Match day travel. Fecking trains.

[jaffka]

So Farnworth tunnel is much tougher to get up to spec than expected. The finish date has now been put to December rather than October.

Fecks sake.

[TANGODANCER]

So Farnworth tunnel is much tougher to get up to spec than expected. The finish date has now been put to December rather than October.

Fecks sake.

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/136 ... _December/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[jaffka]

Farnworth tunnel is 276m long and, as at September 2, 45m had been excavated since tunnelling started on August 1, leaving a further 231m to go.

if I could be bothered, this could go in the angry thread

[TKIZ!]

Very angry about this. As a regular train user, especially on match days this takes the pith

[Bruce Rioja]

Farnworth tunnel is 276m long and, as at September 2, 45m had been excavated since tunnelling started on August 1, leaving a further 231m to go.

if I could be bothered, this could go in the angry thread

So, and let me get this right, without the merest hint of the equipment that modern day Civil Engineers have at their disposal, the Victorians managed to tunnel London and get it to all meet up, yet today we can't find our way through a Farnworthian hillock?!

How the feck does that work then?

[Bruce Rioja]

I just find it odd that people suddenly seem to possess PhDs/EngDs when a project delay crops up when it's "all incredibly simple".

Of course, because asking 'How the feck does that work then?' is an indicator of exactly that. Clearly.

Now then, the Victorians dug 250 miles of London, to press it's taken this lot with all their fancy gear one whole month to tunnel a mere 45 metres of Farny.

So let's do the maths here.

45 metres, that's 49 yards. Now then, there are 1,760 yards in a mile. So, at the current rate of tunneling it'll take 35.9 months per mile. It would therefor take a total of 8979.6 months to tunnel London - a total of 748.3 years.

So, whichever way you look at it, it's not going very well. And hey, I'm not claiming to be the Lucasian Professor, so no need for you to feel odd about that one either.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I know quite a few PhDs and every fecker claims to be an engineer here. More than a couple are professional know nowts, so I place little store in them there letters after a name until they prove otherwise.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Engineers discover problems. That's part of their job. I don't know how well-run the operation is, but I guess the line won't run well if half of Farnworth lands on it.

[BWFC_Insane]

Farnworth tunnel is 276m long and, as at September 2, 45m had been excavated since tunnelling started on August 1, leaving a further 231m to go.

if I could be bothered, this could go in the angry thread

So, and let me get this right, without the merest hint of the equipment that modern day Civil Engineers have at their disposal, the Victorians managed to tunnel London and get it to all meet up, yet today we can't find our way through a Farnworthian hillock?!

How the feck does that work then?

I'm not incredibly well versed in the ins and outs of the Victorian railway construction methodology, but I'm willing to bet that it took them a hell of a lot longer to tunnel and build than a few months back in the Victorian era, and under worse working conditions. They probably had less rules, regulations and safety demands to take into account too - not to take away from the impressive Victorian effort and drive to establish a national network though. The article states that upon expansion they realised that the wider ground is not stable enough for the expansion in its original plan, and this is something that would not be evident without said expansion work being carried out (again something they say in the article). I guess GPR could have been used but that's a rather coarse visualisation that depends on density variation within the ground and isn't 100% reliable or representative.

It may be a pain but I'd personally rather they delay things and do it properly than do a rush job, and this is coming from someone living next to some rail lines undergoing similar upgrades down south.

This is more of a general comment (re article comments) but I do find it interesting that projects and delays like this suddenly make everyone an armchair engineer with more insight than those in charge. Nothing wrong with having an opinion mind, even a critical one as we've all seen a stereotypical lazy workman; I just find it odd that people suddenly seem to possess PhDs/EngDs when a project delay crops up when it's "all incredibly simple".

If you'd ever had to endure the appalling rail service from Bolton to Manchester you'd probably be a bit miffed too. Thankfully I only need to use it occasionally. But in rush hour it truly is a shambles.

There was a campaign led by Bolton MPs to raise the issue in Parliament. To which David Cameron promised extra trains. To my knowledge, very little if anything happened (surprise surprise) because the incompetent Northern Rail franchise cocked things up spectacularly and moved carriages elsewhere. So the promise was unfulfilled. Then the work on the tunnel started and the trains were reduced significantly and there are no weekend trains. This was meant to last from May-October but now is going till December and even that looks like it could be a bit of an ambiguous date.

Once the work is finished it will be interesting to see if the promise of extra trains or longer trains ever actually materialises.

[Bruce Rioja]

..

[boltonboris]

feck off, don't bring me into this

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

..

Now if he'd been able to engineer things so that Boris stayed in that tunnel...

[bobo the clown]

There is a continuing trend for major projects to be understated and extended once going. To some extent "new information" is just one of those things but in some cases (I'm particularly thinking of a recent road junction improvement near my home) the projected times never seemed realistic and I contend that it was well known it was going to take longer than projected but the decision to feed the time period in small, bite-sized, pieces was taken. This stops the "how fckg long ?" outrages and by that point they're "only adding a few more weeks" and it's Hobson's choice by then anyway.

Delays were announced late and on the flimsiest of excuses. In the road junction above they actually blamed the bad winter weather ... after a winter which was uncommonly dry and almost completely without significant frost or ice. No snow whatsoever. Given that for any build known to include winter time you'd expect a contingency for some lost time so last year's actuality putting them AHEAD of time, not beyond it. Further delays occurred and reasons included unexpected ground conditions ... sound familiar ??? In the end a 5 month project (always infeasible) took 9 months.

I have no idea about the Farnworth rail tunnel. Though I would ask DSB whether it would matter WHICH half of Farnworth fell into the gaping chasm ? I can see distinct possibilities there.

I predict that December will come & go. A second delay be announced and maybe by February you can resume squeezing onto inadequately short trains again. .... and I suggest, without any evidence (as is my wont), that the contractors and possible even the tunnel authorities knew this all along.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I would ask DSB whether it would matter WHICH half of Farnworth fell into the gaping chasm ?

I'd presume the bottom half

[Bruce Rioja]

Engineers discover problems. That's part of their job. I don't know how well-run the operation is, but I guess the line won't run well if half of Farnworth lands on it.

Isn't this where sub-soil surveys and whatnot come in then? Or do they just take a pot-shot and then go "Woooooah, lads. She's a-caving in?

[CAPSLOCK]

Of course, because asking 'How the feck does that work then?' is an indicator of exactly that. Clearly.

Now then, the Victorians dug 250 miles of London, to press it's taken this lot with all their fancy gear one whole month to tunnel a mere 45 metres of Farny.

So let's do the maths here.

45 metres, that's 49 yards. Now then, there are 1,760 yards in a mile. So, at the current rate of tunneling it'll take 35.9 months per mile. It would therefor take a total of 8979.6 months to tunnel London - a total of 748.3 years.

So, whichever way you look at it, it's not going very well. And hey, I'm not claiming to be the Lucasian Professor, so no need for you to feel odd about that one either.

I thought I'd added context at the start of my last part by saying that it was a general comment - that wasn't aimed at you, and I apologise if you thought that was the case. It was a general observation that I have noticed with all project delays. I've noticed it with construction, rail projects, occasionally even in my area of scientific research - as soon as a delay is mentioned you get armchair specialists lamenting how delays are unacceptable because it's all incredibly simple.

I don't really think it's fair comparing the Victorian work (around the clock construction, forced hours, horrible conditions) to modern engineering (rules, regs, safety, policy driven). I'm not trying to take away from the Victorian era construction, there's a reason that the rail lines have lasted this long only really requiring maintenance. I'm not even saying that this shouldn't be criticised, but I don't think it's really fair comparing the two. I'm not well versed how it was all done in the 1800s, but pretty much all (engineering) projects overrun no matter how much planning goes into it. Problems come up, especially with the high safety (and other) requirements of modern engineering projects. Would you rather they ignored the unstable ground and built tracks there anyway? Personally I'm more concerned that it wasn't documented either during construction (probably not a concern at that time) or during previous maintenance or upgrades. I don't have the experience or qualifications to say otherwise, so I'll defer to the judgement of those who do and say that this delay is necessary to solve a major problem with the stability of the ground.

I'm glad to hear that your father was incredibly successful with engineering, especially in this vein, and sorry to hear that he is no longer with us but you know exactly what I meant re armchair PhDs/EngDs. Specific experience, specialism, qualifications etc - not a literal "you must have a PhD to have an informed opinion". Just take a look at the mess of the comments section on the BEN to see my slight irritation. As a slight tangent unfortunately I imagine very few people can break into engineering now without some form of further education study nowadays, but I know how much people on here hate those darned do-nothing students.

@DSB: Exactly. In part, engineers are paid to discover and provide solutions to problems.

@Insane: I used to, very frequently. I still have a passionate hatred for First trains and them only using 3 or 4 carriages at most from Piccadilly during rush hour. Sardine tin doesn't even cover it. But yeah this is only acceptable if services are improved, but I've always felt that it was more a problem with the service provider than the line itself.

I'd hope that was happening on this project

I suspect it isn't

A shame, don't you think

[Bijou Bob]

Might I suggest Plymouth for the job. He's dug a feckin great hole for himself 144 pages long in just a few months.

[bobo the clown]

Might I suggest Plymouth for the job. He's dug a feckin great hole for himself 144 pages long in just a few months.

As this is the fecking trains thread maybe Plymouth should get Mick Cash of the RMT involved.

We could borrow a few strikers then.


OK. So where IS my coat ?

[plymouth wanderer]

Jealousy does not become you!

[TANGODANCER]

Supera Moras.