edwin_m
Veteran Member
I've heard this described as "doing the wrong thing very well".
Correct and the LMD as wellGiven the complexity of the station it may be considered desirable to have granularity in overhead wiring energisation in the station complex.
So they can knock out platforms without taking them all out for example.
The well-worn comment from Belfast people about the Titanic springs to mind: "It was alright when it left here".As a software developer I do find your comment extremely condescending and quite harmful to an entire industry, especially the "Agile" method, which when done correct, has been proven in more cases than not to actually produce better quality code, that matches specifications far better.
In my experience, issues are almost always created due to poor specifications or communications. We software developers are NOT railway engineers, train drivers, etc. We dont and more importantly are not EXPECTED to know all the nuances of the railway, just like the engineers and drivers are not expected to know programmign and how software is made.
All the details need to be specified in the requirements, otherwise the developer may not know about it. Indeed, even if a developer sees a issue that is not in the specs, we often do approach the client to try and discuss the resolution to it, and in some cases the client works with us, in other cases, the client doesnt care, putting us in a dilema.
Note the Agile method you are pretty much critisizing orinated in Japan and is used by the Japanese extensively, including Hitachi, having worked with them before. In japanese companies, the software developers and engineers (and all other sections) work better at communicating, hence the "better quality". Sadly in many traditional western companies, there is no such good communication, as well as a lot of interference by accounting, MBEs and other persons who are trying to justify their positions and push costs and other agendas over quality.
I have worked for good companies and poor companies, even different projects within the same company where communication/specifications were great versus very poor, and seen the resulting software.
I think that both the hardware and software functioned well on the Titanic; it was blundering through an ice field (when other ships were hove to) in the dark with the look outs' binoculars confiscated in order to catch the New York morning papers that caused the disaster, aided by only half filling the life boats.The well-worn comment from Belfast people about the Titanic springs to mind: "It was alright when it left here".
I have to disagree there. It works more often than it doesn't, you just don't hear nearly as much about the successes.Having professionals in narrow, insulated silos, communicating with written specifications rarely works well as there are always items not fully expressed.
I have to disagree there. It works more often than it doesn't, you just don't hear nearly as much about the successes.
If it didn't work then organisations would adopt techniques that did - businesses make more money by getting it right the first time than they do cleaning up messes when things go wrong.
Not that simple. Even if engineers are in charge, there is a risk of lack of co-ordination between engineering disciplines. Very few projects are small enough that one person can understand all the detail.I would agree where there is established technology with everyone practiced at what they're doing. Then you can have the accountants, lawyers, administrators and project managers successfully progressing their business cases like clockwork. When there's something new, needing research, development, training or intangible risk, then you need such a senior engineer or other polymath in charge. John Armitt was a recent example that comes to mind. There are also plenty of impeccably managed disasters, such as in Defence.
Physics has precedence over economics.
WAO
The issue is when you introduce programmers who have absolutely no concept of how their code will be used in the real world.
[...]
Most of this can be attributed to laziness and silly management practices - See: Agile.
Agile is rarely well disciplined in the west. We use it notionally, but the project managers working too many projects at once demanding speed of implementation over quality of software leaves us with impossibly large backlogs of "fix it later". I add "TODO"s that I highly doubt I'll ever return to almost every day...Note the Agile method you are pretty much critisizing orinated in Japan and is used by the Japanese extensively, including Hitachi, having worked with them before. In japanese companies, the software developers and engineers (and all other sections) work better at communicating, hence the "better quality". Sadly in many traditional western companies, there is no such good communication, as well as a lot of interference by accounting, MBEs and other persons who are trying to justify their positions and push costs and other agendas over quality.
Not that simple. Even if engineers are in charge, there is a risk of lack of co-ordination between engineering disciplines. Very few projects are small enough that one person can understand all the detail.
There's also the issue, discussed above, that engineers will tend to build an engineering solution to whatever they perceive the problem to be. The problem may be misinterpreted, incorrectly specified, or have a better solution that doesn't involve engineering.
I am a chartered engineer working on major rail projects, with colleagues who are the equals of any in the industry. I assure you there is plenty of opportunity to get things wrong if the disciplines don't work together, or if the client doesn't know what they want.Engineers (i.e Chartered Engineers) are in charge of relevant projects by law, both in EU and UK. It's just that some outfits restrict that to a signature, not real supervision.
They are (now) educated and trained to degree level both in their own discipline and related ones so that they have common skills. They have management courses and are taught to work in cross disciplinary teams in a sequence of major projects and are tested on communication skills. They then have to take a complementary study to Master's level, after which they must undergo industrial training and responsible experience before qualifying as CEng.
We would not have in our home a gas fitter who is not Gas Safe nor an electrician who is not Part P registered.
There is never zero risk but it can be minimalized.
WAO
AbsolutelyI am a chartered engineer working on major rail projects, with colleagues who are the equals of any in the industry. I assure you there is plenty of opportunity to get things wrong if the disciplines don't work together, or if the client doesn't know what they want.
Gets worse when people are in different countries and time zones. I am working on a multi disciplinary IT project with developers in UK, Ukraine, Netherland and Germany. We never meet, its all done on teams and email and documents shared on the company cloud.I am a chartered engineer working on major rail projects, with colleagues who are the equals of any in the industry. I assure you there is plenty of opportunity to get things wrong if the disciplines don't work together, or if the client doesn't know what they want.
Engineers (i.e Chartered Engineers) are in charge of relevant projects by law, both in EU and UK.
It doesn't surprise me that Agile is done well in Japan, because the Japanese invent a tool and then use it to a sensible degree while understanding it's limitations. Also see "just in time logistics", which the west takes to an extreme degree and creates "not in time logistics".As a software developer I do find your comment extremely condescending and quite harmful to an entire industry, especially the "Agile" method, which when done correct, has been proven in more cases than not to actually produce better quality code, that matches specifications far better.
In my experience, issues are almost always created due to poor specifications or communications. We software developers are NOT railway engineers, train drivers, etc. We dont and more importantly are not EXPECTED to know all the nuances of the railway, just like the engineers and drivers are not expected to know programmign and how software is made.
All the details need to be specified in the requirements, otherwise the developer may not know about it. Indeed, even if a developer sees a issue that is not in the specs, we often do approach the client to try and discuss the resolution to it, and in some cases the client works with us, in other cases, the client doesnt care, putting us in a dilema.
Note the Agile method you are pretty much critisizing orinated in Japan and is used by the Japanese extensively, including Hitachi, having worked with them before. In japanese companies, the software developers and engineers (and all other sections) work better at communicating, hence the "better quality". Sadly in many traditional western companies, there is no such good communication, as well as a lot of interference by accounting, MBEs and other persons who are trying to justify their positions and push costs and other agendas over quality.
I have worked for good companies and poor companies, even different projects within the same company where communication/specifications were great versus very poor, and seen the resulting software.
Oh yeah, this is true. Although that speed of implementation is called "efficiency". This is all well and good, if you don't care wether or not your software will work in the real world.Agile is rarely well disciplined in the west. We use it notionally, but the project managers working too many projects at once demanding speed of implementation over quality of software leaves us with impossibly large backlogs of "fix it later". I add "TODO"s that I highly doubt I'll ever return to almost every day...
In the current climate the MBAs may well have managed to get made MBEs thanks to kickbacks to the Government!Do we mean MBA's rather than MBE's?
The British Empire can't have been that bad!
WAO
I'd much prefer that they agreed to buy a significant portion of the output of a new nuclear plant. Or lease a few SMRs.Perhaps with its large land portfolio the railway should invest in its own wind farns and storage.
Perhaps with its large land portfolio the railway should invest in its own wind farns and storage.
K
Put a few on the embankments around Shap, to slow the wind down a bit and reduce dewirement risk?The railway land portfolio is particularly unsuited to wind generation. For the former, you need wind, obviously. By far the best places to have wind turbines are out on the open sea, or on exposed high ground, and GB railways are notable for their absence at the former and very few at the latter.
And one nuke ( nuclear power station to make sure I am not misunderstood) will take care of the bloody lot and for foreseeable railway electrification and expansion.There is some mileage in solar generation, but to put it into context, you need a mile of solar panels 5 metres wide in the middle of a sunny day in June to power a typical 4 car EMU (rough calculation). Whereas one large offshore wind turbine can power 10 EMUs at any time with a reasonable level of wind.
I read that sentence before I read what it was in reply to. I think I may initially have misinterpreted the term 'nuke'.And one nuke will take care of the bloody lot and for foreseeable railway electrification and expansion
Biggest wind turbines are currently 8MW in UK waters but Dogger Bank are going to deploy teh 13MW GE - Hallide model.The railway land portfolio is particularly unsuited to wind generation. For the former, you need wind, obviously. By far the best places to have wind turbines are out on the open sea, or on exposed high ground, and GB railways are notable for their absence at the former and very few at the latter.
There is some mileage in solar generation, but to put it into context, you need a mile of solar panels 5 metres wide in the middle of a sunny day in June to power a typical 4 car EMU (rough calculation). Whereas one large offshore wind turbine can power 10 EMUs at any time with a reasonable level of wind.
Biggest wind turbines are currently 8MW in UK waters but Dogger Bank are going to deploy teh 13MW GE - Hallide model.
So A 4car EMU when accelerating need 2MW plus so more like 4 EMUs currently and only when the wind is blowing!!
I guess it wouldn't be possible to run an extension lead from Bingley Feeder Station to Skipton and feed Skipton station area only if there was a need to isolate the rest of the line?
I believe Network Rail do purchase exclusively nuclear generated power for traction.And one nuke ( nuclear power station to make sure I am not misunderstood) will take care of the bloody lot and for foreseeable railway electrification and expansion.
Though the Welsh Government have gone for renewables for their bit of devolved infrastructure. It's a good job the two systems won't be interconnected at Cardiff!Siemens have a 14MW turbine; they will be installed at the Sofia wind farm.
I used a 377 @ 1.2MW as a reference 4 car, with a bit to spare in the calc.
Accepting the wind needs to blow, but in this country the wind does blow more often than the sun shines at full whack!
They purchase from Edf who own all the remaining nuclear fleet but the electrons will come from the nearest power station in reality.I believe Network Rail do purchase exclusively nuclear generated power for traction.