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...564&sCateg=1_0

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).

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

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.

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Mizter T wrote:

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?

I understand that the MoD has contracts like that with defence suppliers,
ie BAe, where instead of buying N aircraft (or whatever) outright and then
making separate maintenance arrangements to keep M of them flying, they
just contract with the manufacturer to make M aircraft available at all
times. The manufacturer then has flexibility as to how they do that, and
of course can coordinate manufacturing, repair, replacement, etc. Seems to
be a popular and clever model; i can't say how well it works in practice.

tom

--
We don't contact anybody or seek anybody's permission for what we do. Even
if it's impersonating postal employees. -- Birdstuff

Tom Anderson wrote:

I understand that the MoD has contracts like that with defence
suppliers, ie BAe, where instead of buying N aircraft (or whatever)
outright and then making separate maintenance arrangements to keep M
of them flying, they just contract with the manufacturer to make M
aircraft available at all times. The manufacturer then has
flexibility as to how they do that, and of course can coordinate
manufacturing, repair, replacement, etc. Seems to be a popular and
clever model; i can't say how well it works in practice.

Apparently the new RAF refuelling aircraft are basically a normal Airbus
(with big tanks in the cargo hold) which the contractor can lease out on the
open market, e.g. at weekends when the RAF is shut. Extended range Ryanair
flights in 'austerity' seating with limited luggage perhaps?

Paul S

"Paul Scott" wrote in message

Tom Anderson wrote:

I understand that the MoD has contracts like that with defence
suppliers, ie BAe, where instead of buying N aircraft (or whatever)
outright and then making separate maintenance arrangements to keep M
of them flying, they just contract with the manufacturer to make M
aircraft available at all times. The manufacturer then has
flexibility as to how they do that, and of course can coordinate
manufacturing, repair, replacement, etc. Seems to be a popular and
clever model; i can't say how well it works in practice.

Apparently the new RAF refuelling aircraft are basically a normal
Airbus (with big tanks in the cargo hold) which the contractor can
lease out on the open market, e.g. at weekends when the RAF is shut.
Extended range Ryanair flights in 'austerity' seating with limited
luggage perhaps?

I don't know if all of the A330s will be fitted with the refuelling
gear -- one assumes they will. If so, this adds to the weight. I assume
that there must also be some sort of control panel, etc, for the
operation of the refuelling equipment, which presumably takes space in
behind the cockpit area. So, they're not exactly standard A330s.

I'm wondering if they will be used as cargo aircraft when not being used
by the RAF, rather than to carry pax? And will the RAF also use them
for carrying pax, as they do with the old VC-10s and Tristars? In
effect, they may be used more as troop transporters than as refuellers
(unlike the USAF, the RAF can't affordf dedicated fleets of both types).

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008, Recliner wrote:

"Paul Scott" wrote in message

Tom Anderson wrote:

I understand that the MoD has contracts like that with defence
suppliers, ie BAe, where instead of buying N aircraft (or whatever)
outright and then making separate maintenance arrangements to keep M
of them flying, they just contract with the manufacturer to make M
aircraft available at all times. The manufacturer then has
flexibility as to how they do that, and of course can coordinate
manufacturing, repair, replacement, etc. Seems to be a popular and
clever model; i can't say how well it works in practice.

Apparently the new RAF refuelling aircraft are basically a normal
Airbus (with big tanks in the cargo hold) which the contractor can
lease out on the open market, e.g. at weekends when the RAF is shut.
Extended range Ryanair flights in 'austerity' seating with limited
luggage perhaps?

And will the RAF also use them for carrying pax, as they do with the old
VC-10s and Tristars? In effect, they may be used more as troop
transporters than as refuellers (unlike the USAF, the RAF can't affordf
dedicated fleets of both types).

Yes. They'll be able to do boh, or rather all three: there are big fuel
tanks in the wings and under the floor for the refuelling, the floor is
fitted to take standard military cargo pallets, and i understand there are
pallets which just have seats on, for when you want to move people! Which
they do most will depend entirely on what needs to be done, and that
depends on where we decide to have our next little war. If it's somewhere
convenient in Europe or north Africa, say if Serbia blows up again, or we
get serious about Darfur and similar, they'll mostly be transports. If we
get roped into something somewhere awkward like southeast Asia, or
Venezuela, then they might well be doing more tankering.

I don't know about maximum takeoff weights and all that, but presumably,
you can move a certain amount of people, cargo and fuel all at once. This
generates an interesting capability to have a very long-range
self-contained airborne force, with soldiers and their equipment and
stores on the plane, and a some Pumas and Apaches flying along with them
and refuelling when necessary! I suspect the size of such a force would be
rather miniscule, though, and i wouldn't envy a helicopter pilot the job
of flying any significant distance in one sitting.

tom

--
We don't contact anybody or seek anybody's permission for what we do. Even
if it's impersonating postal employees. -- Birdstuff

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!

On Apr 1, 10:51 pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
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.

Sounds pretty accurate. The Bombardier PR implies that the SSL
contract will be re-awarded to Westinghouse, cutting out Bombardier as
middleman, but Invensys (Westinghouse's parent) confirms that that's
just the work to make S-stock work with the existing signalling; the
new signalling contract will indeed be retendered:

http://www.invensys.com/media/defaul...tent_no_id=518

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

John B wrote:
On Apr 1, 10:51 pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
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.

Sounds pretty accurate. The Bombardier PR implies that the SSL
contract will be re-awarded to Westinghouse, cutting out Bombardier as
middleman, but Invensys (Westinghouse's parent) confirms that that's
just the work to make S-stock work with the existing signalling; the
new signalling contract will indeed be retendered:

http://www.invensys.com/media/defaul...tent_no_id=518

Does this mean that there's now a chance that the Thales (ex-Alcatel)
Seltrac signalling system that Tube Lines are installing could also be used
on SSL? It would at least avoid problems on the areas where the Piccadilly
shares tracks with the Met and District.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Apr 2, 1:20 am, "Richard J." wrote:
Does this mean that there's now a chance that the Thales (ex-Alcatel)
Seltrac signalling system that Tube Lines are installing could also be used
on SSL? It would at least avoid problems on the areas where the Piccadilly
shares tracks with the Met and District.

That would be far too logical. This is Britain , thats not the way
things are done here. No , far better to have lots of different
systems and different trains then wonder why everything is a
logistical and maintenance nightmare a few years down the line.

B2003