 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Zen83237Zen83237 Date: Sep 9, 2008 14:37
When the much hated Metronet forecast a
|
| |
|
| | 11 Comments |
|
|
Author: tim.....tim..... Date: Sep 9, 2008 14:51
"Zen83237" zen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:48c6ec96$0$26075$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...> When the much hated Metronet forecast a
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: tim.....tim..... Date: Sep 9, 2008 14:53
>
> "Zen83237" zen.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:48c6ec96$0$26075$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...>> When the much hated Metronet forecast a
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John BJohn B Date: Sep 10, 2008 04:03
On Sep 9, 10:53 pm, "tim....." yahoo.co.uk> wrote:>>> When the much hated Metronet forecast a £2bn overspend there was much
>>> criticism here and calls by the then mayor for Metronet to go bust. There
>>> were calls for the super efficient Tubelines take over and do the work
>>> for the original estimate. Where are the Metronet bashers now that
>>> Tubelines have come in with a £1.4bn overspend.
>>> Before anybody says well £1.4bn is less than £2bn Tubelines have 3 lines
>>> and Metronet had 5 lines. That makes Tublines even worse than Metronet.
>
>> probably because we've never seen such a report
>
>> do you have a link
|
| Show full article (1.19Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Zen83237Zen83237 Date: Sep 10, 2008 11:40
"John B" johnband.org> wrote in message
news:ba6be953-808b-473e-a923-74352c586a3d@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 9, 10:53 pm, "tim....." yahoo.co.uk> wrote:>>> When the much hated Metronet forecast a
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John BJohn B Date: Sep 11, 2008 02:46
On Sep 10, 7:40 pm, "Zen83237" zen.co.uk> wrote:> How can the £2bn be money wasted above regulators assessment. It was future
> spend. How can you waste future spend? Can soembody explain.
No, Metronet went bust over the money it had already spent above the
amount that the regulator deemed fair (and hence money that Metronet
couldn't recover from LU), not the money it was planning to spend.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: zen83237zen83237 Date: Sep 11, 2008 14:05
"John B" johnband.org> wrote in message
news:efc795cb-7afc-4dd0-bf4f-97559aa3da4c@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 10, 7:40 pm, "Zen83237" zen.co.uk> wrote:> How can the £2bn be money wasted above regulators assessment. It was
> future
> spend. How can you waste future spend? Can soembody explain.
No, Metronet went bust over the money it had already spent above the
amount that the regulator deemed fair (and hence money that Metronet
couldn't recover from LU), not the money it was planning to spend.
--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org
"Yes. Also because the GBP1.4bn is what the regulator believes is the
correct adjustment given changes in the cost environment, whereas
Metronet's gap was the amount of money that it wasted above the
regulator's assessment of how much the work should have cost".
|
| Show full article (1.42Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Barry SalterBarry Salter Date: Sep 11, 2008 17:24
zen83237 wrote:
> Metronet went bust because the parent companies pulled the plug because
> they stood little chance of getting much of the predicted future
> overspend of £2bn. I don't agree that they went bust because...
|
| Show full article (1.09Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John BJohn B Date: Sep 12, 2008 00:05
On 11 Sep, 22:05, "zen83237" zen.co.uk> wrote:> Metronet went bust because the parent companies pulled the plug because they
> stood little chance of getting much of the predicted future overspend of
> £2bn.
No. Metronet had a projected overspend of GBP2bn *by 2010* (whereas
the TL cost rise is to 2015). But it went bust because it had
*already* overspent by GBP500m, and the PPP Arbiter refused to pass
the overspend onto London Underground. Hence the shareholders would
have needed to put in more equity to keep the company solvent, and
they decided not to.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6903977.stm
> I don't agree that they went bust because of the difference between
> Metronet's cost overuns to date and the assessors figure.
Well, you're wrong.
> Anyway how does that have any relevance to comparing Metronets future
> oversend of £2bn for work on 5 lines verses Tubelines predicted future
> overspend on work on 3 lines.
Because one was for the next three years, whereas the other is for the
following seven years.
|
| Show full article (1.26Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Zen83237Zen83237 Date: Sep 12, 2008 11:59
"John B" johnband.org> wrote in message
news:ff3fb052-9003-4f02-9c2a-dcb7e3bc3027@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On 11 Sep, 22:05, "zen83237" zen.co.uk> wrote:> Metronet went bust because the parent companies pulled the plug because
> they
> stood little chance of getting much of the predicted future overspend of
>
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
