All congratulations to Metronet, who managed to leave the Victoria line
part-suspended for a sixth consecutive day (the third consecutive day
of engineering work overrun) this morning.

Although slightly less impressively than before, everything was more or
less sorted out by the end of the morning peak today rather than
dragging on for the whole day's service. Maybe they'll excel themselves
tomorrow.

Following on from previous threads, I'd like to propose a competition
to devise the most credibile apologia for Metronet's performance over
the last week. I'm sure there are plenty of people in these groups
well-equipped to rise to this challenge...

old joke
First prize: a weekly Z1-4 Travelcard
Second prize: a monthly Z1-4 Travelcard
Third prize: an annual Z1-4 Travelcard
/old joke

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:
All congratulations to Metronet, who managed to leave the Victoria line
part-suspended for a sixth consecutive day (the third consecutive day
of engineering work overrun) this morning.

Although slightly less impressively than before, everything was more or
less sorted out by the end of the morning peak today rather than
dragging on for the whole day's service. Maybe they'll excel themselves
tomorrow.

Following on from previous threads, I'd like to propose a competition
to devise the most credibile apologia for Metronet's performance over
the last week. I'm sure there are plenty of people in these groups
well-equipped to rise to this challenge...

old joke
First prize: a weekly Z1-4 Travelcard
Second prize: a monthly Z1-4 Travelcard
Third prize: an annual Z1-4 Travelcard
/old joke

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Makes you wonder what LUL/TfL's involvement is other that to slag
Metronet off now and again. Why doesn't LUL actually start to impose
some sanctions?

Kevin

Makes you wonder what LUL/TfL's involvement is other that to slag
Metronet off now and again. Why doesn't LUL actually start to impose
some sanctions?

Kevin

They do but a £1million fine is nowt to that lot, what TFL need is the
power to sack them, but the contracts were stitched up by one G Brown so
it would be far too expensive to do so.

Won't life be great if G Brown becomes PM!

Metronet

A partnership of five leading international companies including - inter
alia

Atkins

Balfour (Hatfield) Beatty

That's enough for me to avoid the Victoria Line for a long time into
the future

I walked out on Atkins two years ago because I couldn't put up with
their blinkered outlook and inability to resource contracts any longer.

I have been working less - for more - ever since!

Makes you wonder what LUL/TfL's involvement is other that to slag
Metronet off now and again. Why doesn't LUL actually start to impose
some sanctions?

They do but a £1million fine is nowt to that lot, what TFL need is the
power to sack them, but the contracts were stitched up by one G Brown so
it would be far too expensive to do so.

Hey, this is the private sector - they don't do risk or investment -
that's for the public sector. I read somwhere that they (Metronet)
could do absolutely nothing, no maintenance etc and would STILL get
paid.

www.waspies.net wrote:

Makes you wonder what LUL/TfL's involvement is other that to slag
Metronet off now and again. Why doesn't LUL actually start to impose
some sanctions?

Kevin

They do but a £1million fine is nowt to that lot, what TFL need is the
power to sack them, but the contracts were stitched up by one G Brown so
it would be far too expensive to do so.

Won't life be great if G Brown becomes PM!

I'd be surprised if a £1million fine PER DAY were "now't to that lot"!
That's the sort of contract that should have been established.
Moreover, th majority of the £1 million ought to be distributed to the
PASSENGERS who suffer as a result of the breaches of contract and not
just go back into T.F.L. coffers.

Clearly the likes of Balfour Beatty etc. don't like paying millions in
fines, which is presumably why they managed successfully to appeal
their recent sentence in one of their other recent disasters - was it
Potters Bar or Hatfield, I forget?

Marc.

wrote:

www.waspies.net wrote:

Makes you wonder what LUL/TfL's involvement is other that to slag
Metronet off now and again. Why doesn't LUL actually start to impose
some sanctions?

Kevin

They do but a £1million fine is nowt to that lot, what TFL need is the
power to sack them, but the contracts were stitched up by one G Brown so
it would be far too expensive to do so.

Won't life be great if G Brown becomes PM!

I'd be surprised if a £1million fine PER DAY were "now't to that lot"!
That's the sort of contract that should have been established.
Moreover, th majority of the £1 million ought to be distributed to the
PASSENGERS who suffer as a result of the breaches of contract and not
just go back into T.F.L. coffers.

As has already been pointed out, this is not the fault of TfL or the
Mayor. Ken Livingstone was strongly opposed to the PPP, but TfL did not
get control of London Underground Limited (LUL) from central government
until 2003 [1] - by which time LUL, by direction of their previously
owner HM Government, had already signed and sealed all the PPP
contracts.

As you can imagine once TfL was in charge there was a bit of a clear
out of those senior managers at LUL who'd worked on these contracts.

Nontheless, TfL does try and have a good working relationship with the
infracos (MetroNet and Tube Lines). It would appear that, especially in
the case of MetroNet, they are not rewarded for this.

This is a slightly complicated situation for the uninterested
Underground passenger to get their head around, but once you
understands it you realises it's really not Mayor Livingstone's fault -
there's not much point in blaming him for this situation. Arguably,
given his political clout (especially with central government) and his
pragmatic nature, Livingstone is perhaps the best person to have as
Mayor in order to try and sort this mess out.


Clearly the likes of Balfour Beatty etc. don't like paying millions in
fines, which is presumably why they managed successfully to appeal
their recent sentence in one of their other recent disasters - was it
Potters Bar or Hatfield, I forget?

It was with regards to Hatfield:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5149732.stm


-----
[1] BBC News story from 2003 - "Mayor takes control of Tube"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3066159.stm

I'd be surprised if a £1million fine PER DAY were "now't to that lot"!
That's the sort of contract that should have been established.
Moreover, th majority of the £1 million ought to be distributed to the
PASSENGERS who suffer as a result of the breaches of contract and not
just go back into T.F.L. coffers.


I think I'm right in saying that any fines go straight back to the
treasury, proprietor one G Brown!

wrote

Hey, this is the private sector - they don't do risk or investment -
that's for the public sector. I read somwhere that they (Metronet)
could do absolutely nothing, no maintenance etc and would STILL get
paid.

I see that LUL are suing Bombardier for GBP20 million over the Chancery Lane
derailment. Bombardier aren't best pleased, as the Central Line stock was
built by ABB, which was sold to Adtranz, and Adtranz was sold to Bombardier,
who don't see why they should take on their predecessors' liabilities.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/ar...266333,00.html

Peter

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:40:44 GMT, "www.waspies.net"
wrote:


I'd be surprised if a £1million fine PER DAY were "now't to that lot"!
That's the sort of contract that should have been established.
Moreover, th majority of the £1 million ought to be distributed to the
PASSENGERS who suffer as a result of the breaches of contract and not
just go back into T.F.L. coffers.


I think I'm right in saying that any fines go straight back to the
treasury, proprietor one G Brown!

And I would say you are entirely wrong.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!