Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 20:44:23 GMT
Wasn't sure if this was best place to put this. With the opening date now pushed back to 2020 do you think TfL will still wait until the line opens to introduce the proposed bus changes? Was there any savings in the changes if so can they afford to wait until 2020 to introduce them?
Dare I even mention the 25!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 10, 2018 20:48:43 GMT
Your last paragraph sounds interesting. I don't know anything about Mark Wild - should I? Mark Wild is LU Managing Director but currently seconded as Crossrail CEO. He was appointed from outside LU and worked in Australia. He also background on working on resignalling of both the Jubilee and Victoria Lines but on the supplier side. Therefore he has technical, operational and managerial background. Mark Wild - tfl info Of more relevance is that the governance arrangements for Crossrail were changed last year with Mark Wild (and someone else) being appointed as non execs to "represent TfL". The DfT appointed 3 people to look after their interests. Clearly something had twigged way back in 2017 for this change to be made. What I find astonishing is how TfL is rubbishing Crossrail (one of its subsidiaries) and carefully ignoring the fact that the LU MD was a non exec director of Crossrail. It's as if he was never at any of the Crossrail meetings and never received any info so far as TfL are concerned. It's completely bizarre and someone must surely point out the conflict here.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Dec 10, 2018 20:59:10 GMT
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. So Sadiq can use the Richard Nixon/Tony Blair option (other leaders are available).
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 10, 2018 21:49:23 GMT
Wasn't sure if this was best place to put this. With the opening date now pushed back to 2020 do you think TfL will still wait until the line opens to introduce the proposed bus changes? Was there any savings in the changes if so can they afford to wait until 2020 to introduce them?
Dare I even mention the 25! My guess is that many of the changes will have to wait. It all depends on what the revised CR programme, due Jan 2019, says about introducing train services. Many of the CR related changes were broadly resource neutral - improvements were paid for by cuts in other services in the same area. Therefore TfL will want to introduce the changes as packages to avoid unexpected cost increases by just running extra / new routes. Where some of the improvements were related to new housing developments then I'd expect the bus link to wait until such time as roads are finished and new homes are occupied. That will mean interim arrangements on the 180, H32, 95, 195 - no shock here as TfL have said as much in their consultation reply. I think other changes in Central London and elsewhere which are about cutting PVRs and saving a lot of money will be introduced as fast as TfL can manage. I also expect later, as yet unpublished, cuts to bus services will be accelerated. We really need to see the new TfL business plan to at least get a small clue as to what TfL will do. That's my guess. We will see what unfolds in due course.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Dec 11, 2018 0:38:14 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. I think you are right. The document's headline is that the December was at high risk, not that it was impossible. The Mayor will no doubt claim that he expected there to be suitable mitigations so the date would be met, and as you say had yet to be 'formally advised of a definite delay to opening'.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Dec 11, 2018 7:22:02 GMT
I do wonder how there is around £1.4 Bn of work still to be completed, for a line that was supposed to open yesterday.
All the tunnelling, all the tracklaying, all the electrification already exists, majority of trains delivered Many of the stations are ready (a few need bit more finishing) although Bond Street (East) is few months late
A number of over Station developments are continuing but these are generally financed elsewhere by the owners of these new buildings
The upgrades to existing stations are part of a £2 - 2.5 bn Network Rail upgrade that is not part of the TfL funding pot, and many of the expensive improvements are already done, new track, Acton diveunder etc. It’s mainly the late addition of accessibility to some minor stations in the West that is continuing.
The biggest delay seems to be testing and signalling and getting the train software to work properly and interface with signals, but I cannot work out how to spend a billion on testing and software tweaks.
|
|
|
Post by M1199 on Dec 11, 2018 9:48:26 GMT
Without knowing too much on this subject,
Does this fiasco now have complications for GWR, in terms of their Thames Valley network and rolling stock? I was under the understanding that the HEX was going to use the 387's made spare following the introduction of the 345's along the Thames Valley.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 11, 2018 9:55:49 GMT
Without knowing too much on this subject, Does this fiasco now have complications for GWR, in terms of their Thames Valley network and rolling stock? I was under the understanding that the HEX was going to use the 387's made spare following the introduction of the 345's along the Thames Valley. Is it really a "fiasco" or is too much being made out of this? It's certainly not uncommon for projects of this size to overrun.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Dec 11, 2018 11:48:58 GMT
Without knowing too much on this subject, Does this fiasco now have complications for GWR, in terms of their Thames Valley network and rolling stock? I was under the understanding that the HEX was going to use the 387's made spare following the introduction of the 345's along the Thames Valley. Is it really a "fiasco" or is too much being made out of this? It's certainly not uncommon for projects of this size to overrun. Yes, there is a knock on effect, and will probably involve extensions and changes of dates. Clearly the date of transfer from HEX and GWR to Elizabeth line may change (or might not, in same way Crossrail took over the 315s on Shenfield line). Unclear yet. The HEX stock was due to go off lease, but clearly if the 387s are not releaced by 345s then they are not available (they need some interior reconfiguring for airport services) I think the Newbury line electrification has just been completed which will use some 387s soon. From memory there are 6 spare 387s (in short term use on Fenchurch Street services, pending arrival of 6 x 10 car Aventra in 2021), don't know where these go long term.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Dec 11, 2018 11:59:38 GMT
Is it really a "fiasco" or is too much being made out of this? It's certainly not uncommon for projects of this size to overrun. Yes, there is a knock on effect, and will probably involve extensions and changes of dates. Clearly the date of transfer from HEX and GWR to Elizabeth line may change (or might not, in same way Crossrail took over the 315s on Shenfield line). Unclear yet. The HEX stock was due to go off lease, but clearly if the 387s are not releaced by 345s then they are not available (they need some interior reconfiguring for airport services) I think the Newbury line electrification has just been completed which will use some 387s soon. From memory there are 6 spare 387s (in short term use on Fenchurch Street services, pending arrival of 6 x 10 car Aventra in 2021), don't know where these go long term. The c2c 387s were leased to them by Govia so I wouldn't be surprised to see them returned there. Weren't the HeX 387s meant to come from 769s joining the fleet?
|
|
|
Post by MoEnviro on Dec 11, 2018 13:30:53 GMT
Is it really a "fiasco" or is too much being made out of this? It's certainly not uncommon for projects of this size to overrun. Yes, there is a knock on effect, and will probably involve extensions and changes of dates. Clearly the date of transfer from HEX and GWR to Elizabeth line may change (or might not, in same way Crossrail took over the 315s on Shenfield line). Unclear yet. The HEX stock was due to go off lease, but clearly if the 387s are not releaced by 345s then they are not available (they need some interior reconfiguring for airport services) I think the Newbury line electrification has just been completed which will use some 387s soon. From memory there are 6 spare 387s (in short term use on Fenchurch Street services, pending arrival of 6 x 10 car Aventra in 2021), don't know where these go long term. Could TfL take over the GWR stopping Services but run into the main Paddington station?
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Dec 11, 2018 14:01:35 GMT
Without knowing too much on this subject, Does this fiasco now have complications for GWR, in terms of their Thames Valley network and rolling stock? I was under the understanding that the HEX was going to use the 387's made spare following the introduction of the 345's along the Thames Valley. Is it really a "fiasco" or is too much being made out of this? It's certainly not uncommon for projects of this size to overrun. I Agree storm in a Teacup we have lived without Crossrail so can do for another year .. as much as a pain as it is however as someone said I don't see how it can work out too that much money if the major problem is the signalling and software unless the whole core has to be re signalled .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2018 14:05:45 GMT
BBC London's Tom Edwards reporting that as a consequence of the additional XR funding, projects such as the deep level tube upgrade and improvement works at Camden Town are being "paused". A further quote from TfL reads "right-size the bus network"
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Dec 11, 2018 14:42:45 GMT
Is it really a "fiasco" or is too much being made out of this? It's certainly not uncommon for projects of this size to overrun. I Agree storm in a Teacup we have lived without Crossrail so can do for another year .. as much as a pain as it is however as someone said I don't see how it can work out too that much money if the major problem is the signalling and software unless the whole core has to be re signalled . This misses the point somewhat. While we will still have a nice new railway at the end of this, there are ramifications that go well beyond that. TfL and the Mayor have suffered reputational damage from what appears to be a textbook project management failure to understand red flags. TfL has a hole in its budget that will lead to projects being deferred or scrapped, and there are indications that the bus network will suffer. The chances of Crossrail 2 have just taken a big dip, as the funding is pushed back and the Treasury loses faith in the ability to deliver. At this point, no-one can say when Crossrail will open. It emboldens Northern mayors to oppose support for London projects and the anti-HS2 lot get more bullets to fire. London Reconnections are compiling a more forensic analysis but for the short term, fiasco seems perfectly reasonable to me.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Dec 11, 2018 14:53:28 GMT
With apologies to sid who I know doesn't enjoy this sort of thing, others might like this old Smith and Jones sketch that always comes to mind at points like this.
|
|