Post by Chris M on Feb 6, 2010 11:17:00 GMT
This is a follow-on from railtechnician's comments in the "Proposed resignalling" thread on the Northern Line board. I've started a new thread as my reply is far more general. Although I've put it here, I really wasn't sure whether it should be in the General LU area or even the off=topic board. Feel free to move it if I've plumped for the wrong one
On many of those jobs lots of other work took place simultaneously, P.Way, HT Mains, LV Cables, Telephones, Electricians and Building Contractors all working in the same space in some areas.
This is something I've heard from several sources about several different types of engineering. One key factor preventing it happening today is modern machinery.
While one or two people with a machine might be able to do a job that required the hard labour of a dozen people without such a machine, the safety aspects mean that where you could previously have three teams of a dozen workers doing three jobs at once, you now cannot have anyone other than the machine operator(s) in the vicinity. This is (at least generally speaking) not an example of excessive health and safety mollycoddling, it would not be safe.
Looking at it individually, one or two people and a big machine to do the work is clearly more cost effective than a dozen or more people using hand-held tools only. Especially if the modern method gets it done quicker.
However, I wonder whether when you have multiple jobs to do, whether it would actually be better value overall to do it the old fashioned way. Would thirty-odd people doing three jobs simultaneously using hand tools and their muscles result in less disruption to the railway? If there are no machines to watch out for you don't need to employ people to look out for them, you also don't need to bring them to the site or set them up during engineering hours potentially giving you more people and more time. If all or almost all of the workers can carry the tools they need to use with them when they enter the site, this will also potentially save time.
Equally, if you aren't bringing machines in from the other side of the network, you cannot disrupt the public service or other engineering works by doing so.
You don't need to pay people to drive/operate machines you aren't using (I'm guessing a machine operator gets paid more than a labourer), and nor do you need to spend time checking that the paperwork that proves they are trained to operate the machine is correct.
Machines that are not being used are not using fuel, nor are they wearing their moving parts.
If you have three jobs to do that require a days full closure, and with machines you would need to do them sequentially, that's three full closures you need.
If without machines they would take twice as long, but could all be done simultaneously, that's only two closures required. It's also possible that less railway needs to be closed (machines that aren't at worksite can't roll away from it for example).
Employing more people also has positive side-effects for the economy.
This is not a rant against modern technology - in some circumstances it is obviously by far better than older methods. My point is that it isn't always necessarily the best.
On many of those jobs lots of other work took place simultaneously, P.Way, HT Mains, LV Cables, Telephones, Electricians and Building Contractors all working in the same space in some areas.
This is something I've heard from several sources about several different types of engineering. One key factor preventing it happening today is modern machinery.
While one or two people with a machine might be able to do a job that required the hard labour of a dozen people without such a machine, the safety aspects mean that where you could previously have three teams of a dozen workers doing three jobs at once, you now cannot have anyone other than the machine operator(s) in the vicinity. This is (at least generally speaking) not an example of excessive health and safety mollycoddling, it would not be safe.
Looking at it individually, one or two people and a big machine to do the work is clearly more cost effective than a dozen or more people using hand-held tools only. Especially if the modern method gets it done quicker.
However, I wonder whether when you have multiple jobs to do, whether it would actually be better value overall to do it the old fashioned way. Would thirty-odd people doing three jobs simultaneously using hand tools and their muscles result in less disruption to the railway? If there are no machines to watch out for you don't need to employ people to look out for them, you also don't need to bring them to the site or set them up during engineering hours potentially giving you more people and more time. If all or almost all of the workers can carry the tools they need to use with them when they enter the site, this will also potentially save time.
Equally, if you aren't bringing machines in from the other side of the network, you cannot disrupt the public service or other engineering works by doing so.
You don't need to pay people to drive/operate machines you aren't using (I'm guessing a machine operator gets paid more than a labourer), and nor do you need to spend time checking that the paperwork that proves they are trained to operate the machine is correct.
Machines that are not being used are not using fuel, nor are they wearing their moving parts.
If you have three jobs to do that require a days full closure, and with machines you would need to do them sequentially, that's three full closures you need.
If without machines they would take twice as long, but could all be done simultaneously, that's only two closures required. It's also possible that less railway needs to be closed (machines that aren't at worksite can't roll away from it for example).
Employing more people also has positive side-effects for the economy.
This is not a rant against modern technology - in some circumstances it is obviously by far better than older methods. My point is that it isn't always necessarily the best.
