When the much hated Metronet forecast a £2bn overspend there was much
criticism here and calls by the then mayor for Metronet to go bust. There
were calls for the super efficient Tubelines take over and do the work for
the original estimate. Where are the Metronet bashers now that Tubelines
have come in with a £1.4bn overspend.
Before anybody says well £1.4bn is less than £2bn Tubelines have 3 lines and
Metronet had 5 lines. That makes Tublines even worse than Metronet.

Kevin

"Zen83237" wrote in message
...
When the much hated Metronet forecast a £2bn overspend there was much
criticism here and calls by the then mayor for Metronet to go bust. There
were calls for the super efficient Tubelines take over and do the work for
the original estimate. Where are the Metronet bashers now that Tubelines
have come in with a £1.4bn overspend.
Before anybody says well £1.4bn is less than £2bn Tubelines have 3 lines
and Metronet had 5 lines. That makes Tublines even worse than Metronet.

probably because we've never seen such a report

do you have a link

tim

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Zen83237" wrote in message
...
When the much hated Metronet forecast a £2bn overspend there was much
criticism here and calls by the then mayor for Metronet to go bust. There
were calls for the super efficient Tubelines take over and do the work
for the original estimate. Where are the Metronet bashers now that
Tubelines have come in with a £1.4bn overspend.
Before anybody says well £1.4bn is less than £2bn Tubelines have 3 lines
and Metronet had 5 lines. That makes Tublines even worse than Metronet.

probably because we've never seen such a report

do you have a link

OK found it now

http://www.contractjournal.com/Artic...up-to-1bn.html

The reason is because this isn't an overspend for past work, it's a
negotiating position for future work

tim

On Sep 9, 10:53*pm, "tim....." wrote:
When the much hated Metronet forecast a £2bn overspend there was much
criticism here and calls by the then mayor for Metronet to go bust. There
were calls for the super efficient Tubelines take over and do the work
for the original estimate. Where are the Metronet bashers now that
Tubelines have come in with a £1.4bn overspend.
Before anybody says well £1.4bn is less than £2bn Tubelines have 3 lines
and Metronet had 5 lines. That makes Tublines even worse than Metronet..

probably because we've never seen such a report

do you have a link

OK found it now

http://www.contractjournal.com/Artic...8/tube-lines-f...

The reason is because this isn't an overspend for past work, it's a
negotiating position for future work

Yes. Also because the GBP1.4bn is what the regulator believes is the
correct adjustment given changes in the cost environment, whereas
Metronet's gap was the amount of money that it wasted above the
regulator's assessment of how much the work should have cost.

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

"John B" wrote in message
...
On Sep 9, 10:53 pm, "tim....." wrote:
When the much hated Metronet forecast a £2bn overspend there was much
criticism here and calls by the then mayor for Metronet to go bust.
There
were calls for the super efficient Tubelines take over and do the work
for the original estimate. Where are the Metronet bashers now that
Tubelines have come in with a £1.4bn overspend.
Before anybody says well £1.4bn is less than £2bn Tubelines have 3
lines
and Metronet had 5 lines. That makes Tublines even worse than Metronet.
palp
probably because we've never seen such a report

do you have a link

OK found it now

http://www.contractjournal.com/Artic...8/tube-lines-f...

The reason is because this isn't an overspend for past work, it's a
negotiating position for future work

Yes. Also because the GBP1.4bn is what the regulator believes is the
correct adjustment given changes in the cost environment, whereas
Metronet's gap was the amount of money that it wasted above the
regulator's assessment of how much the work should have cost.

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


How can the £2bn be money wasted above regulators assessment. It was future
spend. How can you waste future spend? Can soembody explain.

Kevin

On Sep 10, 7:40*pm, "Zen83237" wrote:
*How can the £2bn be money wasted above regulators assessment. It was future
spend. How can you waste future spend? Can soembody explain.

No, Metronet went bust over the money it had already spent above the
amount that the regulator deemed fair (and hence money that Metronet
couldn't recover from LU), not the money it was planning to spend.


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

"John B" wrote in message
...
On Sep 10, 7:40 pm, "Zen83237" wrote:
How can the £2bn be money wasted above regulators assessment. It was
future
spend. How can you waste future spend? Can soembody explain.

No, Metronet went bust over the money it had already spent above the
amount that the regulator deemed fair (and hence money that Metronet
couldn't recover from LU), not the money it was planning to spend.


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

"Yes. Also because the GBP1.4bn is what the regulator believes is the
correct adjustment given changes in the cost environment, whereas
Metronet's gap was the amount of money that it wasted above the
regulator's assessment of how much the work should have cost".

Metronet went bust because the parent companies pulled the plug because they
stood little chance of getting much of the predicted future overspend of
£2bn. I don't agree that they went bust because of the difference between
Metronet's cost overuns to date and the assessors figure.
Anyway how does that have any relevance to comparing Metronets future
oversend of £2bn for work on 5 lines verses Tubelines predicted future
overspend on work on 3 lines.
Tubelines are so supposed to be super efficient and do all there jobs for
the estimated cost.

Kevin

zen83237 wrote:

Metronet went bust because the parent companies pulled the plug because
they stood little chance of getting much of the predicted future
overspend of £2bn. I don't agree that they went bust because of the
difference between Metronet's cost overuns to date and the assessors
figure.
Anyway how does that have any relevance to comparing Metronets future
oversend of £2bn for work on 5 lines verses Tubelines predicted future
overspend on work on 3 lines.
Tubelines are so supposed to be super efficient and do all there jobs
for the estimated cost.

I suspect the *main* reason that there's little "Tublines bashing" going
on is that Tubelines seem to be more competent overall than Metronet
were, with few (if any) noticeable engineering overruns (compare and
contrast with the Waterloo and City Line and multiple overruns on the
Victoria Line, for example).

Talking of the Waterloo and City, does anyone know if the work that was
originally planned for the closure has finally been completed yet, or is
it still ongoing?

Cheers,

Barry

On 11 Sep, 22:05, "zen83237" wrote:
Metronet went bust because the parent companies pulled the plug because they
stood little chance of getting much of the predicted future overspend of
£2bn.

No. Metronet had a projected overspend of GBP2bn *by 2010* (whereas
the TL cost rise is to 2015). But it went bust because it had
*already* overspent by GBP500m, and the PPP Arbiter refused to pass
the overspend onto London Underground. Hence the shareholders would
have needed to put in more equity to keep the company solvent, and
they decided not to.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6903977.stm

I don't agree that they went bust because of the difference between
Metronet's cost overuns to date and the assessors figure.

Well, you're wrong.

Anyway how does that have any relevance to comparing Metronets future
oversend of £2bn for work on 5 lines verses Tubelines predicted future
overspend on work on 3 lines.

Because one was for the next three years, whereas the other is for the
following seven years.

Tubelines are so supposed to be super efficient and do all there jobs for
the estimated cost.

Which they largely have done, over the current period.

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

"John B" wrote in message
...
On 11 Sep, 22:05, "zen83237" wrote:
Metronet went bust because the parent companies pulled the plug because
they
stood little chance of getting much of the predicted future overspend of
£2bn.

No. Metronet had a projected overspend of GBP2bn *by 2010* (whereas
the TL cost rise is to 2015). But it went bust because it had
*already* overspent by GBP500m, and the PPP Arbiter refused to pass
the overspend onto London Underground. Hence the shareholders would
have needed to put in more equity to keep the company solvent, and
they decided not to.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6903977.stm

I don't agree that they went bust because of the difference between
Metronet's cost overuns to date and the assessors figure.

Well, you're wrong.

Anyway how does that have any relevance to comparing Metronets future
oversend of £2bn for work on 5 lines verses Tubelines predicted future
overspend on work on 3 lines.

Because one was for the next three years, whereas the other is for the
following seven years.

Tubelines are so supposed to be super efficient and do all there jobs for
the estimated cost.

Which they largely have done, over the current period.

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

You accept that Tubelines overspend is entirely justified the. Do you work
fot Tubelines by any chance.

Kevin