View Single Post
  #2   Report Post  
Old April 1st 08, 11:25 PM posted to uk.transport.london
Mizter T Mizter T is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: May 2005
Posts: 6,077
Default SSL upgrade changes - Metronet Administration


On 1 Apr, 22:51, Paul Corfield wrote:

There was an internal comms message at LU today advising of settlement
of various contractual issues relating to Metronet Administration. One
of the bigger changes relates to Bombardier and the SSL upgrade.
Bombardier will produce the SSL trains but the related signalling
contract with Westinghouse will be descoped with the new signalling
being put out to tender.

There isn't a TfL press release yet but I found this one from Bombardier

http://www.bombardier.com/en/0_0/pre...=0_0&lan=en&ac...

It's all subject to a final court hearing relating to administration but
there is possibly some light at the end of the tunnel (pardon the pun).


But will the SSL signalling contract be retendered or will 'New
Metronet'* (in TfL/LU ownership) not merely carry on dealing with
Westinghouse? The following is taken the Bombardier press release...

"The signalling portion of Bombardier's SSL contract, currently sub-
contracted to Westinghouse Rail Systems Limited ("WRSL"), has been
transferred to Metronet and re-negotiated directly between WRSL and
Metronet."


Whatever the specifics this new (and as yet to be confirmed)
arrangement will obviously put the emphasis for the SSL upgrade fully
back in the hands of LU. Will there be enough money for it all, or are
upgrade plans going to have to be cut down somewhat first?

I also note that the previous plans to transfer both the BCV and SSL
train maintenance operations and hence staff over to Bombardier have
also been ditched, and this will stay 'in-house' with Metronet.

Dare I ask the possibly blasphemous question of whether this is
actually for the best - not for some ideological reason but merely
because the model of trains getting maintained by their manufacturers
seems to work fairly well elsewhere? Of course that said such
arrangements do add further layers of contractual shenanigans, whereas
on the other hand having it all done in-house by the LU-owned 'New
Metronet' does bridge the gap somewhat between the infrastructure
people and the day-to-day railway, perhaps meaning that various
rolling stock issues can get dealt with better. (And I haven't
forgotten that the Tube Lines infraco has had problems with Alstom who
maintain the Northern line fleet.)


-----
* I'm using the the phrase 'New Metronet' merely to distinguish the
infraco under it's forthcoming LUL ownership from the old Metronet as
owned (and abused by) by its five private shareholders.