|
Post by snoggle on Dec 9, 2018 23:12:34 GMT
The Financial Times are leading with an article suggesting that Crossrail will need another £1bn bail out. The opening of the line is now rumoured to be back to possibly late 2020. Apparently the Mayor is to announce a series of cuts to TfL's budget to try to finance the overspend. Nick Raynsford is in line to be Crossrail Deputy Chairman (god knows what competence he has for that role). KMPG are rumoured to be suggesting £1.3bn in total might be needed. A formal announcement may emerge as soon as tomorrow. This explains why the TfL Business Plan has not been published - it's probably being rewritten from start to finish. I imagine the bus network will end up with more than a 7% cut and Outer London expansion will be postponed indefinitely. Article Link May be paywalled though - I have a limited amount of free article access as I registered a long time ago. I'm not prepared to do a cut and paste of the article as that breaches the terms of my access and I think the FT block it anyway. Due credit to Mr Busaholic who suggested 2020 might be the date when the line opens.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Dec 9, 2018 23:48:05 GMT
The Financial Times are leading with an article suggesting that Crossrail will need another £1bn bail out. The opening of the line is now rumoured to be back to possibly late 2020. Apparently the Mayor is to announce a series of cuts to TfL's budget to try to finance the overspend. Nick Raynsford is in line to be Crossrail Deputy Chairman (god knows what competence he has for that role). KMPG are rumoured to be suggesting £1.3bn in total might be needed. A formal announcement may emerge as soon as tomorrow. This explains why the TfL Business Plan has not been published - it's probably being rewritten from start to finish. I imagine the bus network will end up with more than a 7% cut and Outer London expansion will be postponed indefinitely. Article Link May be paywalled though - I have a limited amount of free article access as I registered a long time ago. I'm not prepared to do a cut and paste of the article as that breaches the terms of my access and I think the FT block it anyway. Due credit to Mr Busaholic who suggested 2020 might be the date when the line opens. I wonder if tomorrow is seen as 'a good day to bury bad news' with attention focused very much on Westminster. I see the Mail is also putting the boot in on TfL pay packages and its finances.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Dec 9, 2018 23:48:50 GMT
The Financial Times are leading with an article suggesting that Crossrail will need another £1bn bail out. The opening of the line is now rumoured to be back to possibly late 2020. Apparently the Mayor is to announce a series of cuts to TfL's budget to try to finance the overspend. Nick Raynsford is in line to be Crossrail Deputy Chairman (god knows what competence he has for that role). KMPG are rumoured to be suggesting £1.3bn in total might be needed. A formal announcement may emerge as soon as tomorrow. This explains why the TfL Business Plan has not been published - it's probably being rewritten from start to finish. I imagine the bus network will end up with more than a 7% cut and Outer London expansion will be postponed indefinitely. Article Link May be paywalled though - I have a limited amount of free article access as I registered a long time ago. I'm not prepared to do a cut and paste of the article as that breaches the terms of my access and I think the FT block it anyway. Due credit to Mr Busaholic who suggested 2020 might be the date when the line opens. I remember Nick Raynsford from when I left LT and landed up working for Camden Council in their Housing Dept. A new Labour govt brought a new Housing Act and a new Rent Act, and they were exciting times to be involved in housing (my role was not concerned with council housing, but helping those in the private rented sector, or in no sector at all.) Anyway, Nick Raynsford was an up-and-coming Labour politician who got very involved on the housing side and I was quite impressed with him then. He managed to get to the nub of problems, and, though on the left, was never of the more extreme element and seemed to be his own man, which is something I've learned to both appreciate and admire over the years. A pleasant personality too, though I only ever met him once: we both took part in a radio phone-in by LBC in their very early days.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 10, 2018 0:55:17 GMT
I wonder if tomorrow is seen as 'a good day to bury bad news' with attention focused very much on Westminster. I see the Mail is also putting the boot in on TfL pay packages and its finances. Well there is that Westminster angle - very fair point that hadn't dawned on me. I'm trying hard to ignore the abject incompetence and venal political infighting that currently masquerades as our Parliament and Government. They all deserve the sack and to be banished from political power forever. I've never seen such a mess in my life. It won't stop London Assembly Members going into hyperdrive and jostling for position to be outraged about Crossrail and the Mayor in front of the TV cameras. We will also have the inevitable "have GTR managed to run their planned extra trains on time" news article tomorrow as well - first full commuting day of the new timetable. Therefore, one way or the other, transport issues will probably loom large on local London and SE news tomorrow regardless of what happens in the Westminster Mad House.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 10, 2018 1:02:43 GMT
I remember Nick Raynsford from when I left LT and landed up working for Camden Council in their Housing Dept. A new Labour govt brought a new Housing Act and a new Rent Act, and they were exciting times to be involved in housing (my role was not concerned with council housing, but helping those in the private rented sector, or in no sector at all.) Anyway, Nick Raynsford was an up-and-coming Labour politician who got very involved on the housing side and I was quite impressed with him then. He managed to get to the nub of problems, and, though on the left, was never of the more extreme element and seemed to be his own man, which is something I've learned to both appreciate and admire over the years. A pleasant personality too, though I only ever met him once: we both took part in a radio phone-in by LBC in their very early days. Clearly he's someone that Sadiq is likely to be comfortable with. He may also be just about acceptable to Grayling. My concern really is what does he know about transport and project management and how to help lead a project that's in the mire out of it and across the finishing line in a safe, efficient and timely manner? I understand why politicians have wanted "heads on plates" in terms of some of the Crossrail management BUT it is rarely good to lose all that knowledge and experience in circumstances such as these. Even the sharpest brains will take time to learn and understand the enormous complexities that are affecting Crossrail. And above all of that Mr Raynsford is and has been a politician for a very long time - he may well be able to be the Mayor's "eyes and ears" but that brings all sorts of risks with it if we end up with political concerns overriding the project and transport professionals trying to actually make things work. In short, will Mr Raynsford be a help or a hinderance? If he's the latter his appointment could come with an enormous price tag and consequences for London's public transport users!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 9:33:55 GMT
I’ve heard anecdotal stories of residents of new developments in Woolwich, sold on a large basis of being right next to Crossrail, have gone into negative equity. Just one knock on effect of the delay.
I dread the consequences of this new huge bailout. The departure last week of Sir Terry Morgan is clearly linked to this story , announced a few days before the next more worrying announcement rumoured to be coming today.
Then we have the Brexit shambles which will cause further uncertainty across many sectors,
The knock ons from this could be quite staggering, both politically and economically.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Dec 10, 2018 10:48:06 GMT
I’ve heard anecdotal stories of residents of new developments in Woolwich, sold on a large basis of being right next to Crossrail, have gone into negative equity. Just one knock on effect of the delay. I dread the consequences of this new huge bailout. The departure last week of Sir Terry Morgan is clearly linked to this story , announced a few days before the next more worrying announcement rumoured to be coming today. Then we have the Brexit shambles which will cause further uncertainty across many sectors, The knock ons from this could be quite staggering, both politically and economically. Serve some of them right, harsh of me eh. But too many of these housing associations and companies have been ripping the general public over the years and it is worse when it comes to marketing developments like these near stations at over inflated prices.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Dec 10, 2018 13:58:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 10, 2018 14:12:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Dec 10, 2018 14:12:54 GMT
Not surprised. I personally think it won’t open until 2021, but we will see. It is nowhere near ready for passengers.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 10, 2018 14:27:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Dec 10, 2018 15:47:33 GMT
That's the one Sir Terry Morgan was alluding to. Depending on how he's going to play all this now (and he's in a more powerful position intellectually having resigned, however involuntary that may have been) the first paragraph is quite clear as to the postponement, as is the first sentence in the reasons for it. That transformer fire was never explained, I would say was hushed up as much as possible, and, even if all the stations and building work had been completed on time, the ramifications of the explosion would have resulted in the opening date being missed. I'll have to read the bulk of it later, rest of my life intrudes.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 10, 2018 16:45:17 GMT
That's the one Sir Terry Morgan was alluding to. Depending on how he's going to play all this now (and he's in a more powerful position intellectually having resigned, however involuntary that may have been) the first paragraph is quite clear as to the postponement, as is the first sentence in the reasons for it. That transformer fire was never explained, I would say was hushed up as much as possible, and, even if all the stations and building work had been completed on time, the ramifications of the explosion would have resulted in the opening date being missed. I'll have to read the bulk of it later, rest of my life intrudes. Not quite sure about that (hushing up). After the explosion it was said that the design and installation was wrong at Pudding Mill Lane. That sits with the contractor. The only wriggle room is the extent to which Crossrail's own people checked the design, agreed it and checked the installation. Modern practice is not to have legions of "tick list" checkers but to rely on appropriate assurance documentation from the supplier. That may be checked by the appropriate client side engineer but probably never "approved" to avoid the risk transference. The ultimate "assurance" is to switch the equipment and see that it works. Well they got the result they didn't want in this instance! I am sure legions of lawyers are arguing about all of this as we speak. It is clear from statements made at the time and what I've seen in a Board minute I looked at early that legal action was / is being contemplated against the substation equipment contractor. In the context of a commercial dispute and possible legal action I can understand why very little has been said in public. That really is an instance where commercial confidentiality is required. Also, as you say, the ramifications from that explosion are large and may not have concluded. Even if Crossrail successfully claimed against the contractor it would never recover the consequential losses which now look to be huge. Consequential losses / liquidated damages are always capped and would never deal with the consequences here. Crossrail also had to check a similar installation near Westbourne Park portal - I've never seen anything that reports whether that was correctly designed / installed or not. If it wasn't done properly and needed rework then that's another delay. It is clear from statements from the Mayor that he is toughing it out and relying on the August "formal notification" aspect. He's also happy to trash Crossrail's governance arrangements in the process. The bit that I hope someone challenges is what on earth Mark Wild was doing as a non exec Director of Crossrail on behalf of TfL. Did he never report back? It's clear he sat in Board meetings, had the reports, attended briefings etc. If he's as good about the technical stuff as is claimed then he should have been yelling from the rooftops long ago.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Dec 10, 2018 18:58:55 GMT
That's the one Sir Terry Morgan was alluding to. Depending on how he's going to play all this now (and he's in a more powerful position intellectually having resigned, however involuntary that may have been) the first paragraph is quite clear as to the postponement, as is the first sentence in the reasons for it. That transformer fire was never explained, I would say was hushed up as much as possible, and, even if all the stations and building work had been completed on time, the ramifications of the explosion would have resulted in the opening date being missed. I'll have to read the bulk of it later, rest of my life intrudes. Not quite sure about that (hushing up). After the explosion it was said that the design and installation was wrong at Pudding Mill Lane. That sits with the contractor. The only wriggle room is the extent to which Crossrail's own people checked the design, agreed it and checked the installation. Modern practice is not to have legions of "tick list" checkers but to rely on appropriate assurance documentation from the supplier. That may be checked by the appropriate client side engineer but probably never "approved" to avoid the risk transference. The ultimate "assurance" is to switch the equipment and see that it works. Well they got the result they didn't want in this instance! I am sure legions of lawyers are arguing about all of this as we speak. It is clear from statements made at the time and what I've seen in a Board minute I looked at early that legal action was / is being contemplated against the substation equipment contractor. In the context of a commercial dispute and possible legal action I can understand why very little has been said in public. That really is an instance where commercial confidentiality is required. Also, as you say, the ramifications from that explosion are large and may not have concluded. Even if Crossrail successfully claimed against the contractor it would never recover the consequential losses which now look to be huge. Consequential losses / liquidated damages are always capped and would never deal with the consequences here. Crossrail also had to check a similar installation near Westbourne Park portal - I've never seen anything that reports whether that was correctly designed / installed or not. If it wasn't done properly and needed rework then that's another delay. It is clear from statements from the Mayor that he is toughing it out and relying on the August "formal notification" aspect. He's also happy to trash Crossrail's governance arrangements in the process. The bit that I hope someone challenges is what on earth Mark Wild was doing as a non exec Director of Crossrail on behalf of TfL. Did he never report back? It's clear he sat in Board meetings, had the reports, attended briefings etc. If he's as good about the technical stuff as is claimed then he should have been yelling from the rooftops long ago. Your last paragraph sounds interesting. I don't know anything about Mark Wild - should I?
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Dec 10, 2018 19:28:56 GMT
Not quite sure about that (hushing up). After the explosion it was said that the design and installation was wrong at Pudding Mill Lane. That sits with the contractor. The only wriggle room is the extent to which Crossrail's own people checked the design, agreed it and checked the installation. Modern practice is not to have legions of "tick list" checkers but to rely on appropriate assurance documentation from the supplier. That may be checked by the appropriate client side engineer but probably never "approved" to avoid the risk transference. The ultimate "assurance" is to switch the equipment and see that it works. Well they got the result they didn't want in this instance! I am sure legions of lawyers are arguing about all of this as we speak. It is clear from statements made at the time and what I've seen in a Board minute I looked at early that legal action was / is being contemplated against the substation equipment contractor. In the context of a commercial dispute and possible legal action I can understand why very little has been said in public. That really is an instance where commercial confidentiality is required. Also, as you say, the ramifications from that explosion are large and may not have concluded. Even if Crossrail successfully claimed against the contractor it would never recover the consequential losses which now look to be huge. Consequential losses / liquidated damages are always capped and would never deal with the consequences here. Crossrail also had to check a similar installation near Westbourne Park portal - I've never seen anything that reports whether that was correctly designed / installed or not. If it wasn't done properly and needed rework then that's another delay. It is clear from statements from the Mayor that he is toughing it out and relying on the August "formal notification" aspect. He's also happy to trash Crossrail's governance arrangements in the process. The bit that I hope someone challenges is what on earth Mark Wild was doing as a non exec Director of Crossrail on behalf of TfL. Did he never report back? It's clear he sat in Board meetings, had the reports, attended briefings etc. If he's as good about the technical stuff as is claimed then he should have been yelling from the rooftops long ago. Your last paragraph sounds interesting. I don't know anything about Mark Wild - should I? The minutes of the 25 July TfL Board meeting (part of the pack for the August Board meeting) have Mark Wild, not as a TfL Board member, but as part of the Executive Committee, in his role as Managing Director, London Underground. But he clearly did attend the Board meeting as he is listed in the minutes. Sadiq Khan sent his apologies to that meeting, so would have missed the juicy stuff regarding delays and probably only received a summary later.
|
|