Eighteen LU trains damaged at Farringdon...
 

"Colin" wrote in
:


"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:26:57 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

woutster wrote:

In the case of Metronet SSL, the one year "honeymoon period" has
not even lapsed. I'll come out of the closet now and say that I do
work for the above mentioned company, albeit on the stations side.
From what I have heard from someone directly invovled, is that the
work that was being done was on behalf of a contractor of LUL.

Work on the infrastructure being done by a contractor of LUL rather
than a contractor of Metronet SSL? Surely that's not way PPP is
supposed to work, is it?

But not everything being provided on the LUL network is provided by
the Infracos. Remember there are several PFI contractors which were
signed in advance of PPP to provide ticketing (Prestige), power and a
new radio network (Connect). There is also a PFI for British
Transport Police accommodation and plenty of other day to day
contracts for stationery, consultants, property maintenance for
offices etc etc etc. --
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Later reports stated that it was Balfour Kilpatrick who were working
as sub-contractors to Metronet.

Colin



Balfour Kilpatrick were installing 10,000 volt lines as sub to Metronet
as sub to Connect PFI as contractor to LUL. Now with whom does the
responsibility rest?

woutster

Eighteen LU trains damaged at Farringdon...
 

woutster ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Balfour Kilpatrick were installing 10,000 volt lines as sub to Metronet
as sub to Connect PFI as contractor to LUL. Now with whom does the
responsibility rest?

Easy.

It's all Ken's fault.

Eighteen LU trains damaged at Farringdon...
 

Adrian wrote:
woutster ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Balfour Kilpatrick were installing 10,000 volt lines as sub to
Metronet as sub to Connect PFI as contractor to LUL. Now with whom
does the responsibility rest?

Easy.

It's all Ken's fault.

Errrrrmmm, no. He was fighting to stop PPP rememeber?

Eighteen LU trains damaged at Farringdon...
 

Cast_Iron ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Balfour Kilpatrick were installing 10,000 volt lines as sub to
Metronet as sub to Connect PFI as contractor to LUL. Now with whom
does the responsibility rest?

Easy.

It's all Ken's fault.

Errrrrmmm, no. He was fighting to stop PPP rememeber?

But, but, but......
*EVERYTHING* is Ken's fault, isn't it?
I'm confused now...

Eighteen LU trains damaged at Farringdon...
 

"Adrian" wrote in message
. 1.4...
Cast_Iron ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Balfour Kilpatrick were installing 10,000 volt lines as sub to
Metronet as sub to Connect PFI as contractor to LUL. Now with whom
does the responsibility rest?

Easy.

It's all Ken's fault.

Errrrrmmm, no. He was fighting to stop PPP rememeber?

But, but, but......
*EVERYTHING* is Ken's fault, isn't it?
I'm confused now...

Do you mean as in "Ken's got a very responsible position. It doesn't matter
what happens, he's responsible"?

Eighteen LU trains damaged at Farringdon...
 

"woutster" wrote in message
40.11...

Balfour Kilpatrick were installing 10,000 volt lines as sub to Metronet
as sub to Connect PFI as contractor to LUL. Now with whom does the
responsibility rest?

woutster

Surely LUL's contract is with Connect PFI. They can delegate part or all of
the work to a sub-contractor, but not the responsibility. Any remedies LUL
might have in law are with Connect PFI, irrespective of who their
sub-contractor is. Compare with purchase of a house - your contract is with
the builder - not his subs...

PMS