In message . li
Tom Anderson wrote:

On Sat, 8 May 2010, Mizter T wrote:

On May 8, 10:45*am, Bruce wrote:

On Fri, 7 May 2010 17:38:24 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

[original thread on uk.railway]
[x-posted to ik.transport.london]

Or indeed *UK*.transport.london (as opposed to IK !)

Would ik.transport.london be restricted to discussing the GWR and the
Thames Tunnel?


I think you'd get away with adding the Metropolitan Line.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

In message
Mizter T wrote:

[snip]
Nonetheless, a bit embarrassing for Gordon Brown - though I can't
imagine he would have been petulant enough to try and block it
(indeed, it's gone through so it would seem not), not least because it
simply makes financial sense - but it'd be interesting to know if it
was somehow delayed so that it didn't come out until after the
election...

I doubt whether Brown has given it any thought at all, after all he's had
other, more inportant, things on his mind lately.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

In article . li,
says...

On Sat, 8 May 2010, Mizter T wrote:

On May 8, 10:45*am, Bruce wrote:

On Fri, 7 May 2010 17:38:24 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

[original thread on uk.railway]
[x-posted to ik.transport.london]

Or indeed *UK*.transport.london (as opposed to IK !)

Would ik.transport.london be restricted to discussing the GWR and the
Thames Tunnel?

tom

No, should also include transport by any means to that university near
Uxbridge.

On May 8, 1:00*pm, Graeme wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

[snip]

Nonetheless, a bit embarrassing for Gordon Brown - though I can't
imagine he would have been petulant enough to try and block it
(indeed, it's gone through so it would seem not), not least because it
simply makes financial sense - but it'd be interesting to know if it
was somehow delayed so that it didn't come out until after the
election...

I doubt whether Brown has given it any thought at all, after all he's had
other, more inportant, things on his mind lately.

True.

On May 8, 1:38*am, Mizter T wrote:

On May 7, 11:59*pm, Bruce wrote:

Quite a surprise except to those who knew about the negotiations:

"Tube Lines' shareholders agree £310M buyout deal with TfL

Shareholders of London Underground contractor Tube Lines have tonight
agreed a buyout deal with Transport for London (TfL) for the PPP
arrangement with a price tag of £310M.

The dramatic decision follows months of rows between the two parties
over the cost of the upgrade and maintenance of the Piccadilly,
Northern and Jubilee Lines over the next seven and a half years.

However, the parties confirmed that Amey will continue to provide
management and maintenance during that period under the existing
contract with Tube Lines and that Bechtel will remain for an interim
period to ensure a smooth transition of the capital improvement
programme into TfL."

First Metronet, now Tube Lines. *The effective end of the PPP!

Blimey - didn't see that coming, not at all!

More from Tom Edwards of BBC London:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mindthega...inning_of.html
or via http://tinyurl.com/2w8w6xx

He quite reasonably asks where TfL will find the £310 million from to
buy Tube Lines, given that TfL said they were going to struggle
finding the £400 or so million for the Tube Lines funding gap (as
determined by the PPP arbiter).

Wouldn't be a massive surprise to hear that some of the Underground
network's upgrades will be put on ice, given the already stretched
state of TfL's finances - given the state of (central govt) public
finances (which TfL is heavily reliant on), things aren't about to get
any easier any time soon.

He quite reasonably asks where TfL will find the £310 million from to
buy Tube Lines, given that TfL said they were going to struggle
finding the £400 or so million for the Tube Lines funding gap (as
determined by the PPP arbiter).

Surely TfL weren't expected to pay the £4.46bn upfront for a 7 year
programme! The £400m shortfall was on top of the £4bn TfL had budgeted
and were willing to pay for the infrastructure works. Surely the £310m
would simply come from this years payment to Tubelines for their work,
AIUI.

On May 8, 2:40*pm, "Willms" wrote:

Am Sat, 8 May 2010 11:01:06 UTC, *schrieb Paul Corfield
*auf uk.railway :

Good news indeed. *Very good news!

Well if you want to see people like me sacked then yes I suppose so.

* Why would you lose your job by this PPP thing being taken back?

My understanding is that Mr C sits on the LU side of relations between
LU and the infracos, or at the least Tube Lines. (I dunno to what
extent LU 'negotiates' with the now TfL-owned infraco formerly known
as Metronet [1] these days, IYSWIM - however I think that at least
some of the old contractual relationships continue to exist.)


Peoples' livelihoods are all wrapped up in this you know.

* A surprising statement at the end of your angry explanations that
you knew about this earlier than our dear "Bruce".

I don't see why you say that, and I don't understand what you're
trying to get at either.

It seems to me that all Paul C was doing was just pointing out that
Bruce's oft-favoured stance as self-proclaimed possessor of secretive
knowledge isn't always all it's cracked up to be.

As for me, well I'll merrily admit I know nowt about nowt

-----
[1] The legal identity of LU-owned infraco formerly known as Metronet
now being "LUL Nominee BCV Limited" and "LUL Nominee SSL Limited".

On May 8, 2:34*pm, Benamin wrote:
He quite reasonably asks where TfL will find the £310 million from to
buy Tube Lines, given that TfL said they were going to struggle
finding the £400 or so million for the Tube Lines funding gap (as
determined by the PPP arbiter).

Surely TfL weren't expected to pay the £4.46bn upfront for a 7 year
programme! [...]

Well no, of course not!

[...] The £400m shortfall was on top of the £4bn TfL had budgeted
and were willing to pay for the infrastructure works. Surely the £310m
would simply come from this years payment to Tubelines for their work,
AIUI.

That doesn't follow - the payments from LU to Tube Lines are for work
to be done. If that money is simply diverted to the current owners of
Tube Lines so as to pay for the purchase of the company (i.e. to pay
for the shares), then that money won't be available for the newly LU-
owned Tube Lines to use to pay for those works. Therefore if that
money would simply come from this years payment, then £310 million
less worth of work would be done on the relevant part of the network
(Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly lines).

However, one does rather suspect that this will contribute towards a
scaling back of the upgrade programme. Boris might well argue with the
to-be-newly installed Tory Chancellor Osbourne that this PPP mess was
not of his (or indeed his predecessors) making, but that of central
governments, and therefore they should stump up the extra cash -
indeed this is more or less what Boris has already argued with the
outgoing Labour Chancellor Darling (and whilst things were at an
earlier stage, Ken was putting forward such arguments too). However,
given the coming age of austerity, I wonder if Boris would really put
forward such an argument that strongly given the circumstances - and
if he did I suspect it would be done quietly rather than publicly
(i.e. loudhailer negotiations would be a ting of the past). That said,
it is Boris, so who knows...

(Of course all the above is in the context of there being an incoming
Tory administration of some sort, but given that that's what's going
to happen, I didn't feel the need to add any caveats in. Well, apart
from this one!)

On May 8, 1:31*pm, Mizter T wrote:

He quite reasonably asks where TfL will find the £310 million from to
buy Tube Lines, given that TfL said they were going to struggle
finding the £400 or so million for the Tube Lines funding gap (as
determined by the PPP arbiter).

Wouldn't be a massive surprise to hear that some of the Underground
network's upgrades will be put on ice, given the already stretched
state of TfL's finances - given the state of (central govt) public
finances (which TfL is heavily reliant on), things aren't about to get
any easier any time soon.

In round figures, as I understood things, when metronet went into TfL
there were direct savings of 0.5 million - 1.0 million depending who
you listed to just by eliminating the duplicated effort of 2 parties
checking each others contracts and works. Proportionately finding 310
million to take in tube lines seems about right. While the
circumstances are different - metronet was in admin and tube lines is
being brought in before (if) that happens, those costs were still
there, they were not a function of collapse but contracts admin on
both sides. At least thats how the gossip wet. The problem is one
never knows if what you get is rumour and speculation or is a leak by
someone who really doesknow the score.

--
Nick

On May 8, 2:40*pm, "Willms" wrote:

* Why would you lose your job by this PPP thing being taken back?



Because there are duplicated job functions on both sides of a contract
that oversee those contracts between the parties. Contract is no
longer needed as its all in house, job function ceases, jobs cut.


--
Nick