The disappearing Crossrail opening date

Construction projects still typically employ analogue leaders in a digital age

Mega transport projects are almost always fraught with delays and cost overruns because of the often inappropriate governance and leadership.  Inappropriate leadership – really ? Surely they’re run by Captains of Industry with huge experience and many letters after their names ?  But the leadership is most often bound up with the management of high budget, and perceived high risk items, such as tunnelling with Tunnel Boring Machines (TBM) – the so called “bricks and sticks” – often 80%+ of the budget.

Another day at the TBM office (here for the SuperSewer)

Appointments like these often address last century’s problems, a bit like taking over a British Leyland production line, only to discover that it’s now staffed by strike-free 🔗 German-made robots, seemingly little delayed by the pandemic, at least here in Hammersmith. These elements are significantly lower risk than they once were, because of such mechanisation and associated technologies, engineered processes, resulting in tighter controls and more repeatability “at the coalface”, even though still beloved of TV documentaries with some false jeopardy added to spice them up.  Still, documentaries do serve a valuable purpose in illustrating the point – the operator at the controls of the TBM deep underground is using a computer keyboard, mouse, several screens, a desk phone, with not a shovel in sight.

To re-purpose a phrase from the last decade, these projects still typically employ analogue leaders in a digital age.  It’s commonly assumed that the “backroom boys” will sort of the hidden techie stuff – keep out of the detail.  WRONG!  This is where the risks are nowadays, in signalling and other heavily software-based systems, sometimes poorly designed code, frequent legacy issues, often clunky low-performance or de-facto interfaces (sometimes as simple as on/off dry contacts, AKA electromechanical relays, or their software equivalent “control points”), logical “gotchas” and subsequent system integration problems.

The issue is peculiarly amplified in railways, where proven operational safety is expected, yet a lot of what could provide that – 100% reuse of existing proven designs, robot style, ironically more akin to a modern tunnelling process – allowing the project to focus solely on what must be changed, is in this environment, swamped by commercial, time, perceived risk, or political pressures to use this supplier or that solution. This results in yet another bespoke railway with the inelegant compromises that Heath Robinson would recognise.  Amplifying the misconception that the project is some sort of smooth production-line shown in the plans, the term “production design” is regularly misused, whereas the earlier compromises mean the endeavour has unwittingly become a “prototype design” – the approach to building a unique prototype like Crossrail or HS2 vs. a production design for 1000, or 100,000 units a year are rather different – your scribe has done all three.

Future leaders should present their software engineering credentials at the door

Old Oak development area

Henry Peterson of the 🔗Old Oak Neighbourhood Forum and Grand Union Alliance – whose planning knowledge has been invaluable to local groups such as our affiliate 🔗St. Helens R.A. in the past – spotted that developers were seeking increases in height to approved planning permissions by means, not of a new planning application, but through a technical route using 🔗Sections 96A and 73 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 to seek minor material amendment approval, to “optimise” a planning consent. The amendments in question are often by no means minor and should warrant a new planning application.

This route has been used in a permission for North Kensington Gate (South) on Scrubs Lane where the developers have sought to increase the approved height of the development from 19 to 22 storeys, and the housing units by 20%. The Society and others have opposed the application as the planning context has dramatically changed from the original permission, where  intensive development was envisaged on that side of the area – now no longer part of the development plan following the exclusion of the Car Giant site – and with significant public transport additions planned via a new Overground station at Hythe Road – also no longer on the agenda, partly because of the many pressures on TfL finances.

The results of the consultation on the future of Linford Christie stadium, situated on Wormwood Scrubs, have been published. 🔗The results are startling: over 80% of respondents appear to support Option 3, the 45,000 seat sports stadium and event space. Of some 8,700 responses received, 4,159 came from Greater London excluding LBHF, suggesting that 🔗the big push from QPR to encourage supporters to respond in favour of a major sports stadium was successful, QPR would then expect to relocate there.

The Hammersmith Society has supported the views of the 🔗Friends of Wormwood Scrubs that a development on this scale is simply not compatible with the character and use of the Scrubs and would place a completely unfeasible burden on local infrastructure (transport, road access, impact on neighbouring Hammersmith hospital). We understand that many people would like to see QPR stay in the Borough, but it should not be at the expense of the quality of life of local residents or the character of an open space of London-wide importance. Our response to the Council can be read here:

Hammersmith Society – response to Linford Chrtistie Stadium Proposals.pdf

The next step is for the Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Trust (of which the sole trustee is LBHF Council) to review the consultation results in detail and set up an Outline Business case to look at next steps.

Click on the newsletter image to open the pdf 

The Special 20-page Anniversary Newsletter has been published, celebrating 30 years of Hammersmith Society Awards. Printed copies are being distributed to subscribing members.

The Council has launched a 12-week consultation on the future of Linford Christie Stadium at the edge of Wormwood Scrubs here. The present stadium is dilapidated but heavily used by Thames Valley Harriers athletics club and other local groups. the options offered are:

• Do nothing – but the council says it is not viable;
• Improve existing facilities, probably in partnership with a sponsor, such as Imperial;
• A major redevelopment with up to 45.000 seats, accommodating a sports and entertainment venue as well as athletics tracks.

Wormwood Scrubs Pony Centre (photo: © David Hawgood)

This will be a highly charged debate with competing demands. On the one hand, H&F Council like all other councils is facing a severely squeezed budget. On the other, Wormwood Scrubs is a green lung for west London with a special character that has been described as “more wild than tamed” . Placing a 45,000 seat sport and entertainment venue at its very edge will bring huge numbers of people to a place which is used and valued for quiet recreation, low-key amateur sports, dog-walking and bird watching, and its designated Local Nature Reserve areas. 

The Hammersmith Society’s response to the consultation is here: 

Hammersmith Society – consultation response.pdf

Old Oak HS2 station (image updated post-exhibition launch)

A number of exhibitions are being held across the borough this month concerning the design of the HS2 station at Old Oak, which is at the heart of the OPDC area. This is the major interchange between HS2 and The Elizabeth Line (Crossrail), due to be the busiest interchange in the UK after London Waterloo.

The architects are WilkinsonEyre and let us hope they come up with a design which measures up to the importance of the project.

Details of times and locations are shown in the diary with links to maps – the first event is today, 5th February.