Jump to content

Metronet (British infrastructure company)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Metronet Rail Ltd
Company typePrivate / consortium
IndustryRailway infrastructure
Founded1999
Defunct2009
FateAdministration
HeadquartersTemplar House, High Holborn, London
Key people
  • Andrew Cooper (BCV MD)
  • David Crawley (SSL MD)
  • Andrew Lezala (group CEO)
Number of employees
approx. 6,000
Parent

Metronet Railwas an asset-management company responsible for the maintenance, renewal and upgrade of the infrastructure, including track, trains, signals, civils work and stations, on severalLondon Undergroundlines. It was one of two infrastructure companies (the other beingTube Lines Ltd) in apublic-private partnership(PPP) with the Underground.

Metronet was founded in 1999 as aconsortiumof several private companies to bid for a PPP, the British Government having signaled its intention to transfer such activity from the public sector, although the bidding process was protracted by political disagreements.[1]Metronet emerged as the successful bidder for two 30-year contracts covering various tube and sub-surface lines; starting in 2003, it was responsible for the maintenance, renewal, and upgrade of the infrastructure (track, trains, tunnels, signals, and stations) on a total of nine Underground lines.[2][3]To encourage high reliability rates, financial deductions were incurred for poor performance at twice the rate of increase in revenue for improved performance.[4][5]

The PPP arrangement was closely scrutinised by the British government; by early 2005, both theHouse of CommonsTransport Select Committeeand thePublic Accounts Committeewere criticising the opaque nature of the PPP as well as questioning the value for money in comparison to a publicly run investment programme.[6][7]In August 2004, Metronet was declared at fault for a May 2004 derailment atWhite City.In April 2005, the chief executive of Metronet was sacked following complaints that it had made £50million profit despite being behind on all its major works. During November 2006, Metronet were heavily criticised by theOffice of Rail Regulation(ORR) over their performance from 2003 to 2006. In July 2007, the company admitted that it may have caused a Central Line train derailment nearMile End.

Following financial difficulties, the company was placed inadministrationduring July 2007.[8]In May 2008, the company's responsibilities were transferred back into public ownership under the authority ofTransport for London(TfL).[9][2]In June 2009, theNational Audit Officeestimated that the failure of the Metronet PPP contract cost the taxpayer up to £410million, adding that "most of the blame for Metronet's collapse lay with the consortium itself."[10]The company was wound up in December 2009.[11]After TfL opted to buy out theTube Linesconsortium in 2010, all Underground infrastructure maintenance was thereafter managed in-house.

History

[edit]

Background

[edit]

During the mid 1990s, theConservative governmentconducted a deep exploration of various options for involving the private sector in the operations of theLondon Underground.[4]These options included its complete privatisation, akin to that ofBritish Rail.This option was publicly opposed by theLabour Party,who stated in theirNew Labour, New Life for Britainmanifestofor the upcominggeneral electionthat the wholesale privatisation of the Underground was not the answer and proposed the use of apublic-private partnership(PPP) arrangement instead.[4]

Following the election, the newLabour governmentpromptly began work on setting up PPPs, stating that this would address the perceived period of underinvestment in the Underground.[12][4]The selected model called for the operation of services on the Tube to remain in the hands of the public sector while the infrastructure (including the track, trains, tunnels, signals, and stations) would be leased to private firms for a 30 year period, during which they would enact various improvements.[12][4]A public denial that the newly-formed railway infrastructure companyRailtrackwould be involved in the PPP was issued by the government after it was made clear that some parties would refuse to bid if it was. By the turn of the century, senior figures within the government was strongly advocating for the implementation of these PPPs.[1][4]

Metronet was founded in 1999 as a consortium of companies to bid for PPP contracts.[13]The equal shareholders in the venture wereAtkins,Balfour Beatty,Adtranz(laterBombardier Transportation),SEEBOARD(laterEDF Energy), andThames Water.[13]

To pay for the works, each company provided £70million of equity; a further £2billion was raised using bank loans, and £600million from theEuropean Investment Bank.[5]The consortium awarded contracts to its own shareholders, for example rolling stock contracts were awarded toBombardier Transportation.[3]Thisclosed shopsupply chain approach was later criticised for causing high costs for the consortium.[14][15]

Formation of the PPP

[edit]

The bidding process was protracted by political factors, including public disagreements on the topic of PPPs between then-Mayor of LondonKen LivingstoneandDeputy Prime MinisterJon Prescott.[1][4]Furthermore, in the aftermath of theHatfield rail crash,there was a climate of both public and political skepticism in the involvement of the private sector in transport infrastructure. During early 2001,Bob Kiley,the first commissioner ofTransport for London(TfL) and an outspoken critic of the prospective PPPs,[16][1]was put in charge of the process. Kiley was also empowered to revise the terms of the prospective contracts; he promptly produced updated briefs for the PPPs, a move which thus necessitated the submission of revised bids.[1]

During May 2001, it was announced that both Metronet and Tube Lines had been selected as the preferred consortiums.[4][16][17]Metronet emerged as the successful bidder for two 30-year contracts, covering various tube and sub-surface lines; specifically, the BCV (tube) lines contract involved theBakerloo,Central,VictoriaandWaterloo & Citylines, while the SSL (sub-surface) lines contract coveredCircle,District,East London,Hammersmith & CityandMetropolitanlines.[18][16]

Separately, Tube Lines was awarded the contract for the other London Underground lines –Jubilee,NorthernandPiccadilly.Both Metronet and Tube Lines were colloquially referred to as "infracos";[16]there was repeated speculation that the two companies planned to merge.[19]Contracts valued at around £17billion over the 30-year period were issued, under which these companies received around £660million each month from the Government, although this amount was subject to reductions if targets are not met.[18]

In April 2003, Metronet began to maintain, upgrade and renew London Underground infrastructure as the PPP came into force.[5]

Commitments under the PPP

[edit]

Under the terms of the PPP contracts, Metronet agreed to maintain London Underground infrastructure (track, trains, tunnels, signals, and stations) to the standards and performance levels set in the contract. Furthermore, Metronet committed to delivering substantial improvements to the network, by refurbishing, upgrading and renewing track, trains, tunnels, signals, and stations.[4]To encourage high reliability, deductions suffered for poor performance were set at twice the rate of increase in revenue for improved performance.[3][5]

At a cost of £7billion, Metronet promised substantial investment during the first 7.5years of the contract (2003 to 2010):[3]

  • 147 stations (including lifts and escalators) modernised or refurbished by 2012
  • 127 miles (204 km) of track renewed and 166 points/crossings replaced
  • Upgrade and refurbishment of tunnels, bridges, embankments, track drainage and other civil structures
  • Refurbishment of existing rolling stock, as well as making them more reliable
  • 47 new trains with upgraded signalling on theVictoria lineby 2012 (delivered as2009 Stock)
  • 190 new air conditioned trains for theDistrict,Circle,Hammersmith & CityandMetropolitanlines by 2015 (delivered asS Stock)
  • 24 newBakerloo linetrains by 2019 (cancelled following the collapse of the PPP)

Performance and criticism

[edit]
From 2006, Metronet used fiveClass 66locomotives fromGB Railfreightto help speed up track replacement works

In June 2004, theNational Audit Officecriticised the complexity of the PPP deals, noting they offered "the prospect, but not the certainty" of improvements.[20]In August 2004, Metronet was declared at fault by an accident investigators' report into a May 2004 derailment atWhite City,for failing to implement sufficient safety checks despite being ordered to do so by TfL.[21][22]

During March 2005, the House of CommonsTransport Select Committeenoted that "Availability is the most important factor for Tube travellers. All the infracos needed to do to meet their availability benchmarks was to perform only a little worse than in the past. On most lines, they did not even manage that."[7]That same month, theHouse of CommonsPublic Accounts Committee,charged with ensuring value for money in public spending, published a report concluding that it was "impossible to determine" whether the PPP was better value than a publicly run investment programme.[6]

In April 2005, theCommissioner of Transport for London,Bob Kiley,pressed for an urgent review of the PPP, describing its performance as "bordering on disaster". TfL also said that new technology promised by Metronet had yet to be seen — "We were supposed to be getting private sector expertise and technology with the PPP (Public Private Partnership) but instead they are just using the same old kit."[15]One week later, the chief executive of Metronet was sacked,[23]after complaints that the company had made £50million profit despite being behind on all its major works.[24]By April 2005, it had started work on only 13 station refurbishments, instead of 32 as scheduled, and was more than a year behind on the refurbishment of 78District line trains.It was also behind on its track replacement programme, having completed 28 km of the anticipated 48 km.[25]

During November 2006, Metronet were heavily criticised by thearbiterof the PPP, theOffice of Rail Regulation(ORR) over their performance from 2003 to 2006.[18]Specific analysis included the finding that Metronet had not performed in an economic or efficient manner, and had failed to follow good industry practice. The ORR also stated that Metronet would be held responsible for £750million in cost overruns.[18][26]The other PPP consortium,Tube Lines,noted that they were delivering projects on time and on budget.[14]

In July 2007, Metronet admitted that it may have caused a Central Line train derailment nearMile End,in which a train hit a fire blanket left by maintenance workers.[27][28]

Administration

[edit]

In April 2007, MayorKen Livingstonestated that Metronet could collapse due to a £750million overspend.[29]In July 2007, it was reported that Metronet was "teetering on the brink of administration".[30]The situation arose because it had received only £121million out of the £551million that was needed to cover cost over-runs. By contrast,Tube Lines,the other PPP consortium, had brought in almost all of its works on time and on budget.[31]On 18 July 2007, the company was placed intoadministration.[11][8]

To enable its business activities to be kept going while the winding-up of the company was in progress, the British Government provided Metronet with £2billion in 2008.[32]Following negotiations with Bombardier, Metronet modified contracts to allow for continued delivery of2009 StockandS Stocktrains, while releasing Bombardier from its obligation to resignal the sub-surface lines.[9]

Aftermath

[edit]

On 27 May 2008, Metronet came out of administration, and its contracts and employees were transferred to TfL under two new temporary companies, LUL Nominee BCV Ltd and LUL Nominee SSL Ltd. On 3 December 2009, the PPP business of Metronet Rail became an integral part of London Underground.[9][2]Some of the improvements promised by Metronet were delivered (such as new2009 StockandS Stocktrains), however other improvements were cancelled or delayed.

During early 2008, theDepartment for Transportrejected claims that the PPP was to blame for the collapse of Metronet, and that it was "predominantly a corporate failure", with "structural weaknesses [that] led to its own downfall."[33]In 2010, the House of Commons'Public Accounts Committeereprimanded theDepartment for Transportfor its failure to heedNational Audit Officewarnings about the company's management.[34]According to the report from the Public Accounts Committee, around £170million to £410m of taxpayer money was lost due to the failure of Metronet.[35][36]The companies involved in the consortium collectively lost around £350million in the collapse.[35]

In May 2010, it was announced that TfL would buy out theTube Linesconsortium, formally ending the PPP.[37][38][39]Commentators blamed the complex and "onerous" contracts for its failure.[40]Combined with the takeover of Metronet, this meant that all maintenance was thereafter managed in-house, although TfL has continued to use a large number of private suppliers and contractors.[37]By the beginning of 2011, with the formal liquidation process having been completed, the Metronet brand and group of companies had ceased to exist.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^abcdeBaldock, Hannah (9 February 2001)."Getting the Tube to work".Building.Retrieved7 March2021.
  2. ^abc"Metronet's takeover is complete".BBC News.27 May 2008.Retrieved7 March2021.
  3. ^abcd"Metronet Brochure 2005"(PDF).Metronet. 2005. Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 31 October 2006.Retrieved7 March2021.
  4. ^abcdefghiButcher, Louise (16 January 2012)."London Underground PPP: background"(PDF).House of Commons Library.Retrieved25 February2024.
  5. ^abcd"Final stamp on Tube PPP deal".BBC News.4 April 2003.Retrieved7 March2021.
  6. ^ab"London Underground Public Private Partnerships"(PDF).House of Commons Public Accounts Committee. 9 March 2005. p. 9.
  7. ^ab"The Performance of the London Underground"(PDF).House of Commons Transport Committee. 9 March 2005. p. 9.
  8. ^ab"Metronet calls in administrators".BBC News.18 July 2007.Retrieved7 March2021.
  9. ^abcWright, Robert (1 April 2008)."Metronet resolves contract dispute".Financial Times.Retrieved7 March2020.
  10. ^"Metronet failure cost taxpayer upto £410m".Contract Journal.Archived fromthe originalon 15 June 2009.
  11. ^ab.The London Gazette. 11 November 2009. p. 19523.{{cite news}}:Missing or empty|title=(help)
  12. ^ab"New blow to Tube sell-off plan".BBC News.16 December 2000.Retrieved7 March2021.
  13. ^ab"House of Commons - Transport, Local Government and the Regions - Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence".Parliament.uk. October 2001.Retrieved7 March2021.
  14. ^abMilmo, Dan (28 May 2007)."London tube work - one firm on budget; the other £750m over".The Guardian.ISSN0261-3077.
  15. ^abWebster, Ben (14 April 2005)."Metronet behind schedule on all of its main Tube projects".The Times.London.(subscription required)
  16. ^abcdKiley, Bob (12 October 2001)."Bob Kiley: Trouble down the line".The Guardian.Retrieved7 March2021.
  17. ^"The London Underground".BBC News. 3 May 2001.
  18. ^abcd"Metronet shareholders face £750m bill for London Underground failures".The Guardian. 17 November 2006.Retrieved7 March2021.
  19. ^Clark, Phil (11 April 2003)."London Underground rules out 'supercompany' merger".building.co.uk.
  20. ^"London Underground PPP: Were they good deals? - National Audit Office (NAO) Report".National Audit Office.June 2004.Retrieved7 March2021.
  21. ^"Formal Investigation into the derailment of a Central line train at White City on 11th May 2004"(PDF).London Underground. August 2004. Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 22 September 2004.
  22. ^Clark, Andrew (20 August 2004)."Private firm blamed for tube derailment".The Guardian.London.
  23. ^"Metronet boss sacked over delays".The Guardian. 14 April 2005.Retrieved7 March2021.
  24. ^Vulliamy, Ed; Clark, Andrew (21 February 2005)."Down the tube: how PPP deal is costing London".The Guardian.London.
  25. ^Webster, Ben (14 April 2005). "Metronet behind schedule on all of its main Tube projects".The Times.London.
  26. ^"Tube and train services disrupted".BBC News. 20 November 2006.Retrieved12 January2007.
  27. ^"Metronet admits it may have caused tube derailment".The Guardian.5 July 2007.Retrieved7 March2021.
  28. ^Rail Accident Report - Derailment of a London Underground Central Line train near Mile End station 5 July 2007(PDF).Department of Transport - Rail Accident Investigation Branch. January 2008. Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 20 July 2011.
  29. ^"Mayor admits Metronet could collapse".The Guardian. 24 April 2007.Retrieved7 March2021.
  30. ^Hawkes, Steve (17 July 2007)."Metronet on brink of collapse after plea on costs is rejected".The Times.London. Archived fromthe originalon 12 June 2011.
  31. ^"Partnership that turned sour".The Times.27 June 2007. Archived fromthe originalon 12 June 2011.
  32. ^"Govt in £2bn Metronet bail-out".inthenews.co.uk.7 February 2008. Archived fromthe originalon 26 October 2013.Retrieved6 March2017.
  33. ^"PPP 'not to blame' for Metronet collapse".The Guardian. 31 March 2008.Retrieved7 March2021.The government is clear that this was predominantly a corporate failure, and that the structural weaknesses of Metronet led to its own downfall.
  34. ^"DoT failed to heed NAO warning over Metronet finances".Accountancy Age.2 March 2010. Archived fromthe originalon 18 August 2010.
  35. ^ab"House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts - Department for Transport: The failure of Metronet"(PDF).Public Accounts Committee.22 February 2010.
  36. ^"'Poor management' failed Metronet ".BBC News.2 March 2010.Retrieved7 March2021.
  37. ^ab"Tube maintenance back 'in house' as new deal is signed".BBC News.8 May 2010.Retrieved10 May2010.
  38. ^"Amey sells its stake in Tube Lines to Transport for London (TfL) and agrees to continue with the maintenance service".Ferrovial.7 May 2010.Retrieved8 March2021.
  39. ^"New era for the Tube as Transport for London completes acquisition of Tube Lines".Transport for London. 27 June 2010.Retrieved8 March2021.
  40. ^"Tube Lines deal collapses amid cost accusations and fears for future work".Construction Manager.14 May 2010.Retrieved8 March2021.
[edit]
Wikinews has related news:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metronet_(British_infrastructure_company)&oldid=1247985488"