OK I stand corrected. I am sure I read it in yestrdays Evening Standard.
Still you know what they say - Todays newspaper - tomorrows chip paper.


After further investigation I have unearthed from the www.thisislondon site
the actual story that was printed and the following is what I had read
yesterday and it appears it was Bob Kiley who they quoted


"He told a board meeting of Transport for London: "If we don't see
improvements in the maintenance performance or renewal activity which is
broadly under way, then we may be at a point where we will have to revisit
these contracts in a pretty vigorous way.
"At the end of the second year all forgiveness is over. "

This led me to believe it had been 2 yrs.



The article is at
http://www.thisislondon.com/news/art...ing%20Standard



The bit about the chip paper still stands ;-)

woutster wrote:

In the case of Metronet SSL, the one year "honeymoon period" has not
even lapsed. I'll come out of the closet now and say that I do work
for the above mentioned company, albeit on the stations side. From
what I have heard from someone directly invovled, is that the work
that was being done was on behalf of a contractor of LUL.

Work on the infrastructure being done by a contractor of LUL rather than
a contractor of Metronet SSL? Surely that's not way PPP is supposed to
work, is it?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , Jack Taylor
writes
As Farringdon sidings can only hold three trains of 'C' stock I would
suggest that 9 would be the correct figure, as each 'train' would be
formed
of three two-car fixed-formation train sets, comprising one Driving Motor
and one Uncoupling Trailer, formed either DM+UT+DM+UT+UT+DM or
DM+UT+UT+DM+UT+DM.

Where does it say they were damaged coming out of the sidings? Surely
that would happened way before the rush hour.

That will teach me to read the referenced article first (which I didn't do
because John's lengthy URL wrapped around - please use
www.makeashorterlink.com or www.tinyurl.com when posting these). I wrongly
assumed that this was an incident of vandalism at Farringdon. Having seen
the article in the papers yesterday I now know that it was down to badly
carried out maintenance work (out of gauge brackets fitted to the tunnel
wall), so apologies all round.

Jack Taylor wrote:

That will teach me to read the referenced article first (which I
didn't do because John's lengthy URL wrapped around - please use
www.makeashorterlink.com or www.tinyurl.com when posting these).

I was going to suggest that your newsreader was the problem, but in fact
you and I and John all use Outlook Express 6, and I had no problems with
John's long URL. Did you perhaps try to use the copy of it in Roland
Perry's post? He uses a different newsreader, I think, and the URL
didn't survive it.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In message , Richard J.
writes
Jack Taylor wrote:

That will teach me to read the referenced article first (which I
didn't do because John's lengthy URL wrapped around - please use
www.makeashorterlink.com or www.tinyurl.com when posting these).

I was going to suggest that your newsreader was the problem, but in fact
you and I and John all use Outlook Express 6, and I had no problems with
John's long URL. Did you perhaps try to use the copy of it in Roland
Perry's post? He uses a different newsreader, I think, and the URL
didn't survive it.

It survived in the copy of my article that arrived back here.

Perhaps both your news reader(s) erroneously line-wrap long quoted
lines?

Meanwhile, how does this url do, in yours?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...04/02/11/utube
..xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/02/11/ixportaltop.html
--
Roland Perry

In message , Roland Perry
writes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...04/02/11/utube
.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/02/11/ixportaltop.html

hmm, that broke mine too :-(
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , Roland Perry
writes

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...04/02/11/utube
.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/02/11/ixportaltop.html

hmm, that broke mine too :-(

Perhaps you ought to get a decent newsreader like Outlook Express.

Ooh. Never been able to say that before. :-)

exits left to look for flame-proof overalls and hard hat

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:26:57 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

woutster wrote:

In the case of Metronet SSL, the one year "honeymoon period" has not
even lapsed. I'll come out of the closet now and say that I do work
for the above mentioned company, albeit on the stations side. From
what I have heard from someone directly invovled, is that the work
that was being done was on behalf of a contractor of LUL.

Work on the infrastructure being done by a contractor of LUL rather than
a contractor of Metronet SSL? Surely that's not way PPP is supposed to
work, is it?

But not everything being provided on the LUL network is provided by the
Infracos. Remember there are several PFI contractors which were signed
in advance of PPP to provide ticketing (Prestige), power and a new radio
network (Connect). There is also a PFI for British Transport Police
accommodation and plenty of other day to day contracts for stationery,
consultants, property maintenance for offices etc etc etc.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

In message , Roger the cabin boy
writes
After further investigation I have unearthed from the www.thisislondon
site the actual story that was printed and the following is what I had
read yesterday and it appears it was Bob Kiley who they quoted


"He told a board meeting of Transport for London: "If we don't see
improvements in the maintenance performance or renewal activity which
is broadly under way, then we may be at a point where we will have to
revisit these contracts in a pretty vigorous way. "At the end of the
second year all forgiveness is over. "

Perhaps Bob Kiley was including the months of 'shadow running' that took
place prior to the actual Infraco contracts being signed? It certainly
seems like it's been years already - and no travel improvements to show
for all the billions given away by 'New Labour' yet either.

I wonder what improvements we would have right now if LUL had been given
Ken's financing scheme? A bit more than a few posh offices for the
Infraco's I would wager.

--
Bob Adams

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:26:57 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

woutster wrote:

In the case of Metronet SSL, the one year "honeymoon period" has not
even lapsed. I'll come out of the closet now and say that I do work
for the above mentioned company, albeit on the stations side. From
what I have heard from someone directly invovled, is that the work
that was being done was on behalf of a contractor of LUL.

Work on the infrastructure being done by a contractor of LUL rather than
a contractor of Metronet SSL? Surely that's not way PPP is supposed to
work, is it?

But not everything being provided on the LUL network is provided by the
Infracos. Remember there are several PFI contractors which were signed
in advance of PPP to provide ticketing (Prestige), power and a new radio
network (Connect). There is also a PFI for British Transport Police
accommodation and plenty of other day to day contracts for stationery,
consultants, property maintenance for offices etc etc etc.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Later reports stated that it was Balfour Kilpatrick who were working as
sub-contractors to Metronet.

Colin