BBC News story - "Tube closures to last 'to 2010' "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8219254.stm

TfL press release - "Mayor and TfL challenge Tube Lines to deliver"
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/12435.aspx

Tube Lines has of course already been granted extra weekend closures
on the Jubbly line in order to get the work finished on time - see
this TfL press release from May of this year:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ive/11760.aspx


-----
(Unrelated hint about TfL's press release URLs - after x amount of
time they get moved into the "/archive" hierarchy, so if one
encounters a 404 when linking to an older press release then just add
the "/archive" element to the URL before the press release's number in
order to access it. Bit daft perhaps, but there you go.)

On 2009-08-25 12:18:11 +0100, Mizter T said:

BBC News story - "Tube closures to last 'to 2010' "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8219254.stm

TfL press release - "Mayor and TfL challenge Tube Lines to deliver"
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/12435.aspx

Tube Lines has of course already been granted extra weekend closures
on the Jubbly line in order to get the work finished on time - see
this TfL press release from May of this year:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ive/11760.aspx


-----
(Unrelated hint about TfL's press release URLs - after x amount of
time they get moved into the "/archive" hierarchy, so if one
encounters a 404 when linking to an older press release then just add
the "/archive" element to the URL before the press release's number in
order to access it. Bit daft perhaps, but there you go.)

Either
their programming / project planning of the work is inadequate
Or
performance against plan is inadequate

But I don't suppose LUL [or is the client TfL / the Mayor / whoever]
will be able to claim, as in a conventional contract.

Didn't everyone here conclude that the PFI deals were essentially
"heads I win, tails you lose" for the contractor - until of course
Metronet decided that the best way to manage financial and delivery
risk was to sub all the work to its own shareholders, who thought this
meant they would escape VFM scrutiny and be able to book handsome
profits upstream rather than in the JV.

Of couse Tube Lines "tried hard" not to gloat at the time of the M'net
collapse, claiming that their tendering / programming / management
models and processes were all superior.

Obviously not superior enough to ensure on time delivery - and will we
ever learn if the job comes in on price?

Don't expect anything to change in PFI-land. Remember the structure was
invented by the PM's buddy, "Shrieking Shriti" - beg your pardon Milady.

But I heard an interesting bit of "muttering" from a couple of
well-connected Tories the other day, who were saying that Cameron & Co
were convinced that there was lots of mileage in pursuing VFM for the
taxpayer, even at the expense of big business. Admittedly, that was in
the context of defence procurement, but if it is - or becomes - a more
general view, who knows where it could lead...?

Ken
--
Writer / editor on London's River

Bearded wrote:

Don't expect anything to change in PFI-land. Remember the structure was
invented by the PM's buddy, "Shrieking Shriti" - beg your pardon Milady.

Charming. There was me thinking PFI and PPP originated in radical
state-shrinking thinking from the Adam Smith Institute and strongly
supported by the Tories. Croydon Tramlink, for instance. There are
plenty of Tories (Edward Leigh, for instance) who think there's nothing
wrong with the principle of PPP and PFI. The extremely right-wing RAC
Foundation were calling for privatisation of main roads today.

But I heard an interesting bit of "muttering" from a couple of
well-connected Tories the other day, who were saying that Cameron & Co
were convinced that there was lots of mileage in pursuing VFM for the
taxpayer, even at the expense of big business. Admittedly, that was in
the context of defence procurement, but if it is - or becomes - a more
general view, who knows where it could lead...?


The opposition wanting to be seen as backing value for money for the
taxpayer is about as surprising as the sun coming up in the morning.
The value of a political statement is in its inverse - can you imagine
any political party standing on a platform of *less* value for money?
No? So therefore it's not worth a damn.

Mind you, given how easily Boris was apparently persuaded to put in a
good word for venture capitalists (latest Private Eye) and who the real
financial backers of the Conservatives are (rich businessmen like Lord
Ashcroft), it'll lead straight to business as usual. If you're a
lobbyist, and you're any good, you're currently throwing all your New
Labour contacts over the side and finding out exactly who is worth a
kind word in the ear and a good lunch come next June.

Tom

On Aug 25, 3:42*pm, Bearded wrote:
Either
their programming / project planning of the work is inadequate
Or
performance against plan is inadequate

But I don't suppose LUL [or is the client TfL / the Mayor / whoever]
will be able to claim, as in a conventional contract.

Yes, of course they will: there are heavy contractual, financial
penalties for failing to provide the agreed level of service
("abatements"), which Tubelines will be paying to TfL.

Didn't everyone here conclude that the PFI deals were essentially
"heads I win, tails you lose" for the contractor - until of course
Metronet decided that the best way to manage financial and delivery
risk was to sub all the work to its own shareholders, who thought this
meant they would escape VFM scrutiny and be able to book handsome
profits upstream rather than in the JV.

Eh?

A 'classic' PFI deal is absolutely *not* "heads I win, tails you lose"
for the contractor. Anyone who says they are reads too much Private
Eye, Socialist Worker and/or Cameroonian spin. The risk of project
overrun, which is very real in most projects, is taken by the
contractor not the public sector. If the contractor does a good job,
they make a decent profit; if they do a bad job, they make a loss.

Metronet wasn't a classic PFI deal: rather, it was structured in a way
which made VFM-scrutiny-escaping and upstream-profit-booking possible[*], because the company was highly leveraged with taxpayer-guaranteed
money but not forced to obey public sector tendering rules in dealings
with its suppliers [**].

Of couse Tube Lines "tried hard" not to gloat at the time of the M'net
collapse, claiming that their tendering / programming / management
models and processes were all superior.

Obviously not superior enough to ensure on time delivery - and will we
ever learn if the job comes in on price?

If they deliver by the end of 2009, or even early 2010, then they'll
still delivered a massive upgrade project only slightly late. This is
an improvement on How These Things Usually Happen. If the job doesn't
come in on budget, then that's the shareholders' problem and not the
taxpayer's. This is an improvement on How These Things Usually
Happen.
[*] I'm assuming this was done by the shareholders not trying very
hard to enforce controls and tendering process at Metronet, rather
than anything more explicit or intentional, purely on the grounds that
most corporate execs don't like the concept of jail

[**] I support the concept of PFI in general. The Metronet setup, with
a private company run by some builders given a taxpayer-backed loan to
throw at said builders, with the value of the builders' shareholding
in the private company being worth far less than the value of
contracts they awarded themselves, sounds like something dreamed up by
Arthur Scargill and Bob Crow to discredit all private involvement in
public sector projects forever.

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

In message , at 15:42:06 on Tue,
25 Aug 2009, lid remarked:
Don't expect anything to change in PFI-land. Remember the structure was
invented by the PM's buddy, "Shrieking Shriti" - beg your pardon
Milady.

Did you know she's also the person originally behind the "ban P2P
filesharers" thing that Mandy seems to have been dragged into today?
--
Roland Perry

On 26 Aug, 11:33, John B wrote:
On Aug 25, 3:42*pm, Bearded wrote:
Of couse Tube Lines "tried hard" not to gloat at the time of the M'net
collapse, claiming that their tendering / programming / management
models and processes were all superior.

Obviously not superior enough to ensure on time delivery - and will we
ever learn if the job comes in on price?

If they deliver by the end of 2009, or even early 2010, then they'll
still delivered a massive upgrade project only slightly late. This is
an improvement on How These Things Usually Happen. If the job doesn't
come in on budget, then that's the shareholders' problem and not the
taxpayer's. This is an improvement on How These Things Usually
Happen.


Indeed and it is worth remembering that the last attempt at
introducing 'modern' signalling on the Jubilee line (for the opening
of the extension by December 1999) was running so late that it was
cancelled and 'traditional' signalling was installed instead. This
was, of course, when LU was under LRT with no PFI in sight.

If there are problems with commissioning of the new kit, these would
most likely be happening whether LU or Tubelines are doing the actual
work.

"Andy" wrote in message

On 26 Aug, 11:33, John B wrote:
On Aug 25, 3:42 pm, Bearded wrote:
Of couse Tube Lines "tried hard" not to gloat at the time of the
M'net collapse, claiming that their tendering / programming /
management models and processes were all superior.

Obviously not superior enough to ensure on time delivery - and will
we ever learn if the job comes in on price?

If they deliver by the end of 2009, or even early 2010, then they'll
still delivered a massive upgrade project only slightly late. This is
an improvement on How These Things Usually Happen. If the job doesn't
come in on budget, then that's the shareholders' problem and not the
taxpayer's. This is an improvement on How These Things Usually
Happen.


Indeed and it is worth remembering that the last attempt at
introducing 'modern' signalling on the Jubilee line (for the opening
of the extension by December 1999) was running so late that it was
cancelled and 'traditional' signalling was installed instead. This
was, of course, when LU was under LRT with no PFI in sight.

If there are problems with commissioning of the new kit, these would
most likely be happening whether LU or Tubelines are doing the actual
work.

Presumably neither LU or Tubelines do the actual work -- a contractor
does.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"Andy" wrote in message

On 26 Aug, 11:33, John B wrote:
On Aug 25, 3:42 pm, Bearded wrote:
Of couse Tube Lines "tried hard" not to gloat at the time of the
M'net collapse, claiming that their tendering / programming /
management models and processes were all superior.

Obviously not superior enough to ensure on time delivery - and will
we ever learn if the job comes in on price?

If they deliver by the end of 2009, or even early 2010, then they'll
still delivered a massive upgrade project only slightly late. This is
an improvement on How These Things Usually Happen. If the job doesn't
come in on budget, then that's the shareholders' problem and not the
taxpayer's. This is an improvement on How These Things Usually
Happen.


Indeed and it is worth remembering that the last attempt at
introducing 'modern' signalling on the Jubilee line (for the opening
of the extension by December 1999) was running so late that it was
cancelled and 'traditional' signalling was installed instead. This
was, of course, when LU was under LRT with no PFI in sight.

If there are problems with commissioning of the new kit, these would
most likely be happening whether LU or Tubelines are doing the actual
work.

Presumably neither LU or Tubelines do the actual work -- a contractor
does.
Why does it come as such a surprise that this is running late. Did this
running late only occure in the last 6 months?
I liked the way that Wembley Stadium was on time right up until the opening
date then overnight it was year late.

Kevin

"Zen83237" wrote in message


Why does it come as such a surprise that this is running late. Did
this running late only occure in the last 6 months?
I liked the way that Wembley Stadium was on time right up until the
opening date then overnight it was year late.

Same with Terminal 5, which was claimed to be on time and on budget
right up to the opening day. It soon transpired that it had actually
been running at least a couple of months late, and opened unfinished and
with the staff untrained because they couldn't get enough access in
advance. Chaos ensued.

As for Wembley, I thought there had been well-known problems well before
opening day, such as with the steel works contractor downing tools.