatedly  realise there is a need for specialist advice,  tame consultants are employed to scope and then oversee a project, to be undertaken by a contractor, or contractors.

 

There are a number of significant failure points in this approach.

Firstly the organisation lacks sufficient ability to identify and assess potential service or asset failures, until they have either failed, or potential failure is now blindingly obvious. Empowered Inhouse ability is invariably better aligned with the specific organisation vulnerabilities, then any consultants waiting for a call.

 

Secondly  organisations far too often  simply lack the necessary  skills to then adequately brief, evaluate, select, and then monitor the consultants that they employ to adequatly identify and scope the actual problem and remedial work required.

 

Just far too many organisations have become naive purchasors of "expert services" sheltering behind "we employed experts"

 

The number of high profile IT failures indicates this problem is not confined to just engineering.

 

 

 

On my last job, one of my roles was to act as the company expert to approve the consultants designs.

[Midnight]

On 10/04/2022 at 21:40, Allan(nb Albert) said:

An information request found out that CRT had failed to follow the recommendation of an inspection that required them to carry out repairs to raise the "freeboard" of the embankment. 

 

####### Edited to add - The overflow weir, was found to have been upgraded from "E" to "D" despite no work having been carried. out on it. 

Is neglect a form of vandalism!