Supplementary memorandum by Tube Lines
(LU 01A)
1. PERFORMANCE
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 At the hearing on 8 December, we agreed
to provide a memorandum on the proportion of targets hit in the
last year. This information is provided below, in relation to
the three contractual measures on which Tube Lines is assessed:
availability, ambience and service points. Figures are given for
the 13 most recent complete four-week periods for which we have
figures; period 10 2003-04 (which started on 7 December 2003)
to period 9 2004-05 (which ended on 11 December 2004).
1.2 Ambience
1.2.1 We hit our target every quarter in
the last year.
The higher the ambience score, the better the
performance achieved
1.3 Service points
1.3.1 We hit our targets over the year for
both fault rectification faults (failure of non-customer facing
assets) and facilities faults (failure of customer-facing assets
such as a CCTV or PA system).
The lower the number of service points, the
better the performance achieved.
1.3.2 The graphs below show the figures,
as broken down by period.
The lower the number of service points, the better
the performance achieved.
1.4 Availability
1.4.1 Over the year, we hit target on the
Piccadilly Line and the Jubilee Line and missed target on the
Northern Line.
The lower the number of lost customer hours,
the better the performance achieved.
1.4.2 The graphs below show the figures,
as broken down by period.
1.5 Conclusion
Over the last year, we:
— Hit our target on ambience
— Hit our target on service points
— Hit our target on Piccadilly Line
and Jubilee Line availability, though not on the Northern Line
2. TARGETS FOR
LOST CUSTOMER
HOURS OVER
THE NEXT
FIVE YEARS
Aggregate targets are presented in the table
below
| Year | Per period target for lost customer hours
|
| 2005 | 345,869.2 |
| 2006 | 340,012.8 |
| 2007 | 337,230.8 |
| 2008 | 334,923.1 |
| 2009 | 333,451.3 |
3. Please supply the details of rolling stock failures
on all lines operated by Tube Lines. If these figures have increased
since the PPP transfer, could you explain why this is so?
The table and corresponding graph below show that failures
on rolling stock have tended to decline. The total number of failures
in the three most recent periods (816) is 38% fewer than the number
of failures in the first three months after transfer (1309).
| Period Rolling Stock |
|
| 2002-P11 495 |
| 2002-P12 490 |
| 2002-P13 324 |
| 2003-P01 331 |
| 2003-P02 363 |
| 2003-P03 394 |
| 2003-P04 366 |
| 2003-P05 476 |
| 2003-P06 409 |
| 2003-P07 341 |
| 2003-P08 262 |
| 2003-P09 296 |
| 2003-P10 257 |
| 2003-P11 332 |
| 2003-P12 335 |
| 2003-P13 333 |
| 2004-P01 324 |
| 2004-P02 284 |
| 2004-P03 353 |
| 2004-P04 259 |
| 2004-P05 307 |
| 2004-P06 257 |
| 2004-P07 269 |
| 2004-P08 280 |
| 2004-P09 267 |
4. How long is the delay for staff on the waiting list
for fire and safety training? How many staff and contractor staff
are still awaiting this training?
We have no waiting list for this type of training.
5. At what point did you know the planning detail required
by Transport for London?
Tube Lines had no awareness of the level of detail required
by Transport for London prior to the signature of the contract
on 31 December 2002 as all discussions of this nature would have
taken place between London Underground and TfL. Tube Lines was
only aware of London Underground's requirements.
In April 2003, however, over three months after the signing
of the contract, TfL, through London Underground, introduced additional
programme management requirements by launching a new database.
Though TfL and Tube Lines use the same programme management software,
TfL's creation of this additional database significantly altered
the format and increased the volume of information required of
Tube Lines.
Tube Lines now provides data to London Underground in an
agreed format which supports TfL's needs, although it should be
noted that this results in a significant amount of extra work
and cost to Tube Lines.
6. Concluding remarks
6.1 Supplementary comments on ownership of Tube Lines
The Committee will be aware that Jarvis' one third share
in Tube Lines is in the process of being bought by Amey, which
already held a one third share. This transaction was approved
by Jarvis' shareholders at an Extraordinary General Meeting on
10 January.
The change in ownership will have no impact on the day-to-day
operation of the business, nor on the company's levels of investment
or upgrade plans.
6.2 Conclusion
We would be happy to provide further information if the Committee
were to find this useful.
Paul Lehmann
Head of Public Affairs
21 January 2005
| 
