Cast Iron Services Ltd, are a small UK company, based in Burton-on-Trent. The Group has a turnover of £13 million and a workforce of 50 people. The company is involved in the manufacture and sales of drainage products. To help develop an efficient drainage system for bridge decks, thus prolonging bridge life, we embarked on a collaborative research project under the LINK scheme.

  After we had established the need for a research project, we assessed several potential partners before deciding upon the University of Birmingham. On discovering the true costs of the research from the university staff, they suggested that the work might be innovative enough to be covered by the LINK scheme. This was the first we had heard of the LINK scheme. Our reasons for deciding to participate were twofold. Firstly, without the extra financial support, we as a small company would not have been able to fund the work. Secondly, since the main ultimate Client for the end product was the Highways Agency, we felt that the involvement of the Department of Transport in this project would be beneficial.

  In collaboration with the university staff, we found the process of contacting LINK, completing application forms, etc, to be very straightforward. The LINK staff were very helpful at all stages. Thus, we found that our application was successful.

  Our objectives from the research were to develop a new bridge drainage system, which would overcome the established problems of existing systems. These included poor hydraulic performance, liability to silting up, leakage problems and strength issues. The result of our involvement with LINK and the University of Birmingham is that we met all of the above objectives. The product developed is the most hydraulically efficient on the market, is self cleansing and has virtually leak proof joints.

  The impact that LINK has had on our company is difficult to assess. It has no doubt enabled us to bring to the market a well engineered and tested product. It has also for the first time in this country meant that for this type of bridge drainage, that engineers can design on the basis of the real capability of a system, rather than those put forward by the manufacturer. It has also opened our eyes to the value of Research and what can be achieved by collaborative ventures.

  The problem is the market place, not the LINK scheme. We have spent a great deal of money, as well as valuable staff time on this development, only to find that most engineers do not want to know. They are prepared to continue to accept the claims of manufacturers of untested systems and hence units which may not meet the hydraulic requirements are being used on site. Most of the time engineers specify a box with dimensions x, y and z and assume that all boxes of the same size will give the same performance. The research project showed this to be a fallacy. On a recent project, our new system was rejected on the basis of unit colour, while another untested system was accepted because of its colour. Arguments about hydraulic performance, leakage and possible silting up were ignored. On many other jobs, we have lost out narrowly on price to systems which if they had been rigorously tested would have been shown to not have the capacity for the job.

  Our overall assessment of the LINK scheme is very favourable. If we ever found the need to carry out research in the future, we would look towards LINK for assistance. From start to finish the staff have been very helpful and have always made themselves available to provide advice and assistance. Our area of concern is more to do with the dissemination of the findings and how research findings are dealt with generally. The results of projects like this one should be taken up by relevant organisations, like the Highways Agency, so that they can be incorporated into national standards, etc.

  Thus, we are very happy with the findings and outcome of our collaborative research with the University of Birmingham, under the auspices of LINK. We are very unhappy with what has happened since. It is good to market and sell a product that you know performs its function efficiently and for which you have hard data. However, it is all pointless if designers and clients do not implement research findings. If we had known that this would be the outcome, we would not have spent our money in this way. It would have been better commercially, to optimize the design of a box of similar proportions to our competitors and then sell it at a market price. We would undoubtedly have made more profit. The only people to lose are the bridge owners who continue to get hydraulically inefficient units with leakage and silting problems.

19 January 1999