Comments on: New trains costing $2 billion too wide to fit in tunnels

By: Steve Cooepr

Steve Cooepr — Sun, 18 Mar 2018 02:45:18 +0000

Sounds like someone was told to take off their engineering hat and put on their management hat.

By: Robert Zimmerman

Robert Zimmerman — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 18:47:20 +0000

In reply to Cotour. Cotour: This story was worth getting elevated to the main page. Thank you.

By: Cotour

Cotour — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 18:22:50 +0000

Talk about failed engineering:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/west-miami-dade/article205316174.html

By: Garry

Garry — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:18:30 +0000

Blair, I’m no expert and don’t know any more about this situation than what appears here, but I think the main factor that determines the safety margin is shaking of the train (in shipboard terms, the rolling component) as it goes through the tunnel. I don’t know how they calculated the maximum expected rolling motion, and I agree witth you; it appears someone determined that the old standard was too strict and therefore reduced it somewhat arbitrarily.

By: Mike Borgelt

Mike Borgelt — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 09:22:56 +0000

Anyone familiar with Australian defence procurement would not be surprised. We spent a billion dollars on 11 Seasprite helicopters for our Navy and got none because at the last moment someone discovered that the autopilot was a single channel device as specified in the contract but as we had decided on a two crew complement instead of the usual 3 the chopper wouldn’t be able to do its job at night or in instrument weather. I haven’t heard that anyone lost job/pension/went to jail over this.
BTW the trains are a New South Wales State government screw up, not Australian federal gummint.

By: Blair Ivey

Blair Ivey — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 04:27:28 +0000

“And even so, stuff happens.”

Like many here, I have experience in the difference between shop and as-built plans; but 20 cm?

It appears from the article the new equipment will eat up half the minimum safety distance; a standard I assume was carefully studied and arrived at. The official line seems to be that the standards are overly restrictive, and can be safely ignored. Or people are taking additional risk. Whatever.

By: Cotour

Cotour — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 02:18:20 +0000

And if and when there is a “problem” and someone is killed? How will that be “interpreted”?

Someone somewhere at a desk or work station was tasked with determining and laying out some criteria for the specifications of said trains. I would think that there would be a fairly thick book produced dedicated to the specific subject. This would include the maximum allowable width for these bright and shinny and very expensive new trains.

If I was the boss I would be very interested in the name or names of these individuals while we all contorted ourselves in our making the lemonade that fixes this screw up. But in the end, if I was the boss it would all come down on me, it would have been my responsibility to set and check the dimensions. And even so, stuff happens.

But this is government, no one ultimately has any responsibility more than likely.

By: Commodude

Commodude — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 01:24:32 +0000

Safety standards are, after all, interpretive rules, so they’re subject to change on the whim of an inspector….

Sorry, hits a nerve. Just spent a few hours today planning compliance with a new interpretation of a standard which has evidently been being misinterpreted by the entire industrial community for years.