The head of the private consortium charged with modernising much of
London's tube network has been sacked after a litany of complaints over
delayed station refurbishments, slow track renewals and poorly managed
maintenance.

John Weight, chief executive of Metronet, was dismissed yesterday with
an estimated payoff of £350,000, in a move which revealed grave concern
among investors about the poor performance of the government's
controversial public-private partnership (PPP) on the London Underground.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/s...459059,00.html
--
Michael Hoffman

I am no lover of the PPP's but have to say that the Underground service
is greatly improved from what it was a few years back. I commuted into
London in 1999 and again in 2001 and with the refunds for delays I got
at least one free journey a fortnight. I am working in London again now
and I haven't found the need to a single claim in.
I was slightly amazed at Ken Livingstone's and Bob Kylie's comments
though.
Do these two think that if LUL were actually running the show that the
situation would be any better. The only thing that I would say is that
without the PPP's it would be 10 times worse.
As far as I can see the only downside to the PPP's is no Steam on the
Met.
Kevin

On 14 Apr 2005 03:38:37 -0700, wrote:

I am no lover of the PPP's but have to say that the Underground service
is greatly improved from what it was a few years back. I commuted into
London in 1999 and again in 2001 and with the refunds for delays I got
at least one free journey a fortnight. I am working in London again now
and I haven't found the need to a single claim in.

It is broadly better but performance is too variable and good
performance is not being sustained. There are some truly awful and
really quite silly problems that cause huge delays. The really big
problems are that there is still not fully "joined up" thinking in the
Infracos and a lot of people are still doing the easiest and cheapest
fixes. Time and again this approach is being shown to be inadequate. The
relationship between project work and day to day delivery also needs a
huge push. If you look at the quote in the original post it is exactly
those areas that are causing the most grief.

I was slightly amazed at Ken Livingstone's and Bob Kylie's comments
though.
Do these two think that if LUL were actually running the show that the
situation would be any better. The only thing that I would say is that
without the PPP's it would be 10 times worse.

I think Mr Kiley and the American managers who have been brought in have
a radically different view on how to do things. They do not like the
loss of control that is created by having big private companies
responsible for both day to day operational issues as well as the
delivery of project based works. It would not be so bad if the risk to
the service was properly controlled within the Infracos but it isn't
(yet) and this causes massive frustration with the senior LU people who
are being hammered by the Mayor and TfL to deliver an effective service
to the public.

I am convinced that they believe they could easily run the Underground
much more effectively than the PPP arrangements and could deliver the
big project programmes to time and cost.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

As far as I can see the only downside to the PPP's is no Steam on the
Met.

Is that what's happened to it? I did wonder where it'd gone...

In message , Michael Hoffman
writes

The head of the private consortium charged with modernising much of
London's tube network has been sacked

According to the BBC yesterday he resigned:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/4437427.stm

(although he probably deserved to be sacked)

--
Paul Terry

Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Michael Hoffman
writes

The head of the private consortium charged with modernising much of
London's tube network has been sacked

According to the BBC yesterday he resigned:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/4437427.stm

(although he probably deserved to be sacked)

Quite probably it was Hobson's choice.

"Brimstone" wrote in message ...
Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Michael Hoffman
writes

The head of the private consortium charged with modernising much of
London's tube network has been sacked

According to the BBC yesterday he resigned:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/4437427.stm

(although he probably deserved to be sacked)

Quite probably it was Hobson's choice.

The letter we had on our desks the other day said it was by mutual
agreement. He's the third director to go in the last few months, all
in the same way strangely enough.

Thomas Crame wrote:

The letter we had on our desks the other day said it was by mutual
agreement. He's the third director to go in the last few months, all
in the same way strangely enough.

Followers of football will know that "mutual consent" is shorthand for
"the employee was told, resign or we'll sack you; the employee resigned."

On 14 Apr 2005 15:58:08 -0700, (Thomas Crame)
wrote:

[departing metronet directors]

The letter we had on our desks the other day said it was by mutual
agreement. He's the third director to go in the last few months, all
in the same way strangely enough.

Not strange really. It was evident that Metronet were hugely exposed and
their reputation was taking a mauling. That is when bankers and
investors start getting very nervous indeed. Certain other things have
happened that added to these problems. The people at the top have to go
when it is clear they are (a) responsible and (b) not able to secure an
improvement quickly.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Paul Corfield wrote in message . ..
On 14 Apr 2005 15:58:08 -0700, (Thomas Crame)
wrote:

[departing metronet directors]

The letter we had on our desks the other day said it was by mutual
agreement. He's the third director to go in the last few months, all
in the same way strangely enough.

Not strange really. It was evident that Metronet were hugely exposed and
their reputation was taking a mauling. That is when bankers and
investors start getting very nervous indeed. Certain other things have
happened that added to these problems. The people at the top have to go
when it is clear they are (a) responsible and (b) not able to secure an
improvement quickly.

My comment about the 'strange' departure was intended to be sarcastic,
we all know that the reputation of Metronet is pretty poor. However,
let us remember that Metronet has only been in charge for two years,
the majority of staff are ex-LU and still do not think 'The Metronet
Way'. Changing the culture that existed in while in LU control (and
carried on into the first year or so of Metronet ownership) is going
to take a long time, and no sucession of changes at the top will
affect that.

As for the comments about Tubelines not being as bad, a number of
former colleagues of mine have jumped ship there recently and more are
following. Something in the water perhaps...?