SVR-Online Forum (Secure) Forum Index SVR-Online Forum (Secure)
The forum is run on a voluntary basis for members, volunteers and SVR enthusiasts.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Winter infrastructure projects: 2015 onwards
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SVR-Online Forum (Secure) Forum Index -> General Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Stato



Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 547
Location: Here there & everywhere

PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cherry_p wrote:
Stato wrote:
Further look at the Amey web site tells me they have a rail group. Surley these people should have led the SVR project & not their water people?
but nearly all the job in this case is water pipes; we removed the track, and will replace it ourselves, not Amey. I don't see that Amey's rail expertise would be at all relevant.
and that is precisely the logic where I see the project failed to deliver on time.

If the Amey rail group had led the project with the Amey water group doing the pipe work and reporting into the Amey rail group the SVR would not be involved at all. Why is the SVR involved in removing & replacing the track anyway? Surely if Amey want to disturb our track then do they not have a legal duty to return it to operational use in the same state as it was before they started work? It would be nice to understand why this did not happen?
_________________
Cheers
Stato (staying anonymous for personal reasons)
Life member of this mad planet.
Professional coffin dodger.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bryan Clarke



Joined: 12 Jan 2011
Posts: 236
Location: Shropshire

PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess we are where we are. IF there is no substantial penalty clause in the contract for non completion on an agreed date, then something is very seriously amiss. I hope there is some clarification on the situation fairly soon. The compensation element should be significantly more than just lost revenue, it should include the all important good will element of our customers.

One of the continuing problems in dealing with heritage railways, is their refusal to accept penalty clauses for engineering contract work. The fact that they will not enter into an agreement to compensate for failure to deliver on an agreed date themselves, leaves one wondering.

In the professional's world, a substantial element of the profit margin of most Civil Engineering companies is decided on who wins the endless legal battles between client, civil engineering company and contractor.

I guess until the position is confirmed, we just have to hope that everything is in order.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
michaelh



Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 932
Location: Droitwich Spa

PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bryan Clarke wrote:
I guess we are where we are. IF there is no substantial penalty clause in the contract for non completion on an agreed date, then something is very seriously amiss. I hope there is some clarification on the situation fairly soon. The compensation element should be significantly more than just lost revenue, it should include the all important good will element of our customers.

One of the continuing problems in dealing with heritage railways, is their refusal to accept penalty clauses for engineering contract work. The fact that they will not enter into an agreement to compensate for failure to deliver on an agreed date themselves, leaves one wondering.

In the professional's world, a substantial element of the profit margin of most Civil Engineering companies is decided on who wins the endless legal battles between client, civil engineering company and contractor.

I guess until the position is confirmed, we just have to hope that everything is in order.


English Law does not recognise "Penalty Clauses" - Liquidated Damages are reclaimable - but these are limited to losses actually incurred, not penalties to "punish" non-performance.
_________________
Michael Howard
Heritage Railways supporter since 1968
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rob-S



Joined: 09 Mar 2009
Posts: 98
Location: Bewdley P/Way

PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="StatoWhy is the SVR involved in removing & replacing the track anyway? Surely if Amey want to disturb our track then do they not have a legal duty to return it to operational use in the same state as it was before they started work? It would be nice to understand why this did not happen?[/quote]

It wasn't just the section of track above the pipes that were replaced. A few lengths north have also been relaid with "new" ballast, sleepers & rail [which will be welded]. I would think that If we wanted Amey to replace track which was not affected by their pipeline project, the SVR would have to pay them to do it.
_________________
Rob Steward - Bewdley P/Way

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rob-33/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cherry_p



Joined: 17 Sep 2003
Posts: 1991
Location: Solihull

PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As I understand it, the contract is between Severn Trent Water [not Amey] and the SVR. It's down to ST to manage their contractor.
Any compensation agreement is between ST and SVR.
As far as goodwill is concerned, I think the visitors yesterday understood the situation, and in the circumstances, went away reasonably [and sometimes very] happy.
I don't know why so many of you seem to think there isn't a compensation clause of some sort in the contract -- we certainly will be receiving quite a bit from ST. I don't know [or would expect to know] the details.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bryan Clarke



Joined: 12 Jan 2011
Posts: 236
Location: Shropshire

PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess the legalize term would be 'breach of contract'. To the layman this would be simply understood as a penalty clause. This is a contract between two or more parties where there is an agreement to compensate for any real loss incurred by the contract over running. Even these often end up in court, as there will be an effort to prove that the penalty agreed is unenforceable because it can be interpreted as a 'penalty' (not related to true loss) clause or was as a result of a third parties actions. I am not in the legal profession, but have observed large sums of money being transferred from one bank account to another on the outcome of such case.

I await the opinion of our legal advisors !
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Simon G



Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 238
Location: Kidderminster

PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob-S wrote:
[quote="StatoWhy is the SVR involved in removing & replacing the track anyway? Surely if Amey want to disturb our track then do they not have a legal duty to return it to operational use in the same state as it was before they started work? It would be nice to understand why this did not happen?


It wasn't just the section of track above the pipes that were replaced. A few lengths north have also been relaid with "new" ballast, sleepers & rail [which will be welded]. I would think that If we wanted Amey to replace track which was not affected by their pipeline project, the SVR would have to pay them to do it.[/quote]

and surely they would only replace what they took out, whereas SVR have decided to replace with new.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Danny252



Joined: 01 Oct 2009
Posts: 1198

PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cherry_p wrote:
I don't know why so many of you seem to think there isn't a compensation clause of some sort in the contract -- we certainly will be receiving quite a bit from ST. I don't know [or would expect to know] the details.


Quite so, especially as one of the previous NBIs (or other updates, perhaps) has already explicitly stated the SVR and STW would be in discussions about compensation for lost revenue and inconvenience to passengers.
_________________
Daniel Evans
Tea drinker and brass polisher
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrmover



Joined: 31 Jan 2007
Posts: 887
Location: Shropshire

PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stato wrote:
cherry_p wrote:
Stato wrote:
Further look at the Amey web site tells me they have a rail group. Surley these people should have led the SVR project & not their water people?
but nearly all the job in this case is water pipes; we removed the track, and will replace it ourselves, not Amey. I don't see that Amey's rail expertise would be at all relevant.
and that is precisely the logic where I see the project failed to deliver on time.

If the Amey rail group had led the project with the Amey water group doing the pipe work and reporting into the Amey rail group the SVR would not be involved at all. Why is the SVR involved in removing & replacing the track anyway? Surely if Amey want to disturb our track then do they not have a legal duty to return it to operational use in the same state as it was before they started work? It would be nice to understand why this did not happen?


What everyone should remember is that this is a commercial contract arranged by Severn Trent. It involves water infrastructure work and railway infrastructure work. It so happens that the railway infrastructure work is on our railway, and as such the railway has an input as to who the contractors are to undertake that aspect of the work. I am sure that this will all be covered in the Wayleave Agreement signed between Birmingham Corporation and the Great Western Railway when the pipes were first installed.

The railway will have previously advised the charges for severing and reconnecting the line, and will be glad, I am sure, for being given the opportunity of renewing or upgrading that section of line at someone else's cost. They will also be glad for the ability of renting out the car park at Bewdley for the duration, for hiring wagons and locomotives and anything else that has been provided. This is, as I have pointed out, a commercial contract.

What none of us are happy about is the delay in handing back the line, but as Pete Cherry has alluded to, the contract has penalty clauses, and I have no doubt that these will be enforced.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Danny252



Joined: 01 Oct 2009
Posts: 1198

PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 9:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrmover wrote:
What none of us are happy about is the delay in handing back the line


And I dare say I've got the impression that STW were also quite unhappy to find out about the delay as late as they did, despite their contractor's continued assurances.
_________________
Daniel Evans
Tea drinker and brass polisher
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Derby4



Joined: 21 Mar 2009
Posts: 1860

PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

True, there has been much discussion about compensation, penalty clauses and the like, but for those of us who are not a party to the internal communications, the "NB's" that working members see, then Pete's posting yesterday was the first confirmation as far as I can see that penalty clauses are in place. That's fine, we now know the situation, end of discussion!
Lets just look foreward to the full-line reopening very soon, and "back to normal". The weather forecast for the next few days looks reasonable, so hopefully the rest of half-term will see good numbers of visitors. Me included.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hearn_p



Joined: 15 Nov 2003
Posts: 5849

PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SVRLive Update: Monday 16/02/15 08:00
Quote:
Severn Trent and their contractor signed the site back to us at 3:00pm on Saturday 14th.
Our Permanent Way department are working hard to stabilise the trackbed over the new Elan Valley pipes, so the special timetable will apply again today.
We'll post further updates later today.


NBI 09:44

Quote:
Amey contractors are helping with the ballasting operation this morning with the track panels due to be put down this afternoon.


Patrick

P.S. As an aside, and further to comments above about using Amey to reinstate the line, the commentary on SVRLive on 12/02 said (my emphasis):

Quote:
PW (with assistance from the contractors) have been proactive in relaying the track back towards the gap from the north end in order to reduce track reinstatement time to a minimum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hearn_p



Joined: 15 Nov 2003
Posts: 5849

PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Update: Monday 16/02/15 13:24
One track panel laid - one to go!!!

http://www.svrlive.com/Pages/default.aspx

Svrlive Twitter @svrlive 21 minutes ago
Quote:
The final push is on to close the gap at Trimpley - one track panel down, one to go! http://www.svrlive.com .


For those with access to the password protected SVROnline there is also an update log on the bottom right of the main page with a 1330 update from Phil Brown

Patrick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hearn_p



Joined: 15 Nov 2003
Posts: 5849

PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Train Services from Tuesday 17th February
Our Permanent Way department are about to close the gap in the track at Trimpley.
We will be running a standard service tomorrow.

(Updated Monday 16/02/15 16:15)

And, at 18.19 - SVROnline:

Quote:
​The P way team and Signalling maintenance have been out all day and have laid the final rail. The Railway is whole again. There will be ballasting tomorrow morning but we will be operating full line again although a speed rectriction will apply over the newly laid track.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cherry_p



Joined: 17 Sep 2003
Posts: 1991
Location: Solihull

PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

and the [presumably!!] final one:

Monday 18h30

​The P way team and Signalling maintenance have been out all day and have laid the final rail. The Railway is whole again. There will be ballasting tomorrow morning but we will be operating full line again although a speed restriction will apply over the newly laid track.​
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SVR-Online Forum (Secure) Forum Index -> General Forum All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 7 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Hosting and mangement compliments of Yellow Arrow