On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 10:21:25 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T 
wrote:

>It doesn't appear to be on the agenda to do this in-house. I'd imagine
>there are numerous reasons why - it'd be inefficient to have a whole
>in-house maintenance division just for the central section of the ELL,
>and it'd all need to be set up from scratch. (Elsewhere on this thread
>I do ponder over the idea that the newly TfL-owned Metronet could do
>it, but Metronet specialise - or at least supposedly specialise! - in
>LU standard infrastructure, rather than NR standard tracks, plus
>Metronet rather has it's hands full at the moment so could probably do
>without the distraction of maintaining what is for it a non-standard
>line).

While I agree Metronet are in a difficult position at present they are
actually pretty well positioned to do this job. AIUI elements of the
Central track and points as well as those bits of colour light signals
that exist on the line are all to NR standards.  As for the rest it's a
railway and they maintain a railway - no issue really.

>I dare say that the contract will be managed far more tightly by TfL
>than the laizzes faire way in which maintenance contractors were
>handled by Railtrack (and Network Rail).

I think it depends entirely on how the performance elements of the
contract are specified and the level of freedom / intrusion that is
given relative to the level of competence of the contractor and the
quality of technical assurance they can give to LU.

>Aha, I believe I've found the relevant invitation to tender on the
>OJEU website - it is for "Maintenance of the East London Railway
>(ELR)":
>http://www.tendersdirect.com/notices/view.aspx?ref=46046-2008
>
>It is a 7 year contract, with an option to extend it by 3 years. The
>tender states that "London Underground (LU) will act as Infrastructure
>Manager on this core section of the ELR", and does also mention that
>the applicant should have "Knowledge and experience of LU Engineering
>Directorate assurance requirements, accreditation or proposals for
>self-certification."

Sounds like there will be elements of LU standards being used for some
parts of the infrastructure. As there is sharing of knowledge between NR
and LU it's not unduly difficult for LU engineers to be involved in
assessing competence / assurance against NR standards.

>So it's a bit difficult to assess exactly what role LUL will have with
>regards to the ELR - it would appear that they will be more than just
>being the legal entity that appears on the letterhead. But the ELR is
>certainly not going to have anything to do with LUL's operational
>railway (...apart from managing some of the stations, you pedants!).

I think you've explained it already - LU owns the Infrastructure and
therefore has to assured that whoever is let loose on it to operate and
maintain it is good enough. That seems the minimum level of involvement.
I agree that it is unclear at this stage whether LU people sit in a
control room and manage train movements or whether that's NR, LOROL, A N
Other or some magical mixture.

>Maintenance of the East London Railway (ELR).
>
>The maintenance aspects of performing the Infrastructure Manager role
>are extensive, multi-disciplinary and industry specific. The
>responsibilities include routine, reactive, refurbishment and overhaul
>maintenances and repairs of all aspects on the 6 mile twin track route
>way, track, point work, signalling, communications, structures
>(tunnels and bridges and embankments) as well as landlord premises
>maintenance responsibilities at the stations and the depot. As
>Infrastructure Manager there also exists a requirement to provide a
>fault reporting centre and an emergency response reactive multiple
>shift capability in addition to the day-to-day planned maintenance
>requirements. Limited maintenance access time, engineering hours only
>(0100-0500) introduces further maintenance difficulties. There will
>also be a substantial amount of minor and renewals works that will be
>inherited from the previous Infrastructure Manager and some of the
>gaps in the construction scopes that will not be completed for
>reopening the service.

The emergency response bit is interesting - at present LU's ERU team are
part of Tube Lines and are recognised as having a key set of expertise
that applies beyond the LU network.

>London Underground, through this OJEU process are seeking to award a
>single Maintenance Contract, for an initial period of seven years, or
>an optional period on a predominately performance based contract, with
>minimal safety and operational input elements. The plan is to award
>the Maintenance Contract such that a minimum period of six months dual
>running with BBC-JV can occur prior to trial operations.

Wouldn't it be a complete scream if TfL owned Metronet and private Tube
Lines put in bids!?

-- 
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Tom Barry wrote:

> Paul Corfield wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't it be a complete scream if TfL owned Metronet and private Tube 
>> Lines put in bids!?
>
> And Network Rail?  All three more-or-less creations of Gordon Brown 
> (given that NR was largely set up by his Treasury cronies).

Indeed. I think Mizter T's analysis that the ELL is "just a long branch 
off [the LBSC main line]" is spot on, and so it would make perfect sense 
for its maintenance to be done by the same body that maintains that.

tom

-- 
only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are
universally valid -- Pope Benedict XVI

On 4 Jun, 23:07, Tom Anderson  wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Tom Barry wrote:
>
> > Paul Corfield wrote:
>
> >> Wouldn't it be a complete scream if TfL owned Metronet and private Tube
> >> Lines put in bids!?
>
> > And Network Rail?  All three more-or-less creations of Gordon Brown
> > (given that NR was largely set up by his Treasury cronies).

I don't think there was anything to stop Network Rail putting in a bid
if it made commercial sense to them, apart of course from whether or
not the shadowy presence of the DfT would have approved of them so
doing.

>
> Indeed. I think Mizter T's analysis that the ELL is "just a long branch
> off [the LBSC main line]" is spot on, and so it would make perfect sense
> for its maintenance to be done by the same body that maintains that.
>

I was really thinking about that with regards to who would do the
signalling. Even if one thinks of the ELL as a branch line, I really
don't think it necessarily follows that the job should go to Network
Rail - after all need TfL merely hand maintenance of the line to the
'incumbent' as it were?

Bear in mind that the core ELL route is going to be intensively used -
16tph, with 20tph if phase 2 to Clapham Jn gets the go ahead. TfL are
aiming to do a number of things differently in providing this high-
quality metro style service. Network Rail meanwhile might just default
to the same old working methods.The ELL for example is going to finish
later (1am) and start earlier (5am) than most Network Rail lines.

I've no doubt that Network Rail has a great degree of competence,
despite the many recent high profile problems. But perhaps it is a
good idea given the great opportunity to at least try a different
approach - indeed, the situation on the ELL will be a new approach
anyway, what with TfL being the boss and the maintenance being done by
a contractor. Everywhere else on the railways Network Rail is boss,
but if they were to do the ELL maintenance then instead they'd be in
the unusual position of being in a subservient role.

Unless of course one takes the position that the whole ELL should just
be handed over to Network Rail. But if that were to happen then I fear
one might start to see more and longer weekend closures, the service
finishing earlier and starting later, and perhaps a somewhat reduced
overall standard of maintenance (more signal failures etc) as the line
assumed a lesser priority in Network Rail's grand scheme of things.

When it comes to signalling I'm sure there are good arguments to be
made for a number of different approaches. Whatever happens one would
hope that the integration between signalling and operation is tight
(as sometimes occurs already with these joint Network Rail/TOC control
rooms) - things are inevitably going to go wrong on the LBSC mainline
from time to time, so the ELL service must be flexible and able to
adjust quickly to that, whether that means terminating/reversing more
trains at New Cross or Crystal Palace or whatever.