The Metronet name is apparently on its way out to be replaced by plain
old "London Underground", at least according to this post on the
District Dave websire 'e http://tinyurl.com/dnbbr4

Obviously this is a result of TfL taking ownership of Metronet after
it imploded. So the Metromess name can now assume it's rightful
position in the dank and dark Hall of Shame in the history of London's
transport. Except it is of course going to live on for a good while
yet in the accounts books of TfL, as a black hole swallowing up money
that should have been going elsewhere. Great.

I remember hearing a radio interview with a PFI whizzkid from KPMG, I
think (or maybe it was PWC), back when Metronet had just gone into
administration. He spoke in favour of PPP, saying something along the
lines of 'the PPP system *is* working because risk has been
transferred to the private sector, so the collapse of Metronet won't
have any impact on the public purse' - I remember being struck by his
cogent and coherent argument but nonetheless was most definitely not
won over, and as events have since shown this particular argument now
looks very wonky if not down-right mistaken indeed.

I haven't followed the whole debacle of Metronet's collapse, but it
has cost and will continue to cost the public purse quite a bit of
dosh. Would the proposal for a bond-funded scheme instead of PPP, as
championed by Livingstone back in 2000, been a success I wonder? At
the time it sounded quite sensible - and of course later, after TfL
had established itself as a competent operator, the government did
allow it to raise capital from the money markets.

In message
,
Mizter T writes
The Metronet name is apparently on its way out to be replaced by plain
old "London Underground", at least according to this post on the
District Dave websire 'e http://tinyurl.com/dnbbr4

Obviously this is a result of TfL taking ownership of Metronet after
it imploded. So the Metromess name can now assume it's rightful
position in the dank and dark Hall of Shame in the history of London's
transport. Except it is of course going to live on for a good while
yet in the accounts books of TfL, as a black hole swallowing up money
that should have been going elsewhere. Great.

I remember hearing a radio interview with a PFI whizzkid from KPMG, I
think (or maybe it was PWC), back when Metronet had just gone into
administration. He spoke in favour of PPP, saying something along the
lines of 'the PPP system *is* working because risk has been
transferred to the private sector, so the collapse of Metronet won't
have any impact on the public purse' - I remember being struck by his
cogent and coherent argument but nonetheless was most definitely not
won over, and as events have since shown this particular argument now
looks very wonky if not down-right mistaken indeed.

I haven't followed the whole debacle of Metronet's collapse, but it
has cost and will continue to cost the public purse quite a bit of
dosh. Would the proposal for a bond-funded scheme instead of PPP, as
championed by Livingstone back in 2000, been a success I wonder? At
the time it sounded quite sensible - and of course later, after TfL
had established itself as a competent operator, the government did
allow it to raise capital from the money markets.

To be fair (not that I'm any fan of PPP) the cost would have always been
passed to the public purse anyway. Just that it was planned that it
would be in easy instalments with an overhead cost to suit - just like a
mortgage.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

In message , Paul Corfield
writes
Lots of people are delighted that "old LUL" is being partly reformed
and that nasty old Metronet has collapsed. While I accept I have a
biased view working as I do on PPP type issues I can also say that many
of the "old LUL" problems are also re-emerging whereas at least with
Tube Lines it might be difficult and challenging they do typically get
stuff done and deliver a decent performance on most (not all) things.
Cue several LUL and TLL people collapsing in shock in the light of me
being almost positive about TLL :-))

Actually, from my little part of the world, I have to agree with Paul.

73 stock (that's those Picc line trains!) has been as reliable as it's
ever been. The service on the Picc has far far less problems than it
used to. A good indicator of that is the amount of overtime we get. We
used to be getting something 2 or 3 days a week a year or two back; this
pay period I've had none and it's very light on the ground now.

I agree that TLL are performing. I still have my doubts about the
overall cost of it all mind.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)