Promenade - Megathread

[CallMeCurious]

5 minutes ago, WTF said:

stage 1 is now complete    ........................

Don't give them ideas

[Ramseyboi]

2 hours ago, Gladys said:

Aren't these things signed off by building control or something similar?

No.  Just Mr Baker

[Happier diner]

12 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

There are strict regulations concerning the depths and separation of buried services. These have been arrived at through long experience, quite possibly involving a few fatalities along the way.

If anybody has actually signed off that arrangement in the picture posted above then they are a) very stupid or b) they were "leaned on" to do so and intended to retire shortly afterwards somewhere very far away. Probably sunny with a hard-standing for their wheelbarrow.

Not sure what regulations you are referring to. Not sure what is the issue in the picture. Utilities have to cross over each other. Think about it.

12 hours ago, CallMeCurious said:

Where the new buried water pipe emerges there is no tape. Likewise, where the mass of buried grey telecom ducts emerge there is no tape. Same as the black cables that snake away no tape seen where they are buried.

The whole point of the tape is that it continous along the length of the service is there to identify & protect. 

When bad workmanship is obvious in the finish of the job, then you have to ask what did they get away with where you can't see it. Time will tell. It always does.

 

Tape goes on electricity cables (always). Sometimes on other utilities. Never seen any on water pipes in my life. Even if there was it would be placed when the hole was back filled.

12 hours ago, english zloty said:

Technically under Regulations supported by HSE guidance. This provides HSE with enforcement powers. I would guess an NEC contract such as this comes with a schedule of design standards such as helpfully attached above and without a variation from the Engineer would be a breach of contract (theoretically) because HSE best practice is being compromised. 

Again. What are these regulations. It's nothing to do with the HSE is it. I honestly don't believe there are any regulations. There is best practice certainly but then that's not contractual.

The individual utilities sign off the contractors work.

What would you change in the picture? 

[Happier diner]

13 hours ago, CallMeCurious said:

https://www.manxutilities.im/media/2181/m120-typical-trench-section.pdf

Not as if there isn't a drawing or something available.

Which part of this guidance has not been complied with?

[Happier diner]

12 hours ago, english zloty said:

Technically under Regulations supported by HSE guidance. This provides HSE with enforcement powers. I would guess an NEC contract such as this comes with a schedule of design standards such as helpfully attached above and without a variation from the Engineer would be a breach of contract (theoretically) because HSE best practice is being compromised. 

https://www.haspod.com/blog/construction/construction-health-safety-regulations

None covering installation of utility services.

[CallMeCurious]

19 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

What would you change in the picture? 

Zero seperation between services, they are touching and what is with the water pipe? Presumably it'll be bent under the cable joint and over the 2nd gas pipe (can't go under unless it goes below the MT ducts underneath too? 

Taking the telecom ducts nearest, they dictate the minimum height the two crossing gas pipes are at and therefore the cables crossing the gas pipes. So it's very likely these services will be left resting one on top of the other with zero seperation. You wouldn't want to put uneccessary force on the gas connections and introduce a stress to connections.

Warning tape costs £12 for 365m roll. An ounce of prevention.  Can get them for water, sewerage, street lighting, fibre optic, traffic signals. Can even get them with metalic strip for future detection of buried services.

I imagine the cost of repairing of one damaged water main would buy enough tape to run the length of the prom. Hopefully they kept a photographic record and updated the network plans for DialB4Udig. But I doubt it. Time will tell.

Remember the gas pipe being hit in Anagh Coar years ago, turns out the gas main was shown in the road on the plan but it was in the pavement 2m away from where shown , no warning tape and too shallow. MG tried to charge for the repair until their own culpability was pointed out to them.   

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, CallMeCurious said:

Zero seperation between services, they are touching and what is with the water pipe? Presumably it'll be bent under the cable joint and over the 2nd gas pipe (can't go under unless it goes below the MT ducts underneath too? 

Taking the telecom ducts nearest, they dictate the minimum height the two crossing gas pipes are at and therefore the cables crossing the gas pipes. So it's very likely these services will be left resting one on top of the other with zero seperation. You wouldn't want to put uneccessary force on the gas connections and introduce a stress to connections.

Warning tape costs £12 for 365m roll. An ounce of prevention.  Can get them for water, sewerage, street lighting, fibre optic, traffic signals. Can even get them with metalic strip for future detection of buried services.

I imagine the cost of repairing of one damaged water main would buy enough tape to run the length of the prom. Hopefully they kept a photographic record and updated the network plans for DialB4Udig. But I doubt it. Time will tell.

Remember the gas pipe being hit in Anagh Coar years ago, turns out the gas main was shown in the road on the plan but it was in the pavement 2m away from where shown , no warning tape and too shallow. MG tried to charge for the repair until their own culpability was pointed out to them.   

Ill agree it's not the prettiest job ever seen and there are parts that are not ideal. However some of your comments about regulations are not realistic and certainly not facts.

I imagine that achieving ideal separation without having a really deep excavation is not practicable. This looks typical to me. 

The tape is a waste of time in my view. If you were excavating here you would have the advantage of accurate GPS location and construction photos but you would know that there were utilities. A bit of tape would only confirm what you already know. 

[HNWI]

I spent some time in the UK construction industry with a close affiliation to Utilities, in my experience of 25 years and more, what has been depicted in some of the pictures uploaded to this forum the workmanship shown would not pass current UK inspection standards.

Now it may well be that the island has different standards but one would hope that they would be mirroring those in the UK as Best Practice. That has obviously not happened here, firstly electrical services are normally required to be buried the deepest and underneath all other services as this gives separation and a measure of warning and protection against plant and hand tool strike when excavating at any future date. Not laid over and on top of the other services certainly at the depth shown, this defies common sense, if not the normal standards.

It would also seem that there would be a struggle to attain the minimum required cover required for any buried services from the pictures shown. The depth that the job was supposed to be excavated to in order to facilitate reconstruction should have given no excuse for this. In an ideal world, not always attainable, all services should be covered with their relevant marker tape to give warning to future excavators. Records are not always 100% accurate and in time, particularly in close proximity to a tidal environment there can be an element of change. This is a Government project and Best Practice should be 'de riguer', not an option.

That there are some contributors who would seek to justify what has been shown here by stating that there are no "regulations" for utility services installation work suggests some connection with the work which needs to be defended or simply trolling, or perhaps an element of both. It would be interesting if those contributors could state any connection to and experience and qualifications within the Utilities or construction industry?

[Numbnuts]

21 minutes ago, HNWI said:

I spent some time in the UK construction industry with a close affiliation to Utilities, in my experience of 25 years and more, what has been depicted in some of the pictures uploaded to this forum the workmanship shown would not pass current UK inspection standards.

Now it may well be that the island has different standards but one would hope that they would be mirroring those in the UK as Best Practice. That has obviously not happened here, firstly electrical services are normally required to be buried the deepest and underneath all other services as this gives separation and a measure of warning and protection against plant and hand tool strike when excavating at any future date. Not laid over and on top of the other services certainly at the depth shown, this defies common sense, if not the normal standards.

It would also seem that there would be a struggle to attain the minimum required cover required for any buried services from the pictures shown. The depth that the job was supposed to be excavated to in order to facilitate reconstruction should have given no excuse for this. In an ideal world, not always attainable, all services should be covered with their relevant marker tape to give warning to future excavators. Records are not always 100% accurate and in time, particularly in close proximity to a tidal environment there can be an element of change. This is a Government project and Best Practice should be 'de riguer', not an option.

That there are some contributors who would seek to justify what has been shown here by stating that there are no "regulations" for utility services installation work suggests some connection with the work which needs to be defended or simply trolling, or perhaps an element of both. It would be interesting if those contributors could state any connection to and experience and qualifications within the Utilities or construction industry?

Agree totally with your comments. One poster seems to be trying to defend or justify this work. I've done lots of groundworks and there is no excuse or reason whatsoever to defend this. All the clerk of works I have been involved with would never allow this never mind sign it off. Whats more the guys I worked with would never have back filled it to start with. This has all the hallmarks of shortfall on funding and time restraints. Which is no excuse when services are involved . 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Numbnuts

[Happier diner]

28 minutes ago, HNWI said:

I spent some time in the UK construction industry with a close affiliation to Utilities, in my experience of 25 years and more, what has been depicted in some of the pictures uploaded to this forum the workmanship shown would not pass current UK inspection standards.

Now it may well be that the island has different standards but one would hope that they would be mirroring those in the UK as Best Practice. That has obviously not happened here, firstly electrical services are normally required to be buried the deepest and underneath all other services as this gives separation and a measure of warning and protection against plant and hand tool strike when excavating at any future date. Not laid over and on top of the other services certainly at the depth shown, this defies common sense, if not the normal standards.

It would also seem that there would be a struggle to attain the minimum required cover required for any buried services from the pictures shown. The depth that the job was supposed to be excavated to in order to facilitate reconstruction should have given no excuse for this. In an ideal world, not always attainable, all services should be covered with their relevant marker tape to give warning to future excavators. Records are not always 100% accurate and in time, particularly in close proximity to a tidal environment there can be an element of change. This is a Government project and Best Practice should be 'de riguer', not an option.

That there are some contributors who would seek to justify what has been shown here by stating that there are no "regulations" for utility services installation work suggests some connection with the work which needs to be defended or simply trolling, or perhaps an element of both. It would be interesting if those contributors could state any connection to and experience and qualifications within the Utilities or construction industry?

Perhaps then you could tell this forum what and where these regulations are.

You make some good points though. Yes clearly they are struggling with cover here. I agree with you there. They are working on a lump of concrete. If you separated all these 4 or even 5 utilities as they cross you would be going down some 2.8m or more which would make future repair impossible. 

I am not a troll and I certainly have no connection with the disaster that is this prom scheme. 

I react when people make sweeping and over the top statements but then fail to substantiate them. 

I will ask you what you would do different in a difficult situation like this. I ask, not for mischief but for someone to explain it to the forum.

[Numbnuts]

1 hour ago, Happier diner said:

Perhaps then you could tell this forum what and where these regulations are.

You make some good points though. Yes clearly they are struggling with cover here. I agree with you there. They are working on a lump of concrete. If you separated all these 4 or even 5 utilities as they cross you would be going down some 2.8m or more which would make future repair impossible. 

I am not a troll and I certainly have no connection with the disaster that is this prom scheme. 

I react when people make sweeping and over the top statements but then fail to substantiate them. 

I will ask you what you would do different in a difficult situation like this. I ask, not for mischief but for someone to explain it to the forum.

Relay the cables for a start to seaside of the yellow gas pipe . That actually doesnt take as long as people think . In doing that you could get rid of the yellow branch kicking back at right angles coming of the main pipe and that then could be done away with and a simple straight connector run into the mains gas where the removed connection pot would have been ( clearly seen on picture with the many Electric running over it. You then would have been able to access under the main gas pipe to drop under the water (blue) supply and it would have plenty of space and nothing near to make it off more satistactory. Theres more I could say but you should get the point .

Edited November 13, 2021 by Numbnuts

[Happier diner]

3 minutes ago, Numbnuts said:

Relay the cables for a start to seaside of the yellow gas pipe . That actually doesnt take as long as people think . In doing that you could get rid of the yellow branch kicking back at right angles coming of the main pipe and that then could be done away with and a simple straight connector run into the mains gas where the removed connection pot would have been ( clearly seen on picture with the many Electric running over it. You then would have been able to access under the main gas pipe to drop under the water (blue) supply and it would have plenty of space and nothing near to make it off more satistactory. Theres more I could say but you should get the point .

I don't get the point but saying that I can't argue against what you say other than think that if it were that simple it would have been done that way.

I think that the problem is the way the whole scheme has been done.

Because they have basically worked along trying to do everything at once then everything has become compromised and of poor quality. 

I believe all the utilities should have been done first and done right with a temporary reinstatement. Once all done they could have gone back and do all the kerbs, block paving etc. Then they could have done the final tarmac and concrete works.

Because everyone is working in constrained space and and too of each other the result is the messy thing that we see in the picture. 

In my defence I merely challenged the original poster to tell me how it is illegal and also what 'strict' regulations apply. I note that some have laughed at that but further note that no one has referenced these 'regulations' yet. Neither those that laugh nor the poster.

[CallMeCurious]

2 hours ago, Happier diner said:

Ill agree it's not the prettiest job ever seen and there are parts that are not ideal. However some of your comments about regulations are not realistic and certainly not facts.

I imagine that achieving ideal separation without having a really deep excavation is not practicable. This looks typical to me. 

The tape is a waste of time in my view. If you were excavating here you would have the advantage of accurate GPS location and construction photos but you would know that there were utilities. A bit of tape would only confirm what you already know. 

Like I said time will tell. And didn't they have deep excavations down there for the Insituform refurbishment of the drains? Don't we have the technology to dig that far and do a proper job? 

Speaks to the fact this was an ill-planned and ill-run project from start to finish. Can waste literally tens of thousands of pounds on shit pink concrete, and laying and relaying granite bricks but can't spend what would be five minutes and a few hundred quid to mark services.

What harm would putting the tape down do? Delay the project by motnhs and cost millions more? An old adage ~ better looking at it than for it.

What makes you think the plans will be accurate?

A side note, why is the concrete failing? Didn't they do samples for cube tests on the batches as they arrived? Were they up to spec or was the spec inadequate? Who is paying for that mistake? Or is that just 'not ideal'?

When it comes to large gas mains and other services in the heart of Douglas "not ideal" is an understatment. I didn't quote any regulations I just referered to the DoI and utilties own requirements and recommendations. But like the erased crossing in St Johns and other such non-standard and sub-standard work it us the tax payer that pays for it when they end up re-doing it and there never seem to be any consequences for those involved.

 

   

[Non-Believer]

There seems to be a bit of a play on words going on in this debate, pivoting on "regulation" as opposed to "recommendation"? On the previous page somebody has posted the MUA's recommended depths and such for cable installation,  with a trench bottom depth of 1100mm for a paved road if I'm reading it right? Surely even these "recommendations" from the overseeing authority should have been adhered to? If that's the case then the services in the pictures aren't anywhere near that which begs the question why? And the million dollar question, would it have been approved had it been any other job?

The substrate in the picture just appears to be hardcore so it wouldn't have been difficult to dig a trench out to the right spec with modern plant? Indeed, wasn't one of the justifications for the whole job that tidal action had washed a lot of the stuff out, creating huge caverns?

[Numbnuts]

30 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I don't get the point but saying that I can't argue against what you say other than think that if it were that simple it would have been done that way.

I think that the problem is the way the whole scheme has been done.

Because they have basically worked along trying to do everything at once then everything has become compromised and of poor quality. 

I believe all the utilities should have been done first and done right with a temporary reinstatement. Once all done they could have gone back and do all the kerbs, block paving etc. Then they could have done the final tarmac and concrete works.

Because everyone is working in constrained space and and too of each other the result is the messy thing that we see in the picture. 

In my defence I merely challenged the original poster to tell me how it is illegal and also what 'strict' regulations apply. I note that some have laughed at that but further note that no one has referenced these 'regulations' yet. Neither those that laugh nor the poster.

As I said a few posts above this doesnt comply with any acceptable building practices and no Building control officer , clerk of the works , Foreman or other person in authority who I have known on sites would have allowed this and no way would they let it be backfilled until its put right. This area we are taliking about , a mixture of new and old supplies lay open for a considerable time with nothing getting done. While in itself your probably right as such that its not illegal , but it doesnt meet building control policy on so many grounds and I'm sure if anything happened and a explosion caused the supply authorities , contractors and the likes would be culpable and find themselves in court both civil and high court. A further issue is my experience the supply authorities would tell you where they wanted the trenches , depth before they put in the cables/pipes etc  and if not done to there and building control standards they wouldn't put in there supply.  

Edited November 13, 2021 by Numbnuts