Supplementary memorandum by London Underground
(LU 07)
PERFORMANCE OF LONDON UNDERGROUND
Thank you for the letter of 20 December 2004,
confirming the information requested further to my evidence to
the Committee on 8 December. This is set out below.
1. ADDITIONAL
BRITISH TRANSPORT
POLICE OFFICERS
Of the 200 additional officers for the Underground
funded by the Mayor and TfL, 177 have been recruited and trained
and are now on duty (the first two years of which is a probational
period). The final 23 are currently being recruited.
2. WEMBLEY PARK
STATION PROJECT
The breakdown of costs is as follows:
| £ million |
| — London Borough of Brent Section 106 payments*
| 9.0 |
| — Specific LU grant funding for project
| 7.0 |
| — Tube Lines Ltd (ISC reduction) |
9.5 |
| — Core LU Grant | 36.5
|
| Total Funding | 62.0 |
* Funding from Wembley National Stadium Ltd via a Section 106
Agreement with the LB Brent.
It is, unfortunately, not possible to say how much more the
project cost as a result of the deadline being brought forward.
This was part of a wider review of the design and scope of the
project and any cost comparisons would therefore be on a completely
different basis. It is therefore impossible separately to value
the cost of the deadline being brought forward.
3. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Comparison of the rates of pay for London Underground train
operators (drivers) and those of other train operating companies
in the UK show LU currently 6th out of 25 in a league table of
salaries, though not all TOCs have concluded their 2004 pay discussions.
Also, train operators in some other TOCs may have potential for
additional earnings that LU train staff do not.
We do not have such comprehensive data for station staff,
as not all TOCs have ticket office or station staff. Our pay and
conditions for station staff are on a par with Network Rail staff
in the London area, but generally well ahead of those TOCs in
the London area which have station staff.
Although your letter also refers to engineering staff, these
are of course now employed predominantly by Metronet, Tube Lines
and other private sector companies.
4. PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
The agreement I referred to was in relation to information
about the planning and delivery of projects, as distinct from
the day to day performance of the railway.
LUL has reached agreement in principle with both Tube Lines
and Metronet over the information to be provided on project progress
(as described in the agreement in Appendix A). These principles
are in the process of being implemented by both Tube Lines and
Metronet and there are ongoing discussions over the quality and
content of their submissions. The infracos are expected to provide
extensive details about the different phases of each project.
On day to day performance, the contract itself sets out,
in Schedule 5 of the Performance Measurement Code, all the requirements
for performance information, both in terms of what the infracos
need to collect and supply and that to be collected by LU. This
information is used for the calculation of infraco performance
and payment under the PPP Contracts. This includes all information
about service disruptions as well as all faults logged with the
infraco Fault Reporting Centres and their clearance (fix) times.
The schedule also sets out the format in which this information
is to be supplied to LU and the periodicity.
5. CONNECT PFI
To date, a total of £39.2 million in claims has been
paid to the Connect contractor (CityLink) by LU under the Connect
contract.
There are no court cases currently in progress as a result
of a dispute with the Connect contractor. There are two claims
currently being progressed in accordance with the dispute procedure.
The first is regarding Delay and Disruption Costs CityLink are
claiming to have incurred. The second is examining the extent
to which CityLink are obliged to integrate their radio into the
various Rolling Stocks.
Both of the above claims are currently at the stage of adjudication.
6. HEALTH AND
SAFETY FORUM
There are two health and safety forums. One consists of top
management of LU, Metronet and Tube Lines and officials of all
relevant trades unions. The other consists of top management of
LU only and officials of all relevant trades unions.
By agreement with the trades unions each of the above forums
is scheduled to meet twice a year or more often if needed.
Since the start of PPP (on 31/12/02), the all-company forum
has met on 10 occasions. The LU-only forum has met on seven occasions.
The dates of these meetings are attached as Appendix B.
7. 7.5 YEAR REVIEW
The 7.5 year periodic review falls in 2010. The formal process
for the periodic review will commence at least 18 months beforehand—this
is the point at which LU must send to the infracos its revised
requirements. In reality, we will need to start reviewing and
discussing our requirements with Metronet and Tube Lines well
in advance of this, allowing sufficient time to understand areas
of agreeement and disagreement, and the ramifications of any changes
being considered. I would expect these negotiations to commence
three to four years in advance of the review.
I hope that this information is helpful to the Committee.
Tim O'Toole
Managing Director
18 Janaury 2005
MPD PROGRANNNE ASSURANCE
PRINCIPLES
1. Maintenance reporting to be addressed separately and
data exchange to be handled as appropriate under contactual arrangements
and standards.
2. Planning Packages are the point at which earned value
performance is assessed and actual costs matched to budgets. One
or many Planning Packages may exist within each control accounts.
A Planning Package will normally consist of a number of activities
that contribute to a common objective and have a similar cost
type. Each Planning Package will be assessed as to the appropriate
earned value technique that can be most effectively and efficiently
used to monitor achievement of the Planning Package consistent
with Good Industry Practices. The Project Manager will determine
the construction of Planning Packages within their project based
on Good Industry Practice.
Example—The XYZ Modernisation Project, 3.5 year
time frame, £29 million budget and 350 activities wou1d break
down into approximately 40 Planning Packages.
No Planning Package would span across more than one lifecycle.
Any required exceptions to this general rule would need to be
agreed with LUL.
TLL will provide budget, actual costs and physical percentage
complete at Planning Package level.
Actual cost data will be provided to LUL at the Planning
Package level no later than the close of week six of each reporting
period. Actual cost data will be provided to facilitate the purposes
of the MAD, specifically data reliability and forecasting. Consistent
with paragraph six below, the provision of this information will
not form a basis for LUL intervention or requests for Justification.
3. Activity Level reporting only at level of detail maintained
by TLL for its own management purposes, provided such level is
consistent with EVA employed in a manner consistent with Good
Industry Practice. Specific activities for each Planning Package
to be consulted with LUL based on Good Industry Practice standard.
Three Rules on activity level reporting:
— activities shall span Lifecycles (for example,
an activity cannot span design and procurement). Any required
exceptions to this general rule would need to be agreed with LUL;
— activities must clearly define scope of work for
each Lifecycle (for example, individual design activities will
be identified sequentially);
— activities must have a duration that enables measurable
progress reporting eachperiod.
4. Programme reporting for those activities that are
specifically required by LUL for interface management to be provided
on an exception basis; for these activities no budget information
required if not maintained by TLL in ordinary course.
5. Budget and progress reporting (% complete measured
for each Activity on a period basis) to be reported to the extent
such information is maintained by TLL as part of its normal management
information systems.
6. LUL requirements (procedure for Programme Observations)
for justification and remedial action plans (or equivalent type
requirements) to be withdrawn; MPD documentation will not be construed
to create additional Contract rights for investigation or intervention.
7. LUL will not prescribe circumstances in which TLL
is required to modify budgets, but if TLL modifies budget such
modifications will be reported to LUL as part of regular reporting.
8. Nothing herein is intended nor shall it be construed
to limit LUL's rights to information that it is entitled to under
any provision of the Contract.
| 
