16-08-2017, 11:24 AM
A quick reply. First comments is I do not feel there is enough of an answer for parts B and C. A technique is spend on minute per mark.
Overall, the response does not really deal with safety. For example, the length of possession does not necessarily affect the risk of overrun. The workload planned does and having a suitable reversion strategy with spare slots to recover is a suitable mitigation.
It could be considered that small stages is a riskier strategy based. With a prolonged closure, the new equipment, if it is being replaced, can be built/installed and tested before the track changes take place. There would be no changes to the equipment, just connecting and testing. Small changes require more effort (manpower, logistics) and frequent modifications to the existing. There is a higher risk of unintended consequences (wire deg, old kit), errors (not to modern standards) etc.
The questions asks for the two approaches to be directly compared. WOuld expect a three column table, rahter than five,
* Risk
* Big Bang
* Stages.
For example,
Risk - complexity
Big Bang - Easier to manage as one team and continuous work over a short period, domain knowledge.
Stages - Duration likely to be far longer, loss of critical staff, domain knowledge lost.
Feel free to PM me but am not sure the question has been answered sufficiently and from a Mod 1 perspective.
Jerry
Overall, the response does not really deal with safety. For example, the length of possession does not necessarily affect the risk of overrun. The workload planned does and having a suitable reversion strategy with spare slots to recover is a suitable mitigation.
It could be considered that small stages is a riskier strategy based. With a prolonged closure, the new equipment, if it is being replaced, can be built/installed and tested before the track changes take place. There would be no changes to the equipment, just connecting and testing. Small changes require more effort (manpower, logistics) and frequent modifications to the existing. There is a higher risk of unintended consequences (wire deg, old kit), errors (not to modern standards) etc.
The questions asks for the two approaches to be directly compared. WOuld expect a three column table, rahter than five,
* Risk
* Big Bang
* Stages.
For example,
Risk - complexity
Big Bang - Easier to manage as one team and continuous work over a short period, domain knowledge.
Stages - Duration likely to be far longer, loss of critical staff, domain knowledge lost.
Feel free to PM me but am not sure the question has been answered sufficiently and from a Mod 1 perspective.
Jerry
Le coureur