|
Post by District Dave on Jul 18, 2007 13:23:53 GMT
As you will no doubt have seen Metronet has now (finally) announced it is placing iteself in administration.
The comments I heard on the mid-day news suggest to me that the track/signals/trains programmes will continue as at present - no mention was made of station upgrades, so I presume these are the matters in doubt.
IIRC the implication has always appeared to be that it was the stations that were causing the problems - for a variety of reasons - and has there not already been one restructuring to try to address this? Obviously the fix didn't work.
IMHO so long as the trains run and get replaced, the track improves and failures lesson the passengers are fairly indifferent to the stations, providing they're clean and safe. I always struggled with the apparent paranoia about getting the stations upgraded when the trains et al were still not improving - or is this just me?
|
|
|
Post by jamesb on Jul 18, 2007 14:07:06 GMT
I agree that people want to travel from a --> b as quickly and safely as possible. It is important for the stations to be clean, for all the lights to be working etc.
At Roding Valley, IMO, not a great deal came out of the refurbishment for customers: the help points are unanswered and still have stickers on them saying "information is not currently available from this help point". The ticket office is never open. The toilets are always locked and were unlikely ever to be used in the first place - placed outside the platform, at the foot of the bridge near a small secluded cul-de-sac. It looks nice, but not that different to how it was before from the customers point of view, and must have cost a fortune.
Refurbishing the stations isn't a bad thing in itself but the cost of it seems out of proportion to the benefits at some stations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2007 16:22:36 GMT
whilst listerning to a metronet wide conference call this afternoon at 2pm it basically said everything will continue to operate as it does now and everyone will be paid (i made sure this morning ) including employee's and all suplliers the same adminstrators were behind the railtrack fiasco and are now involved in metronet but this is a very long drawn out progress and things will not change overnight tom if they cut your overtime budget they might save a few million
|
|
|
Post by tubenetwork on Jul 18, 2007 16:43:45 GMT
After looking in detail of all the refurbished stations Metronet and Tubelines have done, Metronets work is of better quality than Tubelines.
This could be one of the factors as it most probably cost allot more than Tubelines would spend on an equivalent station. I do hope the continued work and quality is not effected as this would make the whole PPP scenario a waste of time and money. Bringing us back to square one!
Of course there are many other factors, which have effected the company.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,347
|
Post by Colin on Jul 18, 2007 17:18:57 GMT
Personally I thought that Metronet were quite forward thinking in some of it's upgrade plans, and often thought outside of the box, or looked at how other metro systems run things. I hope this continues if things do go back to being in-house. Trouble is, this sort of approach led to things like the rail stressing debacle. Whilst I agree it's always a good thing to be innovative, I think Metronet did get a bit carried away at times. The comments I heard on the mid-day news suggest to me that the track/signals/trains programmes will continue as at present - no mention was made of station upgrades, so I presume these are the matters in doubt. IIRC the implication has always appeared to be that it was the stations that were causing the problems - for a variety of reasons - and has there not already been one restructuring to try to address this? Obviously the fix didn't work. This is my understanding from various sources, and may not necessarily be factually correct............. The problems with the stations are that a lot of assets where not listed in the original PPP contracts. For example, Farringdon platforms were not listed! Metronet then has to maintain an asset it technically didn't know existed. This problem was repeated throughout the network, and leaves me in no doubt that when they say they were asked to do extras above & beyond the contracts by LUL, they were most likely telling the truth. But then again, if they didn't bother to question why obvious assets such as platforms were missing - well what do they expect? I wonder what Gordon Brown is thinking now....................
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Jul 18, 2007 21:33:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stanmorek on Jul 18, 2007 21:56:08 GMT
IIRC the implication has always appeared to be that it was the stations that were causing the problems - for a variety of reasons - and has there not already been one restructuring to try to address this? Obviously the fix didn't work. I think it was a case of too little too late.
|
|
|
Post by stanmorek on Jul 18, 2007 22:04:00 GMT
Today's Metronet announcement says that there is a court order that the current board stays and works with the Administrator and that Atkins et al remain the shareholders. But Ken Livingstone reckons he's going to put TfL in charge and sack all the board by the weekend!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2007 19:50:33 GMT
Noticed that the Ebay listing has been removed...
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,197
|
Post by Tom on Jul 19, 2007 22:07:37 GMT
tom if they cut your overtime budget they might save a few million I cant remember the last time I booked any O/T. Though with all the time off in lieu I'm gaining my A/L figure just keeps increasing
|
|
|
Post by stanmorek on Jul 20, 2007 21:19:37 GMT
The latest speculation I've heard on who will take on Metronet's contracts range from Tubelines shareholder Bechtel to MTR Laing.
Not that I believe any of this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2007 21:29:48 GMT
Do they know what they are getting/taking on exactly?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2007 21:32:01 GMT
Do they know what they are getting/taking on exactly? Precisely!
|
|
|
Post by stanmorek on Jul 20, 2007 22:00:23 GMT
I imagine that any new prospective owner would want the terms of the contract to be revised and so too TfL. I heard that some quarters in LUL had originally wanted to take upgrade work off Metronet and give it to an unnamed overseas contractor, leaving them with maintenance. However, I wouldn't like to see the infraco's being split up into smaller managable chunks because that would further fragment the system.
BTW Atkins shares are now going up.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Jul 20, 2007 22:51:13 GMT
Laing are planning to sell off Chiltern Rail.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2007 22:55:59 GMT
Let me guess... to Forst Grupp!
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jul 22, 2007 1:46:37 GMT
It would be very interesting if a small piece was carved off and reverted to perminant public control using Kens bonds system. I know its merely idle imagination, but if one line was actively used as a 'guinea pig' to compare the two systems it could prove invaluble in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by stanmorek on Jul 22, 2007 21:10:06 GMT
Chucking in more rumours I have heard that TfL will consider running BCV under LUL as a way of measuring the performance of the other two infracos. The question would be how fair a system this would be may be accusations of bias when it comes to agreeing to line and station closures and agreeing scope of work. Also, the issue of using shared resources like Transplant and REW.
What I see is that Metronet are so reliant on the supply chain contracts and share holder companies that I can't see how station refurbishments won't be delayed if they were to copy the Tubelines model. A handful of stations contracts were competitively tendered not too long ago but this is new territory and no can tell if it will be cheaper in the long run. If TfL do indeed intend to carry out all the work in-house then it will take time to build up a team since the infracos never had the resources to carry out this amount of work. For this reason I believe that even TfL will be contracting out the work with the Metronet shareholder companies cleaning up.
I also hear that Tubelines have tried to buy out one of their civils suppliers and do the work in-house themselves.
|
|
|
Post by stanmorek on Aug 11, 2007 11:34:35 GMT
Another Fine Mess New Civil Engineer 26 July 2007 A HASTILY arranged press conference last week brought together London Underground Limited (LUL), Metronet, and administrator Ernst & Young.
The idea was to explain what happens now that the troubled contractor in charge of upgrading two thirds of the Underground is in administration.
The answer? Well it seems nobody really knows for sure.
For passengers and Metronet staff there is not expected to be any noticeable change. The administrator is adamant it will be business as usual. But beyond this, the future is far less certain.
Already some cracks are showing between the administrator who must get the most out of what remains of Metronet and LUL, which is supplying all the extra cash to keep it afloat.
Debate is already at full tilt over the scale of Metronet's debt. It was, after all, the initial interim ruling of the PPP Arbiter's extraordinary review that kicked off the crisis. His fill review will eventually determine who should pay for the estimated £1bn-£2bn overspend racked up by Metronet.
LUL accepted this week that some of this cash was premature spend, rather than simply wasted money, ie it would have been spent at some point in the future of the 30-year contract.
But the arbiter could take a different view and, critically, decide to increase the amount of money LUL annually gives out under its PPP contract with Metronet.
Companies or consortia interested in buying Metronet's PPP contracts would want the maximum amount of cash from LUL.
As the arbiter awarded Metronet an extra £121M then arguably the company could command more than the £847M it currently receives every year.
Meanwhile, the banks and institutions holding £2bn of Metronet's debt are excited at the prospect of finally striking a deal to save their previously shaky investment. According to a member of the legal team bringing Metronet into administration, the creditors have some of the best banking brains on the project.
Meanwhile back at the sharp end, the demeanour of the three speakers at last week's press conference spoke volumes. LUL managing director Tim O'Toole was almost hyperactively loquacious, while Metronet chairman Graham Pimlott seemed defeated and exhausted, his answers monosyllabic. Perhaps daunted by mayor Ken Livingstone's previous assertion that the Metronet board would be "dead meat".
In contrast administrator Alan Bloom was relaxed and assured. He has, after all, been through all this before with Railtrack.
As he starts his work he will no doubt soon realise that the precise reasons behind how Metronet got in to this monumental mess may never be fully answered.
Of course, many saw the writing on the wall. Yet the vituperative exchanges between LUL and Metronet in the weeks and months leading up to administration did show that the contractor was working hard to turn itself around, and was showing some fight.
As one senior Metronet engineer said in the spring: "Changing Metronet is like turning an oil tanker. We are not out of it yet, but we are into the turn." Sadly, the truth seems to be that Metronet has now paid dearly for its early complacency.
Having initially been criticised for underspending, it swung suddenly, and in hindsight, catastrophically, towards a massive overspend.
Trans4m, the company set up to deliver engineering work, comprising employees of Atkins, Balfour Beatty, Thames Water and EDF on secondment, made hay on the contracts that resulted. In contrast to Tube Lines, the firm responsible for upgrading the remaining third of the LUL network, Metronet's policy was to tender all work to its Trans4m partner.
It was a policy that struggled to deliver value and Trans4m will now be broken-up.
But some of the blame for Metronet's collapse must be laid at LUL's door with inadequate contract management making an extraordinary review of the deal inevitable once any extra work was under way.
A rather too cosy relationship at the start seems to have been key to later problems.
NCE understands that relations between LUL and Metronet staff on the ground were very good.
As the job unfolded extra work would typically be asked for and carried out, but on the basis that costs could be sorted out later.
Fine in principle, but the question being asked by the arbiter in his review is would Trans4m give the best value for the work on this (untendered) basis?
Apparently, after his initial scan of the details, it did not.
A Metronet spokesperson told NCE: "We had a client that owned the asset, and they wanted it done in a particular way, so we tried to do the best we could for them." On the other hand, it seems that Tube Lines has been a stickler for the terms of the contract from day one, and has benefited from this.
The question now is over the scale of the fallout for each of Metronet's five shareholders.
There's no question that, for firms actively bidding for public contracts, the long-term effects could be disastrous. After all, walking away from such a high profile project is unprecedented and it will not just be Mayor Livingstone who remembers.
Timeline: Metronet's route to ruin
April 2003 Metronet, a consortium of Atkins, Balfour Beatty, Bombardier, EDF Energy and Thames Water, signs two contracts to upgrade the London Underground subsurface lines and the Bakerloo, Circle and Victoria Lines.
June 2004 National Audit Office raises concerns about the cost of PPP contracts, claiming the high level of uncertainty on the Tube could be reflected in higher costs.
March 2005 the public accounts committee says: "An alternative option, of public sector management of maintenance and renewal financed by bonds raised by TfL? would have allowed a simpler structure."
November 2005 LU criticises Metronet for being behind in its work.
Metronet chairman Keith Clarke, tells NCE: "We are behind and we admit that. . .
You don't turn around capital programmes on this scale in 10 minutes."
June 2006 Metronet hits Atkins' profits. LU's Peter Hendy says: "The people actually doing the work are Balfour Beatty, Atkins and the other shareholding companies. If they do not deliver?. their reputations will suffer."
November 2006 Arbiter Chris Bolt outlines an overspend of £750M in his rst annual review of the two Metronet companies.
February 2007 Transport select committee's annual report slams Metronet for, "poor performance in discharging its duties under the PPP agreement".
March 2007 Metronet opens contracts to bidders for the first time.
29 June 2007 Metronet asks for £551M, and an "extraordinary review", to decide who should pay for £1bn overspend.
16 July 2007 Arbiter awards only £121M of £551M claimed by Metronet while the extraordinary review progresses.
18 July 2007 Metronet BCV is "unable to carry out its contract and has asked the Mayor to seek the appointment of a PPP administrator", and the company concludes a similar fate for the subsurface SSL business. Ernst & Young, led by Alan Bloom, appointed administrator.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2007 16:35:20 GMT
tfl website has just listed all lines appart from the jubilee and piccadilly lines as suspended due to industerial action i feel sorry for all people who are trying to get home tonight how do the drivers get home will lul provide taxies for them if their is no other way
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2007 16:46:02 GMT
Bakerloo Suspended Central Suspended Circle Suspended District Suspended East London Suspended Hammersmith & City Suspended Jubilee Good service Metropolitan Suspended Northern Suspended Piccadilly Part suspended Victoria Suspended Waterloo & City Suspended Show on Tube map
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2007 17:16:55 GMT
tfl website has just listed all lines appart from the jubilee and piccadilly lines as suspended due to industerial action i feel sorry for all people who are trying to get home tonight how do the drivers get home will lul provide taxies for them if their is no other way Not just drivers but station and signalling staff. Most have their own transport but for those that don't and no alternative bus service/NR service available, then a taxi will be provided.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2007 17:36:41 GMT
so who is out in london now
|
|
|
Post by dunois on Sept 3, 2007 18:07:42 GMT
It is a real shame for me that's there is a strike tomorrow, since I planned a visit of London and its tube . But I have to say that I have some sympathy with the motives of the strike, in my opinion it would be better to bring back everything under a Underground ltd rather than the current system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2007 19:49:18 GMT
and now the picc is suspended between hyde park corner / uxbridge and northfields
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Sept 5, 2007 3:49:02 GMT
The current Action has been Suspended pending further talks. Depending on them, next week's may also be suspended.
However, on some lines, don't expect anywhere near a full service this morning, as a number of checks by both Metronet and LUL need to be made first.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2007 13:42:59 GMT
However, on some lines, don't expect anywhere near a full service this morning, as a number of checks by both Metronet and LUL need to be made first. Can I ask what kind of checks, for reference?
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Sept 5, 2007 16:15:19 GMT
However, on some lines, don't expect anywhere near a full service this morning, as a number of checks by both Metronet and LUL need to be made first. Can I ask what kind of checks, for reference? Technical Assurance! Is what they call it! Just making sure that all the equipment is working as it should. Plus Track Inspections and Preparing Trains for Service and the like. Its usual after engineering works and days of non-running (such as in Summer 2005.)
|
|