prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 22, 2006 0:06:37 GMT
Wouldn't the issue of who pays lie with who wanted such a feature? If Metronet insist on using their own design then they have to provide something that is viable. Meanwhile if LU put something in their specification then they need to have thought through it all in the feasibility. But of course PPP is about who has the best lawyers. Not into rolling stock so excuse me ignorance but that's what I'd expect in a civil engineering contract. Pretty much 'nail on the head' stuff there mate! The PPP has some weird elements that I don't pretend to fully understand. The use cases, for example, incentivise the Infracos to provide certain features not included in the PPP contract for additional financial reward. They provide a feature not in the PPP and we score it on an agreed scale, the higher they score the more money they get. Basically with the rolling stock, if we want a feature not included in the contract (out of scope) then they give us a price and we build a business case for that feature. |
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Jul 22, 2006 0:10:32 GMT
Like 92/95TS was only going to have one half life overhaul,but because the trains are already falling apart,they've had to go for a 9 year overhaul cycle.Sorry,but if S stock quality is anything like the Cl222's on MML,then the depot staff are going to be kept pretty busy.Don't forget,92TS was built at the same factory the S stock is going to be built at and what a heap of c**p that turned out to be.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 22, 2006 0:15:15 GMT
Everyone's saying Metronet/Tubelines do this or that,but what happens in 2030?PPP finishes then,by rights everything infrastructure should revert back to LUL/TfL.I would have thought things should be done to what LUL/TfL want as they'll still be around after PPP. Thats not how the contract works. |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 22, 2006 0:21:15 GMT
Like 92/95TS was only going to have one half life overhaul,but because the trains are already falling apart,they've had to go for a 9 year overhaul cycle.Sorry,but if S stock quality is anything like the Cl222's on MML,then the depot staff are going to be kept pretty busy.Don't forget,92TS was built at the same factory the S stock is going to be built at and what a heap of c**p that turned out to be. I don't have any control over any of that, I can't change what has happened in the past. Also, I'm am not really sure what the point your making is. LU, Metronet, and all the associated contractors (WRSL/BTUK etc) work together as much as possible in order to have a final product which meets all our needs. Are the new trains going to be perfect? No. Is the system in place perfect? No. Can any of us change where we are in terms of the PPP contract? No. Can we achieve world peace? I really hope so!  All we can really do is work within the confines of the contract and try our best to achieve the best product. We don't just pluck ideas out of the air and implement them without any joined up thinking. All the relevant parties try hard to understand eachothers needs and reach a suitable solution. |
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Jul 22, 2006 0:23:45 GMT
Correct me if I'm wrong,but the PPP contracts are only for 30 years.It was said by the politicians when the scheme was proposed that after 30 years everything would revert back to the ownership of LUL or it's sucessors so that in effect PPP is only a 30 year lease on LUL's assets.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 22, 2006 0:27:01 GMT
No, that sounds about right to me. Although what will actually happen in 30 years is anyone's guess, especially as the politicians who forced PPP through will be dead. Ultimately though, on VLU and SSR (the projects I have sight of) we are working to get the best solution for the railway. Not just for the next 30 years but the next 50. We aren't carrying out upgrades that self destruct at the 30 year mark.
My 'it's not how the contract works remark' reffered to the fact that LU just can't dictate all our requirements onto the Infraco's because they hand them back in 30 years. the contract is laid out and we work within it.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Jul 22, 2006 0:32:15 GMT
Maybe that's where I part company with you,I've been with LT/LUL long enough to remember when LT went to a builder and said "this is what we want,build it"now it seems to have swung completely the other way,the builders say "this is what you're getting,like it or lump it"I suppose what I'm really trying to say is there hasn't really been a decent stock since D78 and I don't think there ever will be again while the contractors have so big a say in what goes on.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Jul 22, 2006 1:02:01 GMT
These trains are not going to have huge down time, they go defective they get fixed and re-enter service. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I admire your optimism ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Everyone's saying Metronet/Tubelines do this or that,but what happens in 2030?PPP finishes then,by rights everything infrastructure should revert back to LUL/TfL.I would have thought things should be done to what LUL/TfL want as they'll still be around after PPP. Hmmm, sounds similar to what I was getting at in the 09 stock thread. |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 22, 2006 10:36:51 GMT
Maybe that's where I part company with you,I've been with LT/LUL long enough to remember when LT went to a builder and said "this is what we want,build it"now it seems to have swung completely the other way,the builders say "this is what you're getting,like it or lump it"I suppose what I'm really trying to say is there hasn't really been a decent stock since D78 and I don't think there ever will be again while the contractors have so big a say in what goes on. I'm not sure we do 'part company' actually. I'm not saying that PPP is right or that it's the best solution, I'm just saying that this is where we are for various reasons and we just have to try and make the best of it. That's why System Upgrades exists, in order to ensure that the engineers and the Infraco's receive suitable operational input. We certainly aren't being dictated to by the Infraco's though, they have to operate within the constraints of the contract and adhere to our standards. |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 22, 2006 10:38:29 GMT
These trains are not going to have huge down time, they go defective they get fixed and re-enter service. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I admire your optimism ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Everyone's saying Metronet/Tubelines do this or that,but what happens in 2030?PPP finishes then,by rights everything infrastructure should revert back to LUL/TfL.I would have thought things should be done to what LUL/TfL want as they'll still be around after PPP. Hmmm, sounds similar to what I was getting at in the 09 stock thread.It's not optimism, it's a knowledge that cancelled trains cost the Infraco's cash. The Infraco's are there to make money and simply won't allow trains to sit idle whilst their profits go down the drain. |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Jul 22, 2006 14:07:21 GMT
I'm a train operator - whenever I hear that faulty trains are fixed prior to entering service, I can't help but smile ;D |
|
|
|
Post by CSLR on Jul 22, 2006 14:17:54 GMT
I'm a train operator - whenever I hear that faulty trains are fixed prior to entering service, I can't help but smile ;D The old trick used to be mark it up as NFF and stick it back in service to see if anyone else reported it. At some depots (in the past), this was virtually standard practice for 'flats'. |
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Jul 22, 2006 14:41:34 GMT
I'm a train operator - whenever I hear that faulty trains are fixed prior to entering service, I can't help but smile ;D The old trick used to be mark it up as NFF and stick it back in service to see if anyone else reported it. And if the number of reports became embarrasing for the depot staff the Defect Card got changed. |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 22, 2006 15:26:57 GMT
Like it or not, there are some aspects of PPP that work. I think the issue around defects is one area where we have seen a positive.
The old change the trouble card or just whack down NDF trick doesn't really work anymore. If they don't fix a fault then it just keeps coming out of service and the Infraco get abated. They may get away with it once, but then when a unit keeps coming out for the same fault it is picked up at the regular abatement meetings and they get charged accordingly.
I can't speak for other stocks/lines but I know that the mean distance between failures for 'C' stock has really improved since the introduction of PPP. I'm not supporting the PPP, but there are some aspects that are positive - you can't condemn the whole process.
|
|
|
|
Post by stanmorek on Jul 22, 2006 16:29:01 GMT
Maybe that's where I part company with you,I've been with LT/LUL long enough to remember when LT went to a builder and said "this is what we want,build it"now it seems to have swung completely the other way,the builders say "this is what you're getting,like it or lump it"I suppose what I'm really trying to say is there hasn't really been a decent stock since D78 and I don't think there ever will be again while the contractors have so big a say in what goes on. The modern trend for high value construction contracts is the sharing of risks by client and contractor. The client specifys what he expects the contractor to provide in terms of performance specifications and special features or caveats without going into exact detail. How the contractor goes about delivering these expections is at his own risk. I believe parts of the PPP is based on this, for example the Journey Time Capability model. If it was entirely LU's design and it didn't meet expectations then they would either accept it as it is or or pay out extra for improvements as Metronet have done exactly what they were asked to do. If Metronet design and build something that doesn't match up to the performance criteria that all parties signed up to then they pay to correct these defects. |
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Jul 22, 2006 17:22:43 GMT
We aren't carrying out upgrades that self destruct at the 30 year mark. But if the contract is only for 30 years, what incentive is there for the contractors to make it last a long time? They just need to make it hold together for their time "in office", after that it's "someone else's problem" and they couldn't care less about it! |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 22, 2006 21:34:34 GMT
Maybe that's where I part company with you,I've been with LT/LUL long enough to remember when LT went to a builder and said "this is what we want,build it"now it seems to have swung completely the other way,the builders say "this is what you're getting,like it or lump it"I suppose what I'm really trying to say is there hasn't really been a decent stock since D78 and I don't think there ever will be again while the contractors have so big a say in what goes on. The modern trend for high value construction contracts is the sharing of risks by client and contractor. The client specifys what he expects the contractor to provide in terms of performance specifications and special features or caveats without going into exact detail. How the contractor goes about delivering these expections is at his own risk. I believe parts of the PPP is based on this, for example the Journey Time Capability model. If it was entirely LU's design and it didn't meet expectations then they would either accept it as it is or or pay out extra for improvements as Metronet have done exactly what they were asked to do. If Metronet design and build something that doesn't match up to the performance criteria that all parties signed up to then they pay to correct these defects. I know that I said it earlier in the thread but you have 'hit the nail on the head' again!  That is exactly how it works, LU have requirements - not solutions. |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 22, 2006 21:40:33 GMT
We aren't carrying out upgrades that self destruct at the 30 year mark. But if the contract is only for 30 years, what incentive is there for the contractors to make it last a long time? They just need to make it hold together for their time "in office", after that it's "someone else's problem" and they couldn't care less about it! The incentive is that they have to meet LU standards which ensure a certain level of performance and durability. Which is exactly why LU have full involvement in the whole design process, our engineers along with the operational representatives don't miss a trick. That said however, the people that work in the Infraco's are not a bunch of faceless automatons, they are dedicated professionals. In a lot of cases they are railwaymen of long standing. Who knows what is going to happen at the end of the contract some quarter of a century away? Chances are these people will return to LU employ if they haven't retired. |
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Jul 22, 2006 23:06:58 GMT
That's as maybe,but there is the suspicion in some circles that the infracos are willing to take the hit in fines as it is cheaper than laying out cash to fix a problem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2006 10:32:40 GMT
...there is the suspicion in some circles that the infracos are willing to take the hit in fines as it is cheaper than laying out cash to fix a problem. Exactly my thinking... |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 23, 2006 15:40:09 GMT
If this were true then they would be in a position where they would not make a return on their investment. I'm not naive, I know if any company can cut a corner or two in order to increase their profits then they will but with PPP if they don't deliver or fail to meet their targets they will be abated. In addition if they don't meet their contractual requirements then LU have an option (every 7 years) to terminate the contract early, which would bankrupt them.
|
|
|
|
Post by stanmorek on Jul 23, 2006 21:33:03 GMT
We aren't carrying out upgrades that self destruct at the 30 year mark. But if the contract is only for 30 years, what incentive is there for the contractors to make it last a long time? They just need to make it hold together for their time "in office", after that it's "someone else's problem" and they couldn't care less about it! The PPP deals with this by having a requirement for 'residual life' i.e. no need for further major maintenace of assets 10 years after the contract expires. |
|
|
|
Post by stanmorek on Jul 23, 2006 21:41:41 GMT
If this were true then they would be in a position where they would not make a return on their investment. I'm not naive, I know if any company can cut a corner or two in order to increase their profits then they will but with PPP if they don't deliver or fail to meet their targets they will be abated. In addition if they don't meet their contractual requirements then LU have an option (every 7 years) to terminate the contract early, which would bankrupt them. Wouldn't think it would be enough to bankrupt these companies but their reputation would take a serious knock and may affect their chances of winning rail work contracts elsewhere. The 7 year review allows both parties to renegotiate terms. Who knows they may choose to walk away themselves. |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196 
|
Post by Tom on Jul 23, 2006 21:53:42 GMT
Wouldn't think it would be enough to bankrupt these companies but their reputation would take a serious knock and may affect their chances of winning rail work contracts elsewhere. The 7 year review allows both parties to renegotiate terms. Who knows they may choose to walk away themselves. As the Consortia are set up purely to do work for LU, having their names dragge through the mud won't affect their chances of getting other work. However, the effect on the reputation of the shareholders is a different matter. Personally, if the time ever came I would expect the consortia to pull out rather than have the contracts taken away, even if it is a last-ditch attempt to save face and their share prices. |
|
|
|
Post by stanmorek on Jul 23, 2006 22:01:26 GMT
Yes I was talking about the shareholder companies. The consortia names may fool the public for now but industry circles will know who's behind this all. However, there's plenty of rail contracts elsewhere and railways isn't the only core business for a few of them.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Jul 24, 2006 0:54:01 GMT
The thing is with some of the subbies these consortia use,there's more cowboys than in a John Wayne film,try asking some of the station side who deal with them on station renovations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2006 19:11:38 GMT
The thing is with some of the subbies these consortia use,there's more cowboys than in a John Wayne film,try asking some of the station side who deal with them on station renovations. ;D ;D ;D Look at any report on www.raib.gov.uk and you'll see the HSE/RAIB recommendations list several failures, which shock me: The look-out was not qualified/the look-out did not have a sentinel card.... Sheesh... |
|
|
|
Post by stanmorek on Jul 24, 2006 22:02:12 GMT
The thing is with some of the subbies these consortia use,there's more cowboys than in a John Wayne film,try asking some of the station side who deal with them on station renovations. ;D ;D ;D Look at any report on www.raib.gov.uk and you'll see the HSE/RAIB recommendations list several failures, which shock me: The look-out was not qualified/the look-out did not have a sentinel card.... Sheesh... Where be this quote? I thought RAIB was the arch nemesis of HMRI? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2006 22:06:58 GMT
Hang on while I check the reports again...
|
|
|
|
Post by stanmorek on Jul 24, 2006 22:10:06 GMT
The thing is with some of the subbies these consortia use,there's more cowboys than in a John Wayne film,try asking some of the station side who deal with them on station renovations. The subbies are one and the same. Metronet's supply chain arrangements see to it that they are all subsiduary companies. The one's in question must be the sub-subbies ;D |
|
