Discussion:
Collapse of Gerrards Cross tunnel
(too old to reply)
Guy Gorton
2005-07-01 06:26:49 UTC
Permalink
Photos taken early this morning are at
http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.gorton/collapse.html
Travel chaos here with the station and all its approaches completely
cordoned off by BTP. Not even the replacement bus service is visiting
GX. Television camera crew and reporter at Marsham Lane area at
5;45am - same location I used.
If I can get to the station at any time, I will add more pictures of
the collapse taken through the tunnel, but at the moment not even the
station staff are allowed in - only the taxis which are run from an
office at the station.

Guy Gorton
Mark Annand
2005-07-01 06:58:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Gorton
Photos taken early this morning are at
http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.gorton/collapse.html
Guy Gorton
Very timely ... thanks for going out and about.
t***@lycos.co.uk
2005-07-01 08:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Annand
Post by Guy Gorton
Photos taken early this morning are at
http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.gorton/collapse.html
Guy Gorton
Very timely ... thanks for going out and about.
Tesco - Every little helps eh.
Trevor
2005-07-01 10:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
Post by Mark Annand
Post by Guy Gorton
Photos taken early this morning are at
http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.gorton/collapse.html
Very timely ... thanks for going out and about.
Tesco - Every little helps eh.
obiviously not at gerrard's cross! still thanks again for guy being so
fast about posting the photos. they are very useful.

t.
Paul Harley
2005-07-02 13:29:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
Tesco - Every little helps eh.
Chiltern passengers have been given a new interpretation for the name
"Tesco Extra"! <g>

Paul Harley
--
Remove "eeek" to contact me!
t***@lycos.co.uk
2005-07-01 11:14:08 UTC
Permalink
It will be interesting to see what they do this weekend when Marylebone
is closed, that's providing they don't get the tunnel open again in
time. I doubt many passengers would want to travel with chiltern after
this!
TheOneKEA
2005-07-01 11:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
It will be interesting to see what they do this weekend when Marylebone
is closed, that's providing they don't get the tunnel open again in
time. I doubt many passengers would want to travel with chiltern after
this!
Why? This isn't Chiltern's fault - they deserve full plaudits for
getting through services restored and coachitution running as rapidly
as they did.

I suppose with Marylebone closed this weekend, they will simply
terminate everything at Princes Risborough and run coaches to Amersham
for pax to pick up a Met line service.

We can be lucky that the collapse did not damage the signalling power
and data cables connecting the local interlockings to Marylebone IECC -
that would have been the final insult...
t***@lycos.co.uk
2005-07-01 12:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by TheOneKEA
Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
It will be interesting to see what they do this weekend when Marylebone
is closed, that's providing they don't get the tunnel open again in
time. I doubt many passengers would want to travel with chiltern after
this!
Why? This isn't Chiltern's fault - they deserve full plaudits for
getting through services restored and coachitution running as rapidly
as they did.
I was referring to the paranoia going through peoples heads about it
crashing down again when its re-opened. You know how passengers think!
Brimstone
2005-07-01 12:54:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
Post by TheOneKEA
Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
It will be interesting to see what they do this weekend when
Marylebone is closed, that's providing they don't get the tunnel
open again in time. I doubt many passengers would want to travel
with chiltern after this!
Why? This isn't Chiltern's fault - they deserve full plaudits for
getting through services restored and coachitution running as rapidly
as they did.
I was referring to the paranoia going through peoples heads about it
crashing down again when its re-opened. You know how passengers think!
Surely such paranoia is the result of *not* thinking?
f***@t-bird.freeserve.co.uk
2005-07-01 13:25:07 UTC
Permalink
I think you can take it that the whole tunnel will now have to be
demolished and redesigned from first base.

I hope the Architects, QSs, Contractors. Tesco, Spacia and Certifying
Agencies for Notwork Rail all have good PII Someone's going to need it
- and some - for this

It looks a typical technological fix where the calculations work on
paper but not in practice. Look at the layers of fill above the still
standing segment and it is plain to see that the arch there has been
reversed already - no doubt what brought down the first section - and
this is before surfacing of the car park and the imposition of live
loads as a car park and access were brought to bear - probably just as
well - imagine mum and the tots down amongst that lot on top of a train
full of commuters.

Who says the nineteenth century builders over engineered when you see
something like this!
Stephen Hughes
2005-07-01 13:49:26 UTC
Permalink
... and
this is before surfacing of the car park and the imposition of live
loads as a car park and access were brought to bear
While this is a point, if, as has been speculated, the cause was
excess rainfall making the fill heavier than expected, don't forget that
once the surface had been 'sealed', the flow of rainwater could be
diverted away much more easily and such waterlogging would no longer be
a concern.
tony sayer
2005-07-01 15:58:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@t-bird.freeserve.co.uk
I think you can take it that the whole tunnel will now have to be
demolished and redesigned from first base.
I hope the Architects, QSs, Contractors. Tesco, Spacia and Certifying
Agencies for Notwork Rail all have good PII Someone's going to need it
- and some - for this
It looks a typical technological fix where the calculations work on
paper but not in practice. Look at the layers of fill above the still
standing segment and it is plain to see that the arch there has been
reversed already - no doubt what brought down the first section - and
this is before surfacing of the car park and the imposition of live
loads as a car park and access were brought to bear - probably just as
well - imagine mum and the tots down amongst that lot on top of a train
full of commuters.
Who says the nineteenth century builders over engineered when you see
something like this!
Yes they said old Issy's bridge at Maidenhead wouldn't remain standing
didn't they?.

Wonder what he would have thought!.......
--
Tony Sayer
J. Chisholm
2005-07-01 16:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by tony sayer
Post by f***@t-bird.freeserve.co.uk
I think you can take it that the whole tunnel will now have to be
demolished and redesigned from first base.
I hope the Architects, QSs, Contractors. Tesco, Spacia and Certifying
Agencies for Notwork Rail all have good PII Someone's going to need it
- and some - for this
It looks a typical technological fix where the calculations work on
paper but not in practice. Look at the layers of fill above the still
standing segment and it is plain to see that the arch there has been
reversed already - no doubt what brought down the first section - and
this is before surfacing of the car park and the imposition of live
loads as a car park and access were brought to bear - probably just as
well - imagine mum and the tots down amongst that lot on top of a train
full of commuters.
Who says the nineteenth century builders over engineered when you see
something like this!
Yes they said old Issy's bridge at Maidenhead wouldn't remain standing
didn't they?.
Wonder what he would have thought!.......
When Telford's bridge over the severn at Over (Gloucester) had the
formwork removed the centre of the span dropped a good 10 inches, yet
even in the (I think) 1980s there was no weight limit. Because the
parapets are 'level' rather than arched, you can easily see this drop by
sighting along the parapets.

Jim Chisholm
Mark Annand
2005-07-01 16:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by tony sayer
Yes they said old Issy's bridge at Maidenhead wouldn't remain standing
didn't they?.
Wonder what he would have thought!
Brunel might have thought 'Oh, it's collapsed, but not for the same
reason that my bridge over the Parrett on the Bristol and Exeter did ...'
Tony Polson
2005-07-01 22:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Annand
Post by tony sayer
Yes they said old Issy's bridge at Maidenhead wouldn't remain standing
didn't they?.
Wonder what he would have thought!
Brunel might have thought 'Oh, it's collapsed, but not for the same
reason that my bridge over the Parrett on the Bristol and Exeter did ...'
Lots of 19th century bridges fell down. They were designed to span
greater distances than ever before, and carry ever greater loads.
No-one knew how to design large span bridges to carry things as heavy
as steam trains, so it is inevitable that some failed.

Brunel was a courageous engineer, and was keen to move beyond what he
saw as arbitrary limitations. So was Telford; I believe his Menai
suspension bridge has been completely or significantly rebuilt six
times, three of which were within a short time after its completion in
1826. As with any failure, lessons were learned and contributed to
best practice.

The Millennium Bridge over the Thames was a public joke, because it
wobbled, but the solution to the problem was simple, elegant and
completely successful. The courage shown by Arup, the structural
engineers, in designing such an advanced structure - and then coming
up with a scheme of the greatest ingenuity to improve its dynamics -
are an object lesson in moving technology forward. Many engineers
said it couldn't be done, but it could, and it was, and the bridge is
now a landmark structure for bridge engineers all over the globe.
Tony Polson
2005-07-01 22:22:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by tony sayer
Yes they said old Issy's bridge at Maidenhead wouldn't remain standing
didn't they?.
Brunel's bridge for the GWR at Maidenhead fell down.

The rebuilt structure still stands.
Richard J.
2005-07-01 22:38:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Polson
Post by tony sayer
Yes they said old Issy's bridge at Maidenhead wouldn't remain
standing didn't they?.
Brunel's bridge for the GWR at Maidenhead fell down.
Bad mortar according to Brunel and admitted by the builder, or so it
says at http://www.lexcie.zetnet.co.uk/bridge.htm
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)
Tony Polson
2005-07-02 00:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard J.
Post by Tony Polson
Post by tony sayer
Yes they said old Issy's bridge at Maidenhead wouldn't remain
standing didn't they?.
Brunel's bridge for the GWR at Maidenhead fell down.
Bad mortar according to Brunel and admitted by the builder, or so it
says at http://www.lexcie.zetnet.co.uk/bridge.htm
That seems to be the case, as Brunel insisted the rebuild was to
exactly the same design, just with the correct mortar.

An eminent panel of engineers was appointed to oversee the rebuild.
They insisted that the heavy timber falsework (centering) supporting
the arch should not be removed until they expressly approved it.

On the day they finally inspected the bridge, expecting to grant
approval to the removal of the centering, they found Brunel had
already (mischievously) jacked down the centering leaving a two inch
gap! The bridge was not supported on the centering, but was carrying
its own weight.

It passed the superimposed load tests with flying colours, and still
stands today - although it was doubled in width later, the widening
being done to exactly the same design.
Mark Annand
2005-07-02 06:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Polson
Post by tony sayer
Yes they said old Issy's bridge at Maidenhead wouldn't remain standing
didn't they?.
Brunel's bridge for the GWR at Maidenhead fell down.
The rebuilt structure still stands.
Can you provide a reference for that? (That's not intended to sound the
way it does, I knew that he lost an arch bridge over the Parrett when I
think the foundations failed, but I hadn't heard that the Maidenhead
arch did anything else than behave as designed. The web reference speaks
of masonry, whereas the arch is of course brick ...)

Apparently a diagram of the foundations for the Maidenhead railway
bridge is 'Interesting and instructive'.
Tony Polson
2005-07-03 10:52:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Annand
Can you provide a reference for that? (That's not intended to sound the
way it does, I knew that he lost an arch bridge over the Parrett when I
think the foundations failed, but I hadn't heard that the Maidenhead
arch did anything else than behave as designed. The web reference speaks
of masonry, whereas the arch is of course brick ...)
Try searching on Google Groups. Like you, I wasn't aware - until
someone on this newsgroup pointed it out to me - that the bridge had
collapsed. There was an interesting discussion on here, possibly
about a year ago.
Ronnie Clark
2005-07-01 13:44:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brimstone
Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
Post by TheOneKEA
Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
It will be interesting to see what they do this weekend when
Marylebone is closed, that's providing they don't get the tunnel
open again in time. I doubt many passengers would want to travel
with chiltern after this!
Why? This isn't Chiltern's fault - they deserve full plaudits for
getting through services restored and coachitution running as rapidly
as they did.
I was referring to the paranoia going through peoples heads about it
crashing down again when its re-opened. You know how passengers think!
Surely such paranoia is the result of *not* thinking?
Well... In this case, I think such paranoia is fully understandable. It's
not as if it was SUPPOSED to collapse the first time round, was it? Unless
the structure is altered to make it look much stronger (even if it actually
isn't), I think a lot of people will always be in fear of this tunnel from
now on.
--
Ronnie
--
Have a great day...
...Have a Great Central day.
www.greatcentralrailway.com
April
2005-07-01 13:51:10 UTC
Permalink
As someone who commutes from Wycombe, I certainly will be a bit
paranoid (ie.... petrified). I think I'll be happier if they bring it
all down (though it might take longer for the service to be reinstated).
Brimstone
2005-07-01 14:16:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by April
As someone who commutes from Wycombe, I certainly will be a bit
paranoid (ie.... petrified). I think I'll be happier if they bring it
all down (though it might take longer for the service to be
reinstated).
Which they probably will and before putting up a new structure (if any) the
lessons of this collapse will be learnt. It's entrely possible that the
design is perfectly OK, but the collapse has been caused by the people on
the ground not doing the job as instructed.
Brimstone
2005-07-01 14:18:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronnie Clark
Post by Brimstone
Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
Post by TheOneKEA
Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
It will be interesting to see what they do this weekend when
Marylebone is closed, that's providing they don't get the tunnel
open again in time. I doubt many passengers would want to travel
with chiltern after this!
Why? This isn't Chiltern's fault - they deserve full plaudits for
getting through services restored and coachitution running as
rapidly as they did.
I was referring to the paranoia going through peoples heads about it
crashing down again when its re-opened. You know how passengers think!
Surely such paranoia is the result of *not* thinking?
Well... In this case, I think such paranoia is fully understandable.
It's not as if it was SUPPOSED to collapse the first time round, was
it? Unless the structure is altered to make it look much stronger
(even if it actually isn't), I think a lot of people will always be
in fear of this tunnel from now on.
Are you suggesting that the people responsible for this are incapable of
learning lessons and altering the design and/or working practices to suit?
malc
2005-07-01 14:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brimstone
Are you suggesting that the people responsible for this are incapable of
learning lessons and altering the design and/or working practices to suit?
No, surely the British would never repeat a cockup?
--
Malc
Brimstone
2005-07-01 14:53:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by malc
Post by Brimstone
Are you suggesting that the people responsible for this are
incapable of learning lessons and altering the design and/or working
practices to suit?
No, surely the British would never repeat a cockup?
Unhless they're bean counters? But that's only a "perhaps" you'll
understand? ;-)
Ronnie Clark
2005-07-01 15:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brimstone
Post by Ronnie Clark
Well... In this case, I think such paranoia is fully understandable.
It's not as if it was SUPPOSED to collapse the first time round, was
it? Unless the structure is altered to make it look much stronger
(even if it actually isn't), I think a lot of people will always be
in fear of this tunnel from now on.
Are you suggesting that the people responsible for this are incapable of
learning lessons and altering the design and/or working practices to suit?
No, but from now on the ball is in their court to prove to the public that
the new tunnel will be safe. If such a catastrophic error (the nature of
which is as yet unknown) can be made first time, they need to go out of the
way to show that it won't happen again, rather than just leave it to the
public to assume "Oh well, they must know what they're doing this time" -
because that's not going to happen.

It'd be interesting to see what structures are finally put in place at the
portals. When tunnels were built on many early railways, the designer would
go out of his way to construct a grandiose portal conveying strength and
superiority to alay fears. I wonder if a similar mind trick will be
attempted with this tunnel.
--
Ronnie
--
Have a great day...
...Have a Great Central day.
www.greatcentralrailway.com
asdf
2005-07-01 16:50:02 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:04:28 +0100, "Ronnie Clark"
Post by Ronnie Clark
Post by Brimstone
Post by Ronnie Clark
Well... In this case, I think such paranoia is fully understandable.
It's not as if it was SUPPOSED to collapse the first time round, was
it? Unless the structure is altered to make it look much stronger
(even if it actually isn't), I think a lot of people will always be
in fear of this tunnel from now on.
Are you suggesting that the people responsible for this are incapable of
learning lessons and altering the design and/or working practices to suit?
No, but from now on the ball is in their court to prove to the public that
the new tunnel will be safe. If such a catastrophic error (the nature of
which is as yet unknown) can be made first time, they need to go out of the
way to show that it won't happen again, rather than just leave it to the
public to assume "Oh well, they must know what they're doing this time" -
because that's not going to happen.
They don't "have to" prove anything to the public. The public did not
and do not get a say in whether the Tesco gets built.
David Splett
2005-07-01 18:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by asdf
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:04:28 +0100, "Ronnie Clark"
They don't "have to" prove anything to the public. The public did not
and do not get a say in whether the Tesco gets built.
Time for a change of government then. The government is supposed to
represent the wishes of the people, and if so many people in Gerrards Cross
are against the store being built then permission should never have been
granted.

Typical New Labour arrogance, once again.
Martin Underwood
2005-07-01 18:25:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Splett
Post by asdf
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:04:28 +0100, "Ronnie Clark"
They don't "have to" prove anything to the public. The public did not
and do not get a say in whether the Tesco gets built.
Time for a change of government then. The government is supposed to
represent the wishes of the people, and if so many people in Gerrards
Cross are against the store being built then permission should never have
been granted.
According to the article in one of the newspapers (there was a link to it
earlier in this thread) the local planning permission team had rejected the
plans on account of local opposition but Two Jag Prescott over-ruled them
and said "It must go ahead". Now where have I heard him doing that before?
Oh yes, with the asylum centres such as the one near Bicester. Don't think
he likes the Home Counties much!
Stephen Hughes
2005-07-01 22:23:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Underwood
According to the article in one of the newspapers (there was a link to it
earlier in this thread) the local planning permission team had rejected the
plans on account of local opposition but Two Jag Prescott over-ruled them
and said "It must go ahead". Now where have I heard him doing that before?
We've had him do the reverse. Stockport MBC have tried everything to
allow Ikea to build a store here but he keeps overturning their attempts
to award planning permission. Oddly enough though, we got a new and very
large Tesco build (near / on) the site Ikea were going to occupy and
where there are 4 or 5 other supermarkets within about a mile...

(As an aside, said Tesco was built significantly larger than the
planning permission allowed - ISTR 20% was quoted - yet nothing appears
to be going to be done about this....)

Oh, and to keep it vaguely OT for uk.r, it was built smack bang on
the route of the old Tiviot Dale line....
MM
2005-07-01 22:44:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Hughes
Post by Martin Underwood
According to the article in one of the newspapers (there was a link to it
earlier in this thread) the local planning permission team had rejected the
plans on account of local opposition but Two Jag Prescott over-ruled them
and said "It must go ahead". Now where have I heard him doing that before?
We've had him do the reverse. Stockport MBC have tried everything to
allow Ikea to build a store here
IKEA are totally crazy not to follow Argos and set up an online
ordering/delivery service as well as the stores. It is just plain nuts
that I must drive all the way to Nottingham simply to place an order
and pay the money. A 150 mile round trip to buy e.g. a sofa when I
could just call the product up online and order the thing from my
armchair. Idiots. They must lose an incredible amount of extra
business.

MM
Stephen Hughes
2005-07-02 10:13:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
IKEA are totally crazy not to follow Argos and set up an online
ordering/delivery service as well as the stores.
Getting OT but I'm not sure I agree with that. I've often said I'd
never buy furniture from Argos as I would prefer to see it, feel it, try
it etc before making a purchase. OK for a £20 set of book shelves but
for beds / sofas etc, I would want a look first.

What Ikea *could* do is set up a range of smaller shops with limited
stock where you could see / try things and then allow you to place an
order for later delivery. One of the things that puts me off buying
anything large from Ikea is that I only have a small car and no access
to anything bigger...
tony sayer
2005-07-02 10:23:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Hughes
Post by MM
IKEA are totally crazy not to follow Argos and set up an online
ordering/delivery service as well as the stores.
Getting OT but I'm not sure I agree with that. I've often said I'd
never buy furniture from Argos as I would prefer to see it, feel it, try
it etc before making a purchase. OK for a £20 set of book shelves but
for beds / sofas etc, I would want a look first.
What Ikea *could* do is set up a range of smaller shops with limited
stock where you could see / try things and then allow you to place an
order for later delivery. One of the things that puts me off buying
anything large from Ikea is that I only have a small car and no access
to anything bigger...
Three times now we've had run'in's with that lot with delivery promises,
and now older and wiser if they haven't got it, we ain't buyin it!....
--
Tony Sayer
BH Williams
2005-07-03 09:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
IKEA are totally crazy not to follow Argos and set up an online
ordering/delivery service as well as the stores.
Getting OT but I'm not sure I agree with that. I've often said I'd never
buy furniture from Argos as I would prefer to see it, feel it, try it etc
before making a purchase. OK for a £20 set of book shelves but for beds /
sofas etc, I would want a look first.
What Ikea *could* do is set up a range of smaller shops with limited
stock where you could see / try things and then allow you to place an
order for later delivery. One of the things that puts me off buying
anything large from Ikea is that I only have a small car and no access to
anything bigger...
At the risk of encouraging this group to wander off-topic, I should say that
IKEA are planning to open a series of smaller shops (though 'small' is
relative, of course- 30 000 sq ft is the floor size I've heard mentioned). I
believe that they do offer delivery services as well.
Brian
John
2005-07-02 14:45:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Underwood
Post by David Splett
Post by asdf
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:04:28 +0100, "Ronnie Clark"
They don't "have to" prove anything to the public. The public did
not and do not get a say in whether the Tesco gets built.
Time for a change of government then. The government is supposed to
represent the wishes of the people, and if so many people in
Gerrards Cross are against the store being built then permission
should never have been granted.
According to the article in one of the newspapers (there was a link
to it earlier in this thread) the local planning permission team had
rejected the plans on account of local opposition but Two Jag
Prescott over-ruled them and said "It must go ahead". Now where have
I heard him doing that before? Oh yes, with the asylum centres such
as the one near Bicester. Don't think he likes the Home Counties much!
He's also the one behind Part P. Which means you cannot do any
electrical installations in your own home without having somebody
with approval to verify your installation at a massive cost.

But yet you can do electrical installations at your place of work!.


J
Jock Mackirdy
2005-07-02 22:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Post by Martin Underwood
Post by David Splett
Post by asdf
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:04:28 +0100, "Ronnie Clark"
They don't "have to" prove anything to the public. The public did
not and do not get a say in whether the Tesco gets built.
Time for a change of government then. The government is supposed to
represent the wishes of the people, and if so many people in
Gerrards Cross are against the store being built then permission
should never have been granted.
According to the article in one of the newspapers (there was a link
to it earlier in this thread) the local planning permission team had
rejected the plans on account of local opposition but Two Jag
Prescott over-ruled them and said "It must go ahead". Now where have
I heard him doing that before? Oh yes, with the asylum centres such
as the one near Bicester. Don't think he likes the Home Counties much!
He's also the one behind Part P. Which means you cannot do any
electrical installations in your own home without having somebody
with approval to verify your installation at a massive cost.
But yet you can do electrical installations at your place of work!.
Apparently that's because commercial installations are supposed to be
inspected regularly so any duff work would show up eventually.
--
Jock Mackirdy
Bedford
Charles Ellson
2005-07-03 03:49:45 UTC
Permalink
In article <da69b4$5a2$***@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
***@nospamZADnospam.com "John" writes:

<snip>
Post by John
He's also the one behind Part P. Which means you cannot do any
electrical installations in your own home without having somebody
with approval to verify your installation at a massive cost.
But yet you can do electrical installations at your place of work!.
IIRC the requirements as publicised by whichever government department
put the warning adverts in the papers allow that-

You can do electrical installation work at home without an inspection
as long as it doesn't involve provision of a new final circuit.
i.e. you can add to an existing circuit, renew or extend the cabling
or fixed devices on existing circuits or similar as long as you don't
alter the fuseboard or make a new connection to any spare outlets on it.
There was a flow chart on the end of one the links from the HMG website
which showed whether or not an inspection was necessary.

There would seem to have been a consideration that banning all DIY to
domestic installations would be less than totally effective as a bodger
could be equally lethal with what would be plugged in instead of wired
in.

AFAIR there are various requirements affecting workplaces which have the
effect of preventing any but the most basic electrical work (e.g. changing
a plug or lamp) being carried out by someone without the right tickets.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: ***@e11son.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|
tim (moved to sweden)
2005-07-03 11:27:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Ellson
<snip>
Post by John
He's also the one behind Part P. Which means you cannot do any
electrical installations in your own home without having somebody
with approval to verify your installation at a massive cost.
But yet you can do electrical installations at your place of work!.
IIRC the requirements as publicised by whichever government department
put the warning adverts in the papers allow that-
You can do electrical installation work at home without an inspection
as long as it doesn't involve provision of a new final circuit.
i.e. you can add to an existing circuit, renew or extend the cabling
or fixed devices on existing circuits or similar
I'm not entirely sure that this is generally correct. ISTR the
distinction was that you can do small works like adding a spur,
but you can't break the ring to add a new inline socket (which
is just risking the final result being less safe IMHO).

I am certain that it what you have said is incorrect if the work
is in the kitchen or bathroom. You may make no modifications
at all to a kitchen or bathroom circuit without certification or
inspection.
Post by Charles Ellson
There would seem to have been a consideration that banning all DIY to
domestic installations would be less than totally effective as a bodger
could be equally lethal with what would be plugged in instead of wired
in.
This is entirely correct. In fact it doesn't take a bodger. Look behing
your computer desk. How many mult-way extension do you have?

tim
David Hansen
2005-07-03 12:01:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 13:27:04 +0200 someone who may be "tim \(moved to
Post by tim (moved to sweden)
ISTR the
distinction was that you can do small works like adding a spur,
but you can't break the ring to add a new inline socket (which
is just risking the final result being less safe IMHO).
That rather depends on how one tests the installation afterwards.
Doing this properly does not depend on having it done by some bod
from the council or an electrician.

The whole thing, which does not apply in Scotland, is yet another
example of a box ticking exercise.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
Charles Ellson
2005-07-03 17:14:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim (moved to sweden)
Post by Charles Ellson
<snip>
Post by John
He's also the one behind Part P. Which means you cannot do any
electrical installations in your own home without having somebody
with approval to verify your installation at a massive cost.
But yet you can do electrical installations at your place of work!.
IIRC the requirements as publicised by whichever government department
put the warning adverts in the papers allow that-
You can do electrical installation work at home without an inspection
as long as it doesn't involve provision of a new final circuit.
i.e. you can add to an existing circuit, renew or extend the cabling
or fixed devices on existing circuits or similar
I'm not entirely sure that this is generally correct. ISTR the
distinction was that you can do small works like adding a spur,
but you can't break the ring to add a new inline socket (which
is just risking the final result being less safe IMHO).
I am certain that it what you have said is incorrect if the work
is in the kitchen or bathroom. You may make no modifications
at all to a kitchen or bathroom circuit without certification or
inspection.
I've found the flow chart on:-
<http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_buildreg/documents/page/
odpm_breg_033480.hcsp>
Following this chart, "except in a kitchen or bathroom, or outdoors"
only leads to "Tell your local authority's Building Control Department
before you start the work." which I suspect doesn't tell the whole story.

What it does specifically permit without involving Building Control is-
-repairs, replacements and maintenance work;or
-extra power points or lighting points or other alterations to existing
circuits
Again, I think it fails to be specific enough as it fails to make it
clear that extra power points fed from a previously spare way in the fuse
box would constitute a new final circuit.
The ODPM page gives the impression that there's nothing to stop a DIYer
from making a total cock-up of e.g. replacing an old consumer unit with
a new one while the NICEIC on-
<http://www.niceic.org.uk/consumers/ppnotify.html>
says you can't without notification, while referring to outdoor work
which it says _can_ be done without notifying.

If you can't believe the government's explanation of its own regulations
then who are you supposed to believe ?
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: ***@e11son.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|
David Hansen
2005-07-03 17:47:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 03 Jul 05 17:14:51 GMT someone who may be
Post by Charles Ellson
The ODPM page gives the impression that there's nothing to stop a DIYer
from making a total cock-up of e.g. replacing an old consumer unit with
a new one
It seems unlikely to me that a DIYer who feels able to undertake
such a task is going to make a total cock-up of it.
Post by Charles Ellson
while the NICEIC
On the other hand a member of my staff was once nearly electrocuted
by a (large) switch which had been wired up the wrong way round by a
person employed by that "esteemed" organisation. To leave it in the
dangerous condition it was in they could not have tested it at all.
The "electrician" should certainly not have wired it up in that way.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
Charles Ellson
2005-07-03 19:43:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hansen
On Sun, 03 Jul 05 17:14:51 GMT someone who may be
Post by Charles Ellson
The ODPM page gives the impression that there's nothing to stop a DIYer
from making a total cock-up of e.g. replacing an old consumer unit with
a new one
It seems unlikely to me that a DIYer who feels able to undertake
such a task is going to make a total cock-up of it.
I would have thought that the inability of many DIYers to recognise
when the work exceeds their ability was one of the primary reasons
for the new regs. One favourite failure is to assume that their work
is OK because everything works when plugged in and nothing is smoking
or getting hot; unfortunately this method does not prove the integrity
of the earthing system which is only used in anger when something
(not necessarily their work) goes wrong.
Post by David Hansen
Post by Charles Ellson
while the NICEIC
On the other hand a member of my staff was once nearly electrocuted
by a (large) switch which had been wired up the wrong way round by a
person employed by that "esteemed" organisation.
Inspected/certified by, not employed by.
Post by David Hansen
To leave it in the
dangerous condition it was in they could not have tested it at all.
The "electrician" should certainly not have wired it up in that way.
The best "professional job" that a (now deceased) friend of mine
discovered at his place of work was a three-phase switch carrying the
main feed to a building in which each phase had been fed through its own
20mm entry hole. The switchboard operator beside it eventually found
out where the heat and the smell of hot enamel was coming from and the
wires were re-arranged by "in-house" staff (not "certified" above 24v)
the following weekend.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: ***@e11son.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|
Martin Underwood
2005-07-03 20:14:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Ellson
The best "professional job" that a (now deceased) friend of mine
discovered at his place of work was a three-phase switch carrying the
main feed to a building in which each phase had been fed through its own
20mm entry hole. The switchboard operator beside it eventually found
out where the heat and the smell of hot enamel was coming from and the
wires were re-arranged by "in-house" staff (not "certified" above 24v)
the following weekend.
Not sure why feeding each phase through its own hole would have caused the
overheating - or have I missed the point somewhere.

The best electrical cockup that I discovered was on a freind's lawn mower:
the socket on the extension cable and the plug on the lawn mower had been
fitted the wrong way round - ie with the plug and its exposed pins being on
the extension cable rather than the mower. When I came to unplug the cable
from the mower, I *very* nearly touched the pins before I realised that they
were on the live end of the cable. I quietly swapped plug and socket over
and said nothing about it so as not to embarrass him.
Roland Perry
2005-07-03 20:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Underwood
Post by Charles Ellson
The switchboard operator beside it eventually found
out where the heat and the smell of hot enamel was coming from and the
wires were re-arranged by "in-house" staff (not "certified" above 24v)
the following weekend.
Not sure why feeding each phase through its own hole would have caused the
overheating - or have I missed the point somewhere.
Perhaps the holes were through something made of steel, and there was a
transformer effect?
--
Roland Perry
E.D. Wivens
2005-07-04 03:03:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Martin Underwood
Post by Charles Ellson
The switchboard operator beside it eventually found
out where the heat and the smell of hot enamel was coming from and the
wires were re-arranged by "in-house" staff (not "certified" above 24v)
the following weekend.
Not sure why feeding each phase through its own hole would have caused the
overheating - or have I missed the point somewhere.
Perhaps the holes were through something made of steel, and there was a
transformer effect?
Correct! This practice causes eddy currents to be induced in ferrous
metals. This in turn leads to the metal box heating up, as observed by
the switchboard operator.


Wivens
--
E.D. Wivens http://www.katzphur.co.uk/

Putting the fun back into fundamentally flawed.
Charles Ellson
2005-07-04 04:13:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Martin Underwood
Post by Charles Ellson
The switchboard operator beside it eventually found
out where the heat and the smell of hot enamel was coming from and the
wires were re-arranged by "in-house" staff (not "certified" above 24v)
the following weekend.
Not sure why feeding each phase through its own hole would have caused the
overheating - or have I missed the point somewhere.
Perhaps the holes were through something made of steel, and there was a
transformer effect?
Correct. Even with the poor efficiency involved the three 1:1
"transformers" caused by the original arrangements were producing
quite a bit of heat around the entry holes of this 100A MEM main
switch. Once all three phases were through the same hole there was
an average of zero current flowing through it.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: ***@e11son.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|
Derek ^
2005-07-03 21:08:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Underwood
the socket on the extension cable and the plug on the lawn mower had been
fitted the wrong way round - ie with the plug and its exposed pins being on
the extension cable rather than the mower. When I came to unplug the cable
from the mower, I *very* nearly touched the pins before I realised that they
were on the live end of the cable. I quietly swapped plug and socket over
and said nothing about it so as not to embarrass him.
The machines we sell to the NHS have an accessory outlet on the front
for a dictaphone/desk lamp etc. One day the factory in Switzerland ran
out of the UK panel mount mains sockets we provide them with and
fitted a continental Shuko socket.

On seeing this a so-called hospital electrician took a Shuko (plug) to
IEC (socket) mains lead, cut the IEC socket off it and fitted a UK 13A
plug, so he had made a mains lead with 2 male plugs, he used this to
plug the machine into the mains and it worked until he tried to
actually operate the machine when it tripped the 2A circuit breaker
feeding the accessory outlet.

The actual IEC mains inlet, a chassis mounted male connector, was
concealed round the back.

DG
Tony Polson
2005-07-03 21:40:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek ^
The machines we sell to the NHS have an accessory outlet on the front
for a dictaphone/desk lamp etc. One day the factory in Switzerland ran
out of the UK panel mount mains sockets we provide them with and
fitted a continental Shuko socket.
On seeing this a so-called hospital electrician took a Shuko (plug) to
IEC (socket) mains lead, cut the IEC socket off it and fitted a UK 13A
plug, so he had made a mains lead with 2 male plugs, he used this to
plug the machine into the mains and it worked until he tried to
actually operate the machine when it tripped the 2A circuit breaker
feeding the accessory outlet.
The actual IEC mains inlet, a chassis mounted male connector, was
concealed round the back.
Oh my God! And we think MRSA is serious ...

;-)
Stephen Furley
2005-07-03 23:38:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Polson
Oh my God! And we think MRSA is serious ...
;-)
In America you could buy cables with a plug on each end. I have an old
Speed Graphic press camera with a Graflite flashgun, the sort that
takes lightbulb sized flashbulbs (which I've still got a large stock
of. There are five connection on the battery case, shutter, battery,
remote, solenoid and extension, and all are standard 2 pin (Nema 1-15)
mains type sockets, so to connect up multiple flashes you need a cable
with a mains plug on each end; Graflex used to see these.

You can get various other electrical horrors over there; their mains
is a 240V centre-tapped three wire system, like the 110V we use on
building sites, but twice the Voltage. Normal small appliences are
connected between neutral which is white, and hot (live) which is
black. Ground (earth) is green. Half of the 120V sockets in a house
will be connected to one side of the supply, and half to the other.
Large things like Cookers are connected across the two lives to give
the full 240V, with the second live being red, though sometimes a
neutral is used as well, so small loads like oven timers can run off
120V. The normal 120V 3 pin plug is a Nema 5-15, which has the hot and
neutral pins vertical, but there is a 240V one, the Nema 6-20, which is
similar, but which has the pins horizontal. I've seen a cable on sale
with a 240V plug on one end, and a 120V socket on the other.

These sockets are rated at 15 Amps, but there are 20A versions, the
Nema 5-20 and 6-20, which have one horizontal and one vertical pin, I
think it's the live pin which is the opposite way round to it would be
in a 15A version. In the USA 20A sockets have a 'T' shaped slit, so
they can accept both 15A and 20A plugs, but in Canada this is not
allowed, so a 15A plug cannot be used in a 20A socket. Then there are
the 30 an 50 Amp versions, with all sorts of odd pin arrangements.
Unless you can remember the dozens of slightly different Nema
configurations it's not obvious what a socket is; if it's got three
pins it could be single phase hot, neutral and ground or two hots and a
ground or three phase ungrounded. Four pins could be two hots, neutral
and ground or three phase plus ground. To confuse things even more
what we call the earth they call the *grounding* conductor, and what we
call the neutral they often call the *grounded* conductor. No
opportunity for confusion there, obviously. Sometimes a single
conductor us use to serve both purposes, though this is now uncommon,
and I believe is being completely phased out.

There are some other wonderful things you can buy over there, like
adaters to plug three pin plugs into two pin sockets, they usually have
a thin metal tab with a hole in which you are supposed to earth by
putting it under one of the screws in the socket, but they never seem
to be in the right place to be able to do this. Adapters to fit plugs
into light bulb sockets, long banned here, are readily available there.
One really good example I saw I wish I had bought a sample of to
bring home. You unscrew your light bulb, and you can then screw in the
adapter. The bottom of the adapter has a standard Edison screw socket,
so you can screw the light bulb back in there. In both the left and
right sides of the adapter there is a standard 15A 120V mains socket.
Of course, since this thing screws into a light bulb socket here's no
earth. That's fine for two pin appliences, but what if you need to
plug in something with a three pin plug? No problem, there's a hole
moulded into the plastic to give the ground pin somewhere to go! The
quality of this thing was so bad that it actually distorted in my hand
as I picked it up to look at.

Then thre's American three phase; where can we start with this? Well,
it can be Wye (star) or delta; or something called open delta, I
haven't managed to work out what that is yet. 240V delta systems are
quite common, often with one of the windings centre-tapped to ground to
supply the usual 120-0-120 single phase arrangement. Since it is the
centre of one side of the delta which is grounded, the opposite point
will be at 208V. This tends to be known as the 'high leg' or
'stinger', so in a distribution board, one third of the wires will be
at a higher Voltage from ground than the others. These tend to be
identified by marking them with orange tape. Then there are corner
crounded delta systems, and ungrounded ones, and something like a dozen
different odd Voltages, 277V, for example. That's emough, I can't take
any more of this!
E.D. Wivens
2005-07-04 03:08:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 22:08:33 +0100, Derek ^
Post by Derek ^
Post by Martin Underwood
the socket on the extension cable and the plug on the lawn mower had been
fitted the wrong way round - ie with the plug and its exposed pins being on
the extension cable rather than the mower. When I came to unplug the cable
from the mower, I *very* nearly touched the pins before I realised that they
were on the live end of the cable. I quietly swapped plug and socket over
and said nothing about it so as not to embarrass him.
The machines we sell to the NHS have an accessory outlet on the front
for a dictaphone/desk lamp etc. One day the factory in Switzerland ran
out of the UK panel mount mains sockets we provide them with and
fitted a continental Shuko socket.
On seeing this a so-called hospital electrician took a Shuko (plug) to
IEC (socket) mains lead, cut the IEC socket off it and fitted a UK 13A
plug, so he had made a mains lead with 2 male plugs, he used this to
plug the machine into the mains and it worked until he tried to
actually operate the machine when it tripped the 2A circuit breaker
feeding the accessory outlet.
The actual IEC mains inlet, a chassis mounted male connector, was
concealed round the back.
When the "long line" announcing equipment was first installed at
Manchester Piccadilly, the console arrived with a 13A plug on it.

As there was no nearby socket, a hole was cut in the back of the metal
console and a 13A socket outlet installed. The console therefore
appeared to be plugged into itself.


Wivens
--
E.D. Wivens http://www.katzphur.co.uk/

Putting the fun back into fundamentally flawed.
David Hansen
2005-07-03 20:46:18 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 03 Jul 05 19:43:50 GMT someone who may be
Post by Charles Ellson
I would have thought that the inability of many DIYers to recognise
when the work exceeds their ability was one of the primary reasons
for the new regs.
I doubt it.

The genesis was an entirely laudable desire to place compliance with
the wiring regulations on a statutory basis, as it has been in
Scotland for a long time. So far so good. However, instead of
following the sensible way this is done in Scotland officials gold
plated it and caused the current mess.

I also think that the IEE behaved in a very strange way on the
issue, for reasons I am unsure about but tend to the cockup theory.
Post by Charles Ellson
Inspected/certified by, not employed by.
Yes, I was getting excited. The company employing the rogue was
certified by this "esteemed" organisation, which I hold in about the
same respect as CORGI.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
E.D. Wivens
2005-07-04 03:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by David Hansen
On Sun, 03 Jul 05 17:14:51 GMT someone who may be
Post by Charles Ellson
The ODPM page gives the impression that there's nothing to stop a DIYer
from making a total cock-up of e.g. replacing an old consumer unit with
a new one
It seems unlikely to me that a DIYer who feels able to undertake
such a task is going to make a total cock-up of it.
I would have thought that the inability of many DIYers to recognise
when the work exceeds their ability was one of the primary reasons
for the new regs.
Many reasons have been given for introducing Part P, including all the
usual suspects. A visit to uk.d-i-y will turn up many, er, debates on
the subject.

You may well find that mortgage and insurance companies will shortly
start asking to see a current electrical test certificate, before
making an offer, or renewing a policy.
Post by Charles Ellson
One favourite failure is to assume that their work
is OK because everything works when plugged in and nothing is smoking
or getting hot; unfortunately this method does not prove the integrity
of the earthing system which is only used in anger when something
(not necessarily their work) goes wrong.
Ah yes the "trim for minimum smoke" technique...

Sometimes apparently simple jobs can require a lot of other work to
bring the installation up to scratch.

To quote the Wiring Regulations:

"130-07-01 No addition or alteration, temporary or permanent, shall be
made to an existing installation, unless it has been ascertained that
the rating and the condition any existing equipment, including that of
the distributor, which will have to carry any additional load is
adequate for the altered circumstances and the earthing and bonding
arrangements are also adequate."

If you add, say, an additional socket to a ring, then the whole of
that circuit would have to be inspected and tested along with any
circuits between it and the incoming supply, as well as the earthing
arrangements for the whole installation.

You would also normally issue a "Minor Works" certificate to cover the
changes.


Wivens (Electrical Contractor)
--
E.D. Wivens http://www.katzphur.co.uk/

Putting the fun back into fundamentally flawed.
Charles Ellson
2005-07-03 18:51:41 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by tim (moved to sweden)
Post by Charles Ellson
There would seem to have been a consideration that banning all DIY to
domestic installations would be less than totally effective as a bodger
could be equally lethal with what would be plugged in instead of wired
in.
This is entirely correct. In fact it doesn't take a bodger. Look behing
your computer desk. How many mult-way extension do you have?
Er.. just one. (Well yer did ask <g>). The main necessity for them
nowadays seems to be for accomodating the off-board plug-in transformers
used by modems, amplified loudspeakers, etc. which IME have the occasional
tendency to fracture their plastic "earth" pins when used in a wall socket.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: ***@e11son.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|
David Hansen
2005-07-03 20:56:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 03 Jul 05 18:51:41 GMT someone who may be
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by tim (moved to sweden)
This is entirely correct. In fact it doesn't take a bodger. Look behing
your computer desk. How many mult-way extension do you have?
Er.. just one.
I have four. However, there is nothing bodged or dangerous about
them and they are screwed to the back of my desks rather than being
on the floor.

The main switch is an old MEM switched fuse unit, complete with
bakelite cover and 15A rewirable fuse with china (and asbestos)
carrier. I upgraded the earthing before wiring it in as it was not
good enough for my liking. I like the vintage feel, though if I came
across a knife switch unit I would probably swap them.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
tim (moved to sweden)
2005-07-03 21:07:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Ellson
<snip>
Post by tim (moved to sweden)
Post by Charles Ellson
There would seem to have been a consideration that banning all DIY to
domestic installations would be less than totally effective as a bodger
could be equally lethal with what would be plugged in instead of wired
in.
This is entirely correct. In fact it doesn't take a bodger. Look behing
your computer desk. How many mult-way extension do you have?
Er.. just one. (Well yer did ask <g>). The main necessity for them
nowadays seems to be for accomodating the off-board plug-in transformers
used by modems, amplified loudspeakers, etc. which IME have the occasional
tendency to fracture their plastic "earth" pins when used in a wall socket.
I wasn't asking for you to justify having one, this is fine. But I suspect
that many readers are going to have two or three (as I have). Some
of which will be daisy-chained (unlike mine!).

I'm currently in a rental where I have no control over the location of
the plugs and comms connections so I am stuck with everything being
in the same corner of the appartment.

But making it more expensive for householders to change their layout
is going to result in more people daisy-chaining multi-way boxes when
they might previously have been inclined to add a socket to the circuit
(either DIY or by using competent but un certificated odd job man).
This does not make their electrical connections safer.

tim
Brimstone
2005-07-01 18:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Splett
Post by asdf
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:04:28 +0100, "Ronnie Clark"
They don't "have to" prove anything to the public. The public did not
and do not get a say in whether the Tesco gets built.
Time for a change of government then. The government is supposed to
represent the wishes of the people, and if so many people in Gerrards
Cross are against the store being built then permission should never
have been granted.
Typical New Labour arrogance, once again.
What makes you think the Tories are any different?
Tony Polson
2005-07-01 22:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brimstone
Post by David Splett
Post by asdf
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:04:28 +0100, "Ronnie Clark"
They don't "have to" prove anything to the public. The public did not
and do not get a say in whether the Tesco gets built.
Time for a change of government then. The government is supposed to
represent the wishes of the people, and if so many people in Gerrards
Cross are against the store being built then permission should never
have been granted.
Typical New Labour arrogance, once again.
What makes you think the Tories are any different?
New Labour learned their arrogance from the Tories.

Chapter and verse, and then some.
MM
2005-07-01 22:40:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Splett
Post by asdf
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:04:28 +0100, "Ronnie Clark"
They don't "have to" prove anything to the public. The public did not
and do not get a say in whether the Tesco gets built.
Time for a change of government then. The government is supposed to
represent the wishes of the people, and if so many people in Gerrards Cross
are against the store being built then permission should never have been
granted.
Typical New Labour arrogance, once again.
But the sheeple will all flock to Tesco when the new store opens.

MM
Peter Goodland
2005-07-02 14:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
But the sheeple will all flock to Tesco when the new store opens.
Indeed.

This happened in the town where my parents live.

Tesco wanted to build a supermarket.
There were lots of objections. Nobody wants it, no-one will use it, etc.

And now it is open, they all go there.
--
Peter.
Paul Stevenson
2005-07-02 15:24:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Goodland
Post by MM
But the sheeple will all flock to Tesco when the new store opens.
Indeed.
This happened in the town where my parents live.
Tesco wanted to build a supermarket.
There were lots of objections. Nobody wants it, no-one will use it, etc.
And now it is open, they all go there.
--
Peter,

that's because Tesco has killed off all the local shops.

Paul
MM
2005-07-03 09:41:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 16:24:04 +0100, "Paul Stevenson"
Post by Paul Stevenson
Post by Peter Goodland
Post by MM
But the sheeple will all flock to Tesco when the new store opens.
Indeed.
This happened in the town where my parents live.
Tesco wanted to build a supermarket.
There were lots of objections. Nobody wants it, no-one will use it, etc.
And now it is open, they all go there.
--
Peter,
that's because Tesco has killed off all the local shops.
Yes, the general public hasn't quite cottoned on to that one yet. Not
only do the large supermarkets decimate local trade, they send their
profits out of the area to benefit large shareholders who have no
interest at all in the local community.

One of the best things that could happen to Britain right now is if
*all* large supermarkets were closed for good. There would be panic
for a couple of weeks as people had to eat baked beans and make do,
but then the great pulling together in time of need which has been a
characteristic of the British for ages would hold sway, as farmers
would get a sudden boost to supply goods locally. People would start
having chickens in their back gardens, even a pig perhaps.

The supermarkets have also contributed greatly to traffic congestion,
have reduced choice, and played a big role in helping the
disintegration of British society since the shopping experience is now
one where only strangers meet. I see nothing good in supermarkets at
all. The people of Gerrards X, and they should be even crosser now,
have one more, possibly heaven sent, opportunity to lobby Teso to stop
this particular cathedral of consumption from being built after all.

MM
Duncan
2005-07-03 11:55:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 16:24:04 +0100, "Paul Stevenson"
Post by Paul Stevenson
Post by Peter Goodland
Post by MM
But the sheeple will all flock to Tesco when the new store opens.
Indeed.
This happened in the town where my parents live.
Tesco wanted to build a supermarket.
There were lots of objections. Nobody wants it, no-one will use it, etc.
And now it is open, they all go there.
that's because Tesco has killed off all the local shops.
Another way to look at it is the local shops will only be killed off
if the local people choose to shop at Tescos instead. The locals by
changing their shopping patterns have sealed the fate of the local
shops.

Duncan
matt
2005-07-03 12:11:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duncan
Post by Paul Stevenson
that's because Tesco has killed off all the local shops.
Another way to look at it is the local shops will only be killed off
if the local people choose to shop at Tescos instead. The locals by
changing their shopping patterns have sealed the fate of the local
shops.
True, but in some cases (as my previous post). the local authority is
culpable in this too.

I used to be able to pop into my local town at luch time, park free for
30 mins, nip to the local baker, grocer and newspaper shop.

Because of our local council's anti-car obsessions, now I can't. (And
before you ask, I can't get the bus as there is no direct service to my
local town - I have to go to the next biggest town, change bus and come
back).

So now my local town is a ghost town, but it was nearly that before
Tesco moved in.

The local co-op and kwik-save which I used to use, and could have
competed with Tesco, were marooned in a pedestrianised area.
Unsuprisingly, kwik-save is shut, and the co-op is now a Wetherspoons.
Theo van Riet
2005-07-03 12:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt
Post by Duncan
Post by Paul Stevenson
that's because Tesco has killed off all the local shops.
Another way to look at it is the local shops will only be killed off
if the local people choose to shop at Tescos instead. The locals by
changing their shopping patterns have sealed the fate of the local
shops.
True, but in some cases (as my previous post). the local authority is
culpable in this too.
SNIP
Post by matt
So now my local town is a ghost town, but it was nearly that before
Tesco moved in.
The local co-op and kwik-save which I used to use, and could have
competed with Tesco, were marooned in a pedestrianised area.
Unsuprisingly, kwik-save is shut, and the co-op is now a Wetherspoons.
The local authority is the representative of "the locals" , so the
"locals" killed the local shops.

They want to keep the cars out of the center and they succeeded, they
were to hypocrit to recognise they were driving the cars themselves...

No offence, the same happens also in Belgium, but it's seems to be
"political correct".


Theo
--
From the heath in the Nord of Belgium
matt
2005-07-03 12:42:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Theo van Riet
The local authority is the representative of "the locals" , so the
"locals" killed the local shops.
oh, don't get me started on that one ! The location of polling stations
is carefully "managed" by our local council to favour areas where their
supporters live. We asked why our local school couldn't be used, but
apparently "we all had cars so we could drive".

They were (re-)elected with 26% of the vote in 2005, not particulaly
representative !
Pyromancer
2005-07-03 12:13:25 UTC
Permalink
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Duncan
Post by MM
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 16:24:04 +0100, "Paul Stevenson"
Post by Paul Stevenson
Post by Peter Goodland
This happened in the town where my parents live.
Tesco wanted to build a supermarket.
There were lots of objections. Nobody wants it, no-one will use it, etc.
And now it is open, they all go there.
that's because Tesco has killed off all the local shops.
Another way to look at it is the local shops will only be killed off
if the local people choose to shop at Tescos instead. The locals by
changing their shopping patterns have sealed the fate of the local
shops.
Interviewer: Should the government spend more money on transport,
hospitals, schools, and the Police?

Citizen: Yes, definitely! Much more!

Interviewer: What should the government do about taxes?

Citizen: Cut them! We pay far to much!

Perhaps, when all of this is over and the final construction dust has
settled, we should have a uk.r meet at the Gerrards Cross Tesco,
provision up, and then go Chiltern DMU bashing for the afternoon?

NP: Cauda Pavonis - Nine To Five Freakshow
--
- Pyromancer Stormshadow.
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk <-- Pagan Gothic Rock!
http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk <-- Electronic Metal!
http://www.revival.stormshadow.com <-- The Gothic Revival.
Tony Polson
2005-07-03 15:23:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duncan
Another way to look at it is the local shops will only be killed off
if the local people choose to shop at Tescos instead. The locals by
changing their shopping patterns have sealed the fate of the local
shops.
It doesn't take many people to shop at Tesco to destroy the local
businesses. An independent grocer in Gerrards Cross has already
closed in advance of the (proposed) opening of Tesco, and leased his
premises to a bookmaker.
matt
2005-07-02 15:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Goodland
Post by MM
But the sheeple will all flock to Tesco when the new store opens.
Indeed.
This happened in the town where my parents live.
Tesco wanted to build a supermarket.
There were lots of objections. Nobody wants it, no-one will use it, etc.
And now it is open, they all go there.
Same here, although the rot set in a lot earlier when the council hiked
up the pay & display charges and made the town far more "car unfriendly"
with wierd one-way systems and pedestrianisation of roads and less
on-street 30 minute parking. So rather than pop into town in the car, I
found it easier to pop to the supermarket.

Maybe when Tesco find out about the shops on Voyagers, they'll muscle in
on those too :-)
Pyromancer
2005-07-02 15:49:44 UTC
Permalink
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as matt
Post by matt
Maybe when Tesco find out about the shops on Voyagers, they'll muscle
in on those too :-)
Gives a whole new meaning to "Tesco Metro". :-)

NP: Hammerfall - Templars Of Steel.
--
- Pyromancer Stormshadow.
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk <-- Pagan Gothic Rock!
http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk <-- Electronic Metal!
http://www.revival.stormshadow.com <-- The Gothic Revival.
Stephen Hughes
2005-07-03 10:46:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt
Same here, although the rot set in a lot earlier when the council hiked
up the pay & display charges and made the town far more "car unfriendly"
with wierd one-way systems and pedestrianisation of roads and less
on-street 30 minute parking. So rather than pop into town in the car, I
found it easier to pop to the supermarket.
Similar in Stockport. Most parking is quid a shot which if you just
want to call in somewhere for 5 minutes to pick something up isn't
really acceptable. New developments (Peel Centre, Tesco etc) are at the
'other end' of Stockport from the bus and railway stations so for many
the car to the supermarket is the only real sensible option.

Doesn't help either that Stagecoach are bumping up the minimum fare -
something like 85p now I believe - so if you only go short distances and
don't travel on a daily basis (so it's cheaper to buy a weekly) then it
soon gets expensive.

There was talk about running a town centre circular shuttle bus but
that seems to have died off - killed I believe by complaints from the
market that they would no longer be able to have stalls outside St
Mary's as it would run that way. The same market that when I went on
Friday did have a stall on that road but didn't need to as there was
plenty of unoccupied space on the market itself where they could have
had it and kept a very useful cross-town road open... I wonder if they
actually considered the possibility that by having a bus running 'past
the door' (so to speak) they'd get *more* trade...
Duncan
2005-07-03 12:01:29 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 15:24:25 +0000 (UTC), matt
Post by matt
Maybe when Tesco find out about the shops on Voyagers, they'll muscle in
on those too :-)
Tesco are moving in on the local convenience market having brought out
One Stop and AdminStore (Europa, Harts and Cullens). I'm surprised in
a way that they haven't made a move into stations yet, but I think the
high rents put them off from these locations.

Duncan
Tony Polson
2005-07-03 20:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duncan
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 15:24:25 +0000 (UTC), matt
Post by matt
Maybe when Tesco find out about the shops on Voyagers, they'll muscle in
on those too :-)
Tesco are moving in on the local convenience market having brought out
One Stop and AdminStore (Europa, Harts and Cullens). I'm surprised in
a way that they haven't made a move into stations yet, but I think the
high rents put them off from these locations.
It is not only the high rents ...

It has been announced that The Station Shop at Haddenham & Thame
Parkway Station (Chiltern Line) has announced it will close on 21 July
2005. Apparently this is because Chiltern Railways (the lessor) wish
to apply a clause to the lease which means The Station Shop (the
lessee) has to pay the lessor 10% of shop turnover. Since some items
such as mobile phone top-ups carry a retail margin of less than 10%,
the shop would have become unviable. As the 10% clause was a
condition of any new lease, the shop has had to announce closure.

http://www.thametoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=1388&ArticleID=1053754
Martin Underwood
2005-07-03 20:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Polson
Post by Duncan
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 15:24:25 +0000 (UTC), matt
Post by matt
Maybe when Tesco find out about the shops on Voyagers, they'll muscle in
on those too :-)
Tesco are moving in on the local convenience market having brought out
One Stop and AdminStore (Europa, Harts and Cullens). I'm surprised in
a way that they haven't made a move into stations yet, but I think the
high rents put them off from these locations.
It is not only the high rents ...
It has been announced that The Station Shop at Haddenham & Thame
Parkway Station (Chiltern Line) has announced it will close on 21 July
2005. Apparently this is because Chiltern Railways (the lessor) wish
to apply a clause to the lease which means The Station Shop (the
lessee) has to pay the lessor 10% of shop turnover. Since some items
such as mobile phone top-ups carry a retail margin of less than 10%,
the shop would have become unviable. As the 10% clause was a
condition of any new lease, the shop has had to announce closure.
http://www.thametoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=1388&ArticleID=1053754
Serves Chiltern right: by becoming too greedy they've lost both the 10%
rake-off and the rent. Shame that the customers are affected though. Maybe
the lessee could set up a mobile van in the car park ;-)

If I know I'm going to want anything to eat/drink on a train I always make
sure I buy my own beforehand, because food/drink from railway station shops
are horrendously overpriced. When I went to the Motor Show last year I took
my own sandwiches and 2-litre bottle of 7 Up for the same reason: the food
outlets at the NEC are a real rip-off.

It's a shame that there isn't a shop nearby: the nearest ones are either
going to be in the centre of Haddenham or in Thame.
Duncan
2005-07-03 21:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Underwood
Serves Chiltern right: by becoming too greedy they've lost both the 10%
rake-off and the rent. Shame that the customers are affected though. Maybe
the lessee could set up a mobile van in the car park ;-)
If this is the station car park they would need permission from
Chiltern and probably yet another fee to pay. This is similar to taxis
that need a permit to collect fares from major stations.
Post by Martin Underwood
If I know I'm going to want anything to eat/drink on a train I always make
sure I buy my own beforehand, because food/drink from railway station shops
are horrendously overpriced. When I went to the Motor Show last year I took
my own sandwiches and 2-litre bottle of 7 Up for the same reason: the food
outlets at the NEC are a real rip-off.
Judging by the volume of people in the station WHSmith, Boots and M&S
store plenty don't forward plan or purchase on impulse. At least the
prices here are cheaper than those from the on-board trolleys or
buffet.
Post by Martin Underwood
It's a shame that there isn't a shop nearby: the nearest ones are either
going to be in the centre of Haddenham or in Thame.
As the article mentions this profit sharing rent agreement is normal
practice for station operators, in return the lease holders may get
exclusive rights to certain product categories within the station. For
example where present, WHSmith are normally the only stockists of
newspapers and magazines within a station.

Duncan
Duncan
2005-07-03 21:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Polson
Post by Duncan
Tesco are moving in on the local convenience market having brought out
One Stop and AdminStore (Europa, Harts and Cullens). I'm surprised in
a way that they haven't made a move into stations yet, but I think the
high rents put them off from these locations.
It is not only the high rents ...
It has been announced that The Station Shop at Haddenham & Thame
Parkway Station (Chiltern Line) has announced it will close on 21 July
2005. Apparently this is because Chiltern Railways (the lessor) wish
to apply a clause to the lease which means The Station Shop (the
lessee) has to pay the lessor 10% of shop turnover. Since some items
such as mobile phone top-ups carry a retail margin of less than 10%,
the shop would have become unviable. As the 10% clause was a
condition of any new lease,the shop has had to announce closure.
I understand it is normal practice for station and airport rents to
include a turnover linked element. However I understand that the
percentage paid is normally defined by product category to take into
account product areas such as tobacco or phone top-ups which have a
lower profit margin.

Duncan
DB.
2005-07-03 22:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Polson
It has been announced that The Station Shop at Haddenham & Thame
Parkway Station (Chiltern Line) has announced it will close on 21 July
2005. Apparently this is because Chiltern Railways (the lessor) wish
to apply a clause to the lease which means The Station Shop (the
lessee) has to pay the lessor 10% of shop turnover. Since some items
such as mobile phone top-ups carry a retail margin of less than 10%,
the shop would have become unviable. As the 10% clause was a
condition of any new lease, the shop has had to announce closure.
This 10% of turnover for the tenancy of shops, etc. on railway
stations may well be traditional. My great-grandmother, Mary Ann
Felton, was the licensee of the refreshment rooms on Oldham Clegg St.
station (Oldham, Ashton & Guide Bridge Jct. Rly.) from 1880. Minute
932, dated 9th January 1880, of the Board of Directors of the OA&GB
records that it was resolved "that she be given the tenancy at a rental
based upon the principle of ten per cent of the gross receipts, with a
minimum rental of £70 per annum".
To put this £70 in perspective: my g/g/f, Thomas Felton, was S/M at
Clegg St. during the years 1863-80. Minute 571 of the Company dated
10th
February 1875 records:
"In consideration of the important duties performed by Mr Felton, who
acts for both Companies in the Goods as well as the Passenger
Department, his salary was ordered to be increased from £150 to £170 per
annum from the 1st ultimo."
(The term “both Companies” refers to the MSLR and the LNWR, who were the
joint owners of the OA&GB, both utilising Clegg Street station).
--
DB.


.
Tony Polson
2005-07-03 23:07:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by DB.
Post by Tony Polson
It has been announced that The Station Shop at Haddenham & Thame
Parkway Station (Chiltern Line) has announced it will close on 21 July
2005. Apparently this is because Chiltern Railways (the lessor) wish
to apply a clause to the lease which means The Station Shop (the
lessee) has to pay the lessor 10% of shop turnover. Since some items
such as mobile phone top-ups carry a retail margin of less than 10%,
the shop would have become unviable. As the 10% clause was a
condition of any new lease, the shop has had to announce closure.
This 10% of turnover for the tenancy of shops, etc. on railway
stations may well be traditional. My great-grandmother, Mary Ann
Felton, was the licensee of the refreshment rooms on Oldham Clegg St.
station (Oldham, Ashton & Guide Bridge Jct. Rly.) from 1880. Minute
932, dated 9th January 1880, of the Board of Directors of the OA&GB
records that it was resolved "that she be given the tenancy at a rental
based upon the principle of ten per cent of the gross receipts, with a
minimum rental of £70 per annum".
To put this £70 in perspective: my g/g/f, Thomas Felton, was S/M at
Clegg St. during the years 1863-80. Minute 571 of the Company dated
10th
"In consideration of the important duties performed by Mr Felton, who
acts for both Companies in the Goods as well as the Passenger
Department, his salary was ordered to be increased from £150 to £170 per
annum from the 1st ultimo."
(The term “both Companies” refers to the MSLR and the LNWR, who were the
joint owners of the OA&GB, both utilising Clegg Street station).
Fascinating stuff, thank you!
Roger T.
2005-07-03 23:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Has the repair work started yet and does anyone have any photos?


--
Cheers
Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
Patrick Hearn
2005-07-02 17:25:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Splett
Post by asdf
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:04:28 +0100, "Ronnie Clark"
They don't "have to" prove anything to the public. The public did not
and do not get a say in whether the Tesco gets built.
Time for a change of government then. The government is supposed to
represent the wishes of the people, and if so many people in Gerrards Cross
are against the store being built then permission should never have been
granted.
Typical New Labour arrogance, once again.
Government for all the people, not necessarily what a particular local
community might want. Otherwise, for example, CTRL would never have gone
through.

Provisions for appeals against local planning refusal go back, AFAIR, to the
1940s and the Town & Country Planning Act. Without it, there would be no
redress for planning applicants who had permission refused (be it for a
supermarket or, on thread, a station extension or loco shed) due to what
they perceived to be capricious, biased or corrupt planning authorities.
Without some form of appeals process, BANANAs* would rule

There is a further appeal - Judicial Review - if the Sec of State overrules
(or fails to overrule) a local planning decision.

None of this is party political. I'd go further and say that if any Sec of
State refuses a Tesco they'd have to have a cast iron defence under local
plans and Planning Guidance Rules, bearing in mind it'd end up in Court.

If what you say is that local decisions (such as Tesco in Gerrards Cross)
should stay local, I agree with you and therefore the present system needs
changing, but I would argue that national issues such as CTRL should stay
national and that would override local concerns.

Tangentially, there are draft proposals to change the planning processes.
This is because:

(1) the number of planning appeals has risen from a couple of hundred to c.
50,000 (again, AFAIR) and elected representatives (Government ministers) no
longer can make the decisions - civil servants do; and

(2) the process can go to 10 years or so (Heathrow T5)

PH

*Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything
Roger T.
2005-07-02 18:24:48 UTC
Permalink
"Patrick Hearn"
Post by Patrick Hearn
If what you say is that local decisions (such as Tesco in Gerrards Cross)
should stay local, I agree with you and therefore the present system needs
changing, but I would argue that national issues such as CTRL should stay
national and that would override local concerns.
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."


--
Cheers
Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
Richard J.
2005-07-01 14:59:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronnie Clark
Post by Brimstone
Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
Post by TheOneKEA
Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
It will be interesting to see what they do this weekend when
Marylebone is closed, that's providing they don't get the tunnel
open again in time. I doubt many passengers would want to travel
with chiltern after this!
Why? This isn't Chiltern's fault - they deserve full plaudits for
getting through services restored and coachitution running as
rapidly as they did.
I was referring to the paranoia going through peoples heads about
it crashing down again when its re-opened. You know how
passengers think!
Surely such paranoia is the result of *not* thinking?
Well... In this case, I think such paranoia is fully
understandable. It's not as if it was SUPPOSED to collapse the
first time round, was it? Unless the structure is altered to make
it look much stronger (even if it actually isn't), I think a lot of
people will always be in fear of this tunnel from now on.
I'm not sure that's borne out by other examples of collapses during
construction. For example the box girder bridge on the A329(M), now
A3290, at Loddon Bridge near Reading. That collapsed during
construction, killing at least one of the workers, but I've never heard
of anyone expressing any fears about using it, and I lived within a mile
of it for 25 years.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)
tony sayer
2005-07-01 16:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard J.
I'm not sure that's borne out by other examples of collapses during
construction. For example the box girder bridge on the A329(M), now
A3290, at Loddon Bridge near Reading. That collapsed during
construction, killing at least one of the workers, but I've never heard
of anyone expressing any fears about using it, and I lived within a mile
of it for 25 years.
Two TV masts have collapsed over the years. Emley moor in Yorks came
down one March night as did the 1000 footer at Waltham, but they did it
again and their still there, and the one at Emley moor was replaced by a
concrete structure thats still standing and is now a listed building!...

For the real anoraks among us:)

http://tx.mb21.co.uk/emley/index.asp
--
Tony Sayer
Ken Ward
2005-07-01 23:52:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by tony sayer
Post by Richard J.
I'm not sure that's borne out by other examples of collapses during
construction. For example the box girder bridge on the A329(M), now
A3290, at Loddon Bridge near Reading. That collapsed during
construction, killing at least one of the workers, but I've never heard
of anyone expressing any fears about using it, and I lived within a mile
of it for 25 years.
Two TV masts have collapsed over the years. Emley moor in Yorks came
down one March night as did the 1000 footer at Waltham, but they did it
again and their still there, and the one at Emley moor was replaced by a
concrete structure thats still standing and is now a listed building!...
By how many degrees?

KW (close to Winter Hill)
tony sayer
2005-07-02 08:21:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Ward
Post by tony sayer
Post by Richard J.
I'm not sure that's borne out by other examples of collapses during
construction. For example the box girder bridge on the A329(M), now
A3290, at Loddon Bridge near Reading. That collapsed during
construction, killing at least one of the workers, but I've never heard
of anyone expressing any fears about using it, and I lived within a mile
of it for 25 years.
Two TV masts have collapsed over the years. Emley moor in Yorks came
down one March night as did the 1000 footer at Waltham, but they did it
again and their still there, and the one at Emley moor was replaced by a
concrete structure thats still standing and is now a listed building!...
By how many degrees?
KW (close to Winter Hill)
Ah yes!, a red rose man;)....
--
Tony Sayer
BH Williams
2005-07-01 22:07:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard J.
I'm not sure that's borne out by other examples of collapses during
construction. For example the box girder bridge on the A329(M), now
A3290, at Loddon Bridge near Reading. That collapsed during
construction, killing at least one of the workers, but I've never heard
of anyone expressing any fears about using it, and I lived within a mile
of it for 25 years.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)
That was one of a series of catastrophic failures of box-girder bridges at
around the same time IIRC- there was one at Milford Haven and another one in
Australia (not sure, but I believe the same firm of consulting engineers was
involved in all of them). The technology was tweaked, and subsequently such
bridges are common world-wide.
Brian
Tony Polson
2005-07-02 00:28:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by BH Williams
That was one of a series of catastrophic failures of box-girder bridges at
around the same time IIRC- there was one at Milford Haven and another one in
Australia (not sure, but I believe the same firm of consulting engineers was
involved in all of them). The technology was tweaked, and subsequently such
bridges are common world-wide.
Yes, there was Milford Haven and Yarra (Australia). There was also a
later failure at the Erskine Bridge over the River Clyde.

All the failures occurred during construction. The bridges were
adequately designed by the standards of the day for the loads they
would carry when completed. But the additional stresses during
erection were more than the box girders could take.

This was a new application of the technology and the learning curve
was steep. The designers were not to blame, but the overall lack of
expertise of the bridge construction industry in a new technique
caused problems. Later box girder bridges were designed with a
stronger bias towards catering for stresses during construction, which
made them heavier than needed for their eventual purpose.

The firm of consulting engineers deserves the highest praise, for
without their advances in box girder construction, today's ultra-long
span bridges would be impracticable. The firm was Freeman Fox and
Partners, and the engineer whose name will always be linked with the
long span bridges of the late 20th century (1960s onwards) was the
late Sir Ralph Freeman. Freeman Fox became part of Acer, and was
lately owned by Welsh Water.

In future years, engineering historians will place Ralph Freeman's
name on high, along with those of Isambard Brunel, Thomas Telford,
James Rennie, Robert and George Stephenson, Thomas Newcomen and
Richard Trevithick, Blind Jack of Knaresborough and others.
Chippy
2005-07-03 21:45:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Polson
Yes, there was Milford Haven and Yarra (Australia). There was also a
later failure at the Erskine Bridge over the River Clyde.
All the failures occurred during construction. The bridges were
adequately designed by the standards of the day for the loads they
would carry when completed. But the additional stresses during
erection were more than the box girders could take.
There were certainly some motorway box-girder bridges erected that
required remedial action after being inspected in the light of the
various collapses.

IIRC the work involved the fitting of stressing cables inside the box
section. Presumably those bridges were not adequately designed for the
loads after completion.
Tony Polson
2005-07-03 23:16:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chippy
Post by Tony Polson
Yes, there was Milford Haven and Yarra (Australia). There was also a
later failure at the Erskine Bridge over the River Clyde.
All the failures occurred during construction. The bridges were
adequately designed by the standards of the day for the loads they
would carry when completed. But the additional stresses during
erection were more than the box girders could take.
There were certainly some motorway box-girder bridges erected that
required remedial action after being inspected in the light of the
various collapses.
IIRC the work involved the fitting of stressing cables inside the box
section. Presumably those bridges were not adequately designed for the
loads after completion.
True, and that is precisely why I took care to include the words "The
bridges were adequately designed by the standards of the day for the
loads they would carry when completed.". With experience, it became
clear that the designs needed to be strengthened, and the Merrison
Committee was established to make recommendations.

Of course it didn't help that, as the knowledge base expanded, lorries
were also getting heavier and heavier. A subsequent revisiting of the
design rules for box girders for these larger lorries made a very
different set of recommendations, and those bridges that were
strengthened under the Merrison rules had to be done all over again.

I have no personal experience of bridge design, but the impression I
get is that Sir Ralph Freeman, the Merrison Committee and the people
who drafted the current design rules all had their own, differing
approaches to design. It is said that Sir Ralph was unconvinced by
the apparent need to revisit designs that had performed
satisfactorily, but even he had to concede that the increase in lorry
gross weights had to be catered for. There are only a very few people
who really understand box girder behaviour and design, and Sir Ralph
was - without doubt - the man who understood it best.
Tony Polson
2005-07-01 22:37:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard J.
I'm not sure that's borne out by other examples of collapses during
construction. For example the box girder bridge on the A329(M), now
A3290, at Loddon Bridge near Reading. That collapsed during
construction, killing at least one of the workers, but I've never heard
of anyone expressing any fears about using it, and I lived within a mile
of it for 25 years.
The Loddon Bridge disaster was demonstrated to be something that could
only occur during construction. The bridge was adequately designed
for its eventual use by the standards of the day.

It was insufficiently strong only while part complete. This was
explained to the public hence no need for alarm when using the
finished structure.

I hope that the Gerrards Cross tunnel will prove to be a similar
situation.
Stephen Furley
2005-07-02 07:02:51 UTC
Permalink
Tony,

I think you are correct here. Obviously something went badly wrong;
the tunnel wasn't intended to collapse. While we don't yet know what
that something was, it could have been a failure of detailed design, or
construction, or materials, it was not a failure of concept. Building
an arch and filling in above it is basically a sound concept; arches
have thousands of years of well-proven service.

Once the cause is known, knowing how to re-build safely should be a
fairly minor matter. It will cause a serious delay to the opening of
the store, and I wouldn't even want to think about what the cost will
be, but let's just be thankful that nobody was hurt; it could have
been very much worse if there had been a train in the tunnel.
Joe
2005-07-01 18:08:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by TheOneKEA
Why? This isn't Chiltern's fault - they deserve full plaudits for
getting through services restored and coachitution running as rapidly
as they did.
Well, I phoned them up today and was told "a normal service is
operating from Banbury - Aylesbury, sir," only to find that they are
not at all.

"Thank you for calling Chiltern Railways
press 1 if you think our staff are rude
press 2 if you think our trains smell of piss
press 3 if you think Cath Proctor should have rotten vegetables thrown
at her
press 4 if you think our staff are liars
press 5 if you think Adrian Shooter should return as the MD
press 6 if you think ARRIVA should have won the franchise
press 7 if you want to be put on hold for 20 minutes, only to then get
through to a person to tell you blatant lies"
Ross
2005-07-01 21:18:07 UTC
Permalink
On 1 Jul 2005 11:08:02 -0700, Joe wrote in
<***@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, seen in
uk.railway:

[...]
Post by Joe
"Thank you for calling Chiltern Railways
press 1 if you think our staff are rude
press 2 if you think our trains smell of piss
press 3 if you think Cath Proctor should have rotten vegetables thrown
at her
press 4 if you think our staff are liars
press 5 if you think Adrian Shooter should return as the MD
press 6 if you think ARRIVA should have won the franchise
press 7 if you want to be put on hold for 20 minutes, only to then get
through to a person to tell you blatant lies"
Compare and contrast what was being said about Chiltern by a poster
calling himself Joe in the days when Thames Trains were the target of
all his venom.

Amazing how some people's views change, innit?
--
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Chippy
2005-07-03 21:38:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ross
On 1 Jul 2005 11:08:02 -0700, Joe wrote in
[...]
Post by Joe
"Thank you for calling Chiltern Railways
press 1 if you think our staff are rude
press 2 if you think our trains smell of piss
press 3 if you think Cath Proctor should have rotten vegetables thrown
at her
press 4 if you think our staff are liars
press 5 if you think Adrian Shooter should return as the MD
press 6 if you think ARRIVA should have won the franchise
press 7 if you want to be put on hold for 20 minutes, only to then get
through to a person to tell you blatant lies"
Compare and contrast what was being said about Chiltern by a poster
calling himself Joe in the days when Thames Trains were the target of
all his venom.
I very much doubt that that is Joe's work. The spelling and literacy
are far too good. It's probably something that has been doing the
rounds, and which appealed to him.
asdf
2005-07-01 17:01:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
It will be interesting to see what they do this weekend when Marylebone
is closed, that's providing they don't get the tunnel open again in
time.
They could run the trains over the usual diversionary route via
Aylesbury (with the 2 reversals), but terminate them at
Harrow-on-the-Hill for Met connections to Baker Street.

They probably could (if they were insane) still run trains through to
London, using the route Birmingham - Princes Risborough (reverse) -
Aylesbury (reverse) - Amersham - Dollis Hill(ish) (reverse) - Sudbury
Hill Harrow - West Ruislip (reverse) - Northolt - Paddington :)
David Splett
2005-07-01 18:08:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by asdf
They probably could (if they were insane) still run trains through to
London, using the route Birmingham - Princes Risborough (reverse) -
Aylesbury (reverse) - Amersham - Dollis Hill(ish) (reverse) - Sudbury
Hill Harrow - West Ruislip (reverse) - Northolt - Paddington :)
Surely running direct from Aynho Junction to Paddington via Reading would be
a better option? I guess it would need special crewing arrangements, though.
Joe
2005-07-01 18:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Splett
Surely running direct from Aynho Junction to Paddington via Reading would be
a better option? I guess it would need special crewing arrangements, though.
First Great Western Link run a service from Banbury to London
Paddington, via that route and it will remain as normal. Lots of people
trying to avoid Chiltern also travelled on my train from Reading to
Banbury (Virgin Trains), who did Padd-Reading.
Are Virgin and Central / Silverlink accepting CH tickets
Birminhm-London?
Joe
2005-07-01 18:39:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Splett
Surely running direct from Aynho Junction to Paddington via Reading would be
a better option? I guess it would need special crewing arrangements, though.
I think that route is pretty full enough & First Great Western Link run
a service from Banbury to London Paddington, via that route and it will
remain as normal. Lots of people trying to avoid Chiltern also
travelled on my train from Reading to Banbury (Virgin Trains), who did
Padd-Reading.
Are Virgin and Central / Silverlink accepting CH tickets
Birminhm-London?
Peter Masson
2005-07-01 20:20:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
Post by David Splett
Surely running direct from Aynho Junction to Paddington via Reading would be
a better option? I guess it would need special crewing arrangements, though.
I think that route is pretty full enough & First Great Western Link run
a service from Banbury to London Paddington, via that route and it will
remain as normal. Lots of people trying to avoid Chiltern also
travelled on my train from Reading to Banbury (Virgin Trains), who did
Padd-Reading.
Are Virgin and Central / Silverlink accepting CH tickets
Birminhm-London?
Easements Virgin Trains, Silverlink County, First Great Western, First Great
Western Link and London Underground will pass Chiltern tickets until further
notice

When Bicester to Aynho was closed for redoubling, Chiltern did run a few
trains through to Paddington via Oxford, but usually tied their train on to
a TT 166 between Oxford and Paddington. They can't tie a Clubman to an
Adelante, and they won't get a Main Line path from Didcot to Paddington, as
a Clubman can't keep up with FGW and FGWL's 125 mph trains. Advice for
Birmingham passengers is to use VWC, and for Leamington and Banbury
passengers to use VXC to Reading, then FGW or FGWL.

It seems that Chiltern are running a shuttle between Princes Risborough and
Seer Green - presumably single line working between High Wycombe and Seer
Green, as I don't think there are any crossovers. For Little Kimble, Monks
Risborough, Denham Golf Club, Kings Sutton, Hatton and Lapworth it seems to
be a case of press the Passenger Help button, and we'll send a taxi for you.

Peter
Paul Harley
2005-07-02 13:27:16 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 07:26:49, Guy Gorton
Post by Guy Gorton
If I can get to the station at any time, I will add more pictures of
the collapse taken through the tunnel, but at the moment not even the
station staff are allowed in - only the taxis which are run from an
office at the station.
Perhaps the most expedient way of getting to the station would be to
hire a taxi? ;-)

Paul Harley
--
Remove "eeek" to contact me!
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...