TRACK AND SIGNALLING
Bombardier loses sub-surface lines signalling contract
ondon Underground is to re-let the re- signalling contract for the Circle, District, Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan lines.
L
Adam Hewitt reports on the tensions leading to LU parting ways with Bombardier on the SSL re-signalling project. behind schedule) of the project.”
Bombardier was awarded a contract in June 2011 and has completed preparatory work including the construction of a new control centre, but it is thought compatibility issues have made it impossible to continue.
The work done so far will be taken forward with another contractor due to “the complex nature of the network” and to meet the planned deadline.
The original delivery timetable of 2018 will be maintained, LU insisted, and Bombardier retains its separate contract to deliver the new S-Stock trains, which will be introduced as part of the upgrade. However, this contract is with a separate part of Bombardier and was never directly linked to the re-signalling.
One insider, who asked not to be named, told RTM: “Bombardier is a top notch international transportation company. Their modern signalling technology has been proven elsewhere in the world but they had no experience of installation anywhere in the UK and little understanding of the complexity of dealing with London Underground. Despite this background, and to everyone’s surprise at the time, LU awarded Bombardier with this contract. Bombardier thought they could implant their proven technology into LU without ever realising the difficulties they would face.”
They added: “It had little chance of succeeding. Leaving aside the technical problems of running different signalling systems alongside each other on some sections of track where other services operate, it is the management and control of this project which has greatly contributed to its failure. From the start, there was great difficulty in agreeing the specification, control systems,
costing, staffing, structure and time frame (which was always running
“The advantage of installing it is that we do it once, and of course we’re helped here because
www.opinion@railtechnologymagazine.com TELL US WHAT YOU THINK
rail technology magazine Dec/Jan 14 | 63
Discussing the decision to part ways with Bombardier, LU’s managing director Mike Brown said: “This is the right decision to make for London Underground and for Londoners. We have been working closely with Bombardier to find a way forward on what is one of the most challenging and complex pieces of work on the Tube. However it has become apparent to both parties that for the work to be completed within or close to the planned deadline, we need to push on with works with another contractor. Enabling works already completed by LU and Bombardier can be utilised when works recommence next year.
“I look forward, of course, to continuing to working with Bombardier who are delivering the walk-through air conditioned trains that will serve all four sub-surface lines by 2016.”
Lutz Bertling, president and chief operating officer at Bombardier Transportation: “Together with London Underground we have now laid the foundation for the complex signalling upgrade of the Sub Surface Railway. Both parties have jointly and amicably agreed to complete and finalise the works that have been provided to date, and we look forward to working with London Underground as we continue to deliver the new air-conditioned trains for the network.”
RTM interviewed Bombardier’s project manager Peter Acton in April 2013, during the testing phase at Old Dalby. He was based out of TfL’s Buckingham Palace Road offices.
He told us then: “We’ve learnt our lessons from Madrid and from the Victoria line as well. We ‘did the job twice’ on those: we did an overlay phase and then an asset replacement phase.
“We have avoided that here, by designing straight into the ATO asset replacement stage.
unlike say on the Victoria line, where we had old trains in initially and then we had new trains coming on board, we’ve got the new trains already there coming in.
“Bombardier Transportation’s approach is to provide a new system as an overlay on top of the legacy signalling set; on commissioning, the old legacy system simply becomes redundant.
“It is simple and it’s an almost beautiful situation to be in; there is no interface needed to the old legacy system at all, because we’re missing out that overlay stage.”
We asked him then how well LU and Bombardier have been working together, and he explained: “They’re the customer, we’re the supplier, so we do still have that commercial contractual relationship. But we sit in the same office, I sit next to the project director for London Underground, and we have that daily interaction and chat about everyday things – so it’s not like we’re only coming together once a week to talk about specific key issues, although of course we do still have those meetings.
“The way we’re sitting together, it’s like we’re in a consistent project review all day everyday. There are privacy issues, but I think positives outweigh the negatives.”
the
LU’s capital programmes director David Waboso, who RTM also spoke to at the time, said: “We do a lot of benchmarking with other metros and we saw that Metro Madrid was doing its resignalling without any closures.
“We went to have a look at that and came back knowing how they did it. We then put that approach into our specification for subsurface signalling and the response we got was very good.
“Bombardier’s was the best – not just around whole-life costs, but minimising closures.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112