LONDON TRANSPORT
LU ditches main contractors under new ‘Stake’ delivery model
London Underground is modernising 70 of its stations over the next seven years via a new delivery method that eliminates the main contractor principle, with consultant-led SMEs coming to the fore. Adam Hewitt reports.
L
ondon Underground (LU) is trialling a radical new delivery structure for its station modernisation programme, emphasising ‘craftsmanship’, which SMEs have called “a breath of fresh air which values our skill and knowledge”.
The losers under the new model are the major construction companies, as the ‘main contractor’ principle has been eliminated. The ‘Stake’ delivery model, a UK trial project under Infrastructure UK, a Treasury unit, is aimed at cutting out sub-contractor layers from the supply chain.
LU’s programme director for stations, Miles Ashley, said: “Construction supply chains have become multi-tiered and fragmented, and it could be said that the industry has lost sight of the importance of craft skills in delivering efficiently.
“Great craftsmanship is the key to the success
of any infrastructure project, and our Stake approach allows long-term engagement with the people at the workface and recognises that they are the most valuable part of our team.”
LU has picked 22 contractors and three multi- discipline designers (Atkins, Jacobs and Capita) for the work to modernise and maintain 70 stations to a common standard, which should mean no significant further work will be needed for 10 further years.
The contractors are: Wingate, Delatim, Giffin Group, Atkins, Fourway, Magnolia, Emerald, Close Brothers, Livis, DMC, Excel, K&M McLoughlin, JNG, HA Marks, AGS, Community Clean, UKDN Waterflow, Lanes Group, Hillmore Fire Protection, Young & Young Security, TRAD Scaffolding and Millcroft.
LU has adopted DS Consulting’s ‘Collaborative Planning’ methodology. The Embankment refurbishment shows the idea works, LU says.
One supplier, Alex Morrissey, director of tiling contractor DMC, said: “Stake is opening up opportunities to value engineer and innovate in ways that weren’t possible under conventional sub-contracting arrangements. It’s a breath of fresh air which values our skill and knowledge.”
The key principles of Stake are: engaging with the SME contractors who actually do the work on-site; simplified contract arrangements with LU taking the majority of the risk; giving a long-term commitment to suppliers; having competent and capable resources; creating a ‘one team’ approach; and ‘production leads, everything else enables’.
FOR MORE INFORMATION More on Stake in our June/July 2014 edition
LU platform end barrier and train stopping marker project
Mike Worby is a chartered land surveyor, a Member of the Chartered Institute of Civil Engineering Surveyors and has nearly 40 years’ experience in the industry. Here he describes recent work with London Underground.
As
part of London Underground’s Sub- Surface Railway Upgrade Programme
(SUP), new seven-car S-Stock trains are being introduced onto the Circle and District Lines of the Sub-Surface Railway (SSR) network.
This upgrade can involve implementing a number of modifications to existing station infrastructure.
Chartered land and engineering surveyors Mike Worby Survey Consultancy (MWSC) were engaged by consulting engineers Roughton International to provide survey data to assist in the replacement / movement of platform end barriers and the installation / repositioning of train stopping markers (TSMs) at 19 separate work sites located at eight District Line stations from Upney to Upminster.
136 | rail technology magazine Apr/May 14
TSMs indicate to the train operator where to stop the train.
separate passenger areas from non-passenger areas on platforms and are designed for crowd loading. Roughton International were acting as design consultants for contractors Dyer and Butler under an NEC3 Design and Build contract.
The scope of the project dictated the need for topographic surveys, lux level surveys and photographic records of the works area from the driver’s
viewpoint at each
worksite, in order for the design consultants to prepare site-specific solutions.
In view of the requirement for each dataset, MWSC opted to use laser scanning techniques to capture the workspace
Platform end barriers
(including a dummy TSM) for the topographic survey element, whilst simultaneously capturing lux level data for light analysis .
From the processed laserscan survey, key elements were extracted to provide 2D plans and a webshare was created to allow the design team to interrogate the pointcloud data to assess each site for optimum positioning of assets / clash detection / driver operability, without incurring further costs and time delays by revisiting the site. Drivethrough videos were also produced showing the view from the driver’s cab to proof-test the position of the new TSM design.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
www.mikeworbysurveyconsultancy.co.uk © TfL
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 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208