Understanding logic behind codes of practice key to solving rail problems
I read with concern the report “How to boost rail reliability: Hire ‘rat catchers’” (Oct 27). Let me start with the rat and codes of practice.
The rat jumped over the bus bars and caused a short circuit, even though the bars were spaced according to the code. I hope practising engineers will not take that as a free pass to overdesign beyond code requirements.
Assuming the design engineer had the foresight to space the bars further apart so that rats could not have jumped across, what about a kitten or a snake, which might have slithered over — where would this lead us?
It is always a dilemma for engineers: Play safe and overdesign, or be professional and design just right. The minimum spacing specified in the code is an electrical requirement; it has nothing to do with rats, cats or snakes.
Codes of practice are there for good reason. If not, why do senior members of the profession spend time to produce one? I am sure many a PUB senior engineer has also been involved in the production of codes.
Animal intrusion, however, was a problem the electrical designer had to handle by coordinating with the architect or structural engineer who designed the cabinet, riser or whatever housed the bars. The problem is with the people using the codes.
Some engineers do not try to understand the logic behind the requirements of a code.
They tend to follow it blindly or, as Advisor on Rail Transformation Tan Gee Paw said, meticulously, without bothering with its basic principles.
When there is an engineering problem, we tend to extenuate the fault as a management lapse. There is a belief that with clever management, bringing in good engineers is irrelevant to solving it. I suppose we want our “rat catchers” to catch rats before they jump over the bar and cause a short circuit.
What we need are capable engineers who understand basic engineering principles, who know the practical aspect of codes and who can analyse situations from the first principles of design.
We should have well-paid, competent architects and engineers to do the work and demand high standards of design, instead of paying for cleverly managed overdesign, to avoid the problems that might arise.
