Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2007 13:45:44 GMT
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Nov 6, 2007 14:09:07 GMT
Depends how badly the Gov't DOESN'T want it on their books (as in the farce that is Network Rail). |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,772
|
Post by Chris M on Nov 6, 2007 15:45:43 GMT
I think one of the key things here is that nobody else wants it - and after seeing the mess Metronet got into can you really blame them?
|
|
|
|
Post by stanmorek on Nov 8, 2007 21:15:44 GMT
Andie Harper the new Metronet CEO came to visit the workplace and gave a short presentation. His message was that TfL will place BCV and SSL into holding companies and will continue to work to the PPP contract with LUL as the client. However, that is for the short term and the final structure is yet to be decided. Though he did express his personal preference which was that the infracos would go back into the private sector.
|
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Nov 8, 2007 23:58:29 GMT
Andie Harper the new Metronet CEO came to visit the workplace and gave a short presentation. His message was that TfL will place BCV and SSL into holding companies and will continue to work to the PPP contract with LUL as the client. However, that is for the short term and the final structure is yet to be decided. Though he did express his personal preference which was that the infracos would go back into the private sector. Which is what Gordon Brown would like, as the private sector can better manage costs ;D ;D ;D  There is a bit about it in the new Private Eye. |
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Nov 9, 2007 4:31:30 GMT
Andie Harper the new Metronet CEO came to visit the workplace and gave a short presentation. His message was that TfL will place BCV and SSL into holding companies and will continue to work to the PPP contract with LUL as the client. However, that is for the short term and the final structure is yet to be decided. Though he did express his personal preference which was that the infracos would go back into the private sector. Which is what Gordon Brown would like, as the private sector can better manage costs ;D ;D ;D There is a bit about it in the new Private Eye. Tube Lines have proved that the model works. I have seen arguments to suggest that it worked where Metronet failed due to the relative differences in number and age of assets but I simply don't believe it. I think management or lack thereof had a great deal to do with Metronet's problems, they simply weren't on top of the situation and wasted fortunes on sub contactors whereas Tube Lines made conscious efforts to reduce agency and other contract staff to improve asset maintenance and to reorganise the way things were done. I have to say that I was fiercely opposed to being sold off to Tube Lines in 2002 but within two years I had changed my opinion and I have to say that it was in many ways better than LUL had been. My thinking is that Metronet allowed old customs and practices to continue unchecked whereas Tube Lines instilled a new and worthwhile work ethic and I would be pleased as punch were I still working for them today although I am quite happy to be retired. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,772
|
Post by Chris M on Nov 9, 2007 9:29:35 GMT
Is there anything stopping the model applied by TubeLines being applied by a public sector infraco?
Metronet's problems show that the private sector isn't automatically better, but that it requires a competent management. To an outsider, there is no obvious reason why any equally competent management team must be in the private sector, and plenty of reasons why having a public assest (the London Underground network) maintained in the public sector.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2007 9:52:35 GMT
The fundamental problem with Metronet is that they gave nearly all their subcontracts to their shareholders!
They could charge Metronet what they liked, then when it went belly up they washed their hands of it and TfL had to take over the debts. The shareholders in Metronet have actually done rather well out of all this.
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Nov 9, 2007 17:13:04 GMT
The fundamental problem with Metronet is that they gave nearly all their subcontracts to their shareholders! They could charge Metronet what they liked, then when it went belly up they washed their hands of it and TfL had to take over the debts. The shareholders in Metronet have actually done rather well out of all this. Absolutely spot on! An in house InfraCo could be competently managed and before the PPP went ahead a former LT Chairman went to the Parliamentary Transport Sub Committee and said so, he was even willing to undertake the reorganisation and raise the necessary capital but his arguments were rejected out of hand by a government that wanted to wash its hands. Creating the InfraCos in the run up to PPP cost a great deal of money, multiplying common functions and facilities across the lines, downsizing engineering and throwing 100 of years of experience away by severing staff, destroying records thought to be obsolete, employing agency staff and subcontractors who had to learn from scratch while what skeleton in house staff remained had to bend over backwards to provide information without actually assisting in fault localisation and rectification. On the operating side many seasoned and experienced staff found themselves working for office boys rather than knowledgeable and experienced railway managers. Quite simply LUL was turned upon its head and in many ways the baby was booted out with the bathwater. Personally I never wanted to leave LUL and after more than 25 years in the job I found myself and my colleagues were outcasts in many ways even though we had more knowledge and experience of the railway, its rules, regulations, practices and procedures than some of the 'boys' who were running it. The lack of professionalism was very evident across the board, contractors who hadn't a clue how to do trackwork, keep the CCTV running properly, trace faulty telephone lines, repair faulty equipment or sometimes even locate equipment. Station supervisors who didn't know how to scotch & clip points, weren't aware of halon procedures on stations they were managing, bean counters for DSMs etc etc I reckon it took a couple of years for the shake up all round to bear fruit. Suddenly line organisations began to look competent again, the relationships between operating and engineering were comfortable once more as the newly roughened edges of each piece of the jigsaw that is LU were honed to a fit once again. The trouble is that it all cost money, taxpayers money and whatever the government tells Joe Public it never seems to mention that the government is paying just as much now as it ever did to keep LUL afloat one way or another. The bottom line is that the money could have been much better spent. I actually doubt whether taking Metronet back into the fold will be a loss free exercise and if the real figures are ever revealed the man in the street will be shocked but perhaps no more so than for the same levels of incompetence and mismanagement invested in Health and Education over recent years. |
|
