Robin9 wrote:

'Robin[_4_ Wrote:
;154633']On 14/03/2016 16:52, wrote:-
Isn't the real problem that TfL believed (whether misled by Bombardier
or
otherwise) that they could get the SSL resignalling for Ģ800M-odd less
than
it turns our it will cost them?
-

Yes. With one-off procurements it's often hard to know if the budget
over-run is "it cost more than it needed to" or "it was always going to

cost more than we thought it would". Or of course "it cost what we
privately thought it would but we lied to get approval".

I also note the BBC felt it was not necessary to mention that John Biggs

is a Labour and Co-operative Party member of the London Assembly.
Perhaps they just knew in their bones his comments were totally
apolitical.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Whatever John Biggs' motives are, the fact that these contracts
will now be completed five years later than planned means that
TfL has some explaining to do. TfL should also explain why
"the wording of the contract meant it had to pay the company
for the money it had spent rather than the value of its work."

TfL might additionally explain how and why they were duped
into believing Bombardier could bring the contract in at Ģ800M
less than now seems possible.

Like Mr. Biggs, I'm not an admirer of TfL. In this situation I say
more power to his elbow. I hope he nails TfL and the twerp
Johnson to the barnyard door.

Roger Ford has analysed this from time to time in MR. As I recall, it
became apparent a long time ago that Bombardier just didn't have the
technology or experience for the complex SSL network, with high density
services on multiple lines, lined by flat junctions.

This is the second time TfL has had to cancel this contract with Bombardier
(the first SSL resignalling contract was awarded by Metronet, of which
Bombardier was a key partner, to Westinghouse). After the demise of
Metronet, TfL cancelled that contract as it "was too expensive" and awarded
the replacement cheaper contract to... Bombardier, even though it wasn't a
credible supplier of a system of such complexity.

See
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/pr...r-cent-of-tube

This well-informed article by Piers Connor from two years ago provides the
background, and it's clear that TfL should never have awarded the ill-fated
cut-price contract to Bombardier:
http://www.railway-technical.com/SSR...d-again-v1.pdf

It seems that Thales is now the only credible supplier of such a complex
system, and it also has experience of LU, having supplied the equivalent
(simpler) systems on the Jubilee and Northern lines (another reason to
choose Thales, as it avoids incompatible systems on adjacent lines).

But that clearly makes it a supplier's market, so LU is over a barrel when
negotiating prices and timings. So, thanks to TfL's incompetence five years
ago, we'll be paying more and getting it later than if TfL had just
continued with the Westinghouse contract (Westinghouse supplied the
Victoria line signalling).