London Banter - SSL upgrade changes - Metronet Administration

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 16:25:26 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

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."

WRSL have a contract to look after the conventional signalling and
upgrade as necessary to cope with S Stock being introduced. However
this does not cover the capacity and control upgrade of the signalling
system. This will be retendered.

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?

There are massive issues relating to affordability of LU and TfL
investment plans despite the government's recent settlement. There is so
much going on and such big schemes that finances are tight. I'm sure a
budgetary view will have been taken to ensure SSL signalling can be
upgraded but it all depends on what is asked for, what the bids say and
whether the numbers line up. If they don't then there is at least the
prospect of new trains running on effectively the same signalling system
as now but suitably tweaked to deal with immunisation issues. The
signalling upgrade could come later - as happened with the Northern Line
all those years ago when new trains came but new signals were
unaffordable.

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.)

There are lots of permutations you can use as to who owns the assets and
who pays the staff. There are three models in use with Tube Lines -
direct labour under TLL control maintain the Picc Line trains, Alstom
have a contract to maintain the Jubilee Line trains but it isn't a PFI
and TLL have more direct influence and finally there is the PFI
outsourced set up. If you look at performance levels then despite the
age of the trains the Picc does best and there's the best response due
to direct control / short span of control. Jubilee is second and
Northern is worst although now improving quite considerably.

If you consider the task in hand - migrating fleet and signalling - then
you really don't want a ****ed off, demotivated set of depot staff.
More direct management seems to make sense in terms of being able to pay
proper attention to underlying problems and then managing them "out".
This is going to be particularly important on Vic and SSR as new trains
come first and then comes the signalling later on. Given the TUs seem
to like to have at least 10 reasons to go on strike at any point in time
it makes sense to try to reduce the number of potential "flash points"
although I dare say issues around pensions and Metronet will rear their
ugly head again very soon as a result of this settlement.

--
Paul C

Admits to working for London Underground!