SSR resignalling contract awarded

[plcd1]

I couldn't see a relevant old thread that was still open so I've started this.

TfL have announced that they have concluded negotiations with Thales and have placed a contract with them to resignal the SSR lines with work concentrated in Zone 1 initially and then spreading outwards. Work won't complete until 2023 and other line upgrades cannot start until SSR completes. Costs have risen from £345m in the old Bombardier contract to £760m with Thales.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/news/europe/single-view/view/thales-awarded-london-underground-sub-surface-lines-resignalling-contract.html

No TfL press release on the TfL site yet.

 

[chris11256]

apologies, was having a bad day. Post deleted

 

[Feathers44]

There's a surprise late and more expensive. Here's a bet it wont work properly either.

Thanks for that positive contribution to the discussion

 

[swt_passenger]

Thanks for that positive contribution to the discussion

Yes, a bit of an unfortunate pre-emptive rant from chris11256 given the success of the Thales Northern line signalling, which was apparently:

"ahead of time, under budget and with performance outputs better than expected"

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...-dream-lessons-from-the-northern-line-upgrade

 

[Domh245]

Coincidentally, it is still cheaper than the original resignalling program (which was to be the westinghouse DTG-R system used on the victoria line) which would have cost 1 billion. It does rather pave the way for Seltrac S40 to become the de facto TfL railway automation system, now that it is is (going to be) used on the Northern, Jubilee, DLR, and SSL. It will be the sensible choice for the piccadilly line given the shared track west of Earls Court. And once its on the Piccadilly, you might as well use it for the other lines due to receive the new tube for london etc.

 

[chris11256]

Why was the contract originally awarded to Bombardier, if they're system couldn't actually do it?

Original post was very poorly worded. The Northern Line didn't go through the process of having the tender fall through, and be re let all over again. At unnecessary expense had it had been done properly in the first place.

 

[Domh245]

The contract for SSL upgrade was initially awarded to a consortium of bidders including Bombardier and Westinghouse (supplying trains and resignalling respectively) by metronet. However, after the PPP disaster, the contract for resignalling was relet, for a much lower (and in hindsight - rather unrealistic price) and the winning bidder was bombardier with their cityflo 650 solution, a system only used this far on simple end to end lines such as those at airports. Bombardier carried out trials of the system with an S7 train at Old Dalby. Bombardier had claimed that their system was up to the job (despite the lack of testing in highly complex networks such as the SSL) but after missing various target dates, but right at the end of 2013, Bombardier and LU agreed to cancel the contract, and LU set about reletting it. As for why why Bombardier was awarded the contract in the first place, it might well be because they were the only ones opportunistic enough to bid for a complex job at such a knock down price

The original post was perfectly sufficient, and didn't mention the northern line at all! And following the fiasco of the Jubilee line upgrade, the Thales team are now pretty handy at line upgrades, demonstrated on the Northern line

For more info, have a read of this article by Piers Connor.

 

[Dstock7080]

Why was the contract originally awarded to Bombardier, if they're system couldn't actually do it?.

The Bombardier CityFlo 650 system was world proven, in Madrid etc. However, it wasn't quite to LUs requirements and they kept tweaking things to suit their needs rather than letting Bombardier get on with it.
In the end Bombardier claimed that the product to be installed on the SSR was nothing like the actual CityFlo 650 system that they sold LU and could no longer guarantee the performance quoted.

 

[chris11256]

The Bombardier CityFlo 650 system was world proven, in Madrid etc. However, it wasn't quite to LUs requirements and they kept tweaking things to suit their needs rather than letting Bombardier get on with it.
In the end Bombardier claimed that the product to be installed on the SSR was nothing like the actual CityFlo 650 system that they sold LU and could no longer guarantee the performance quoted.

This whole thing makes a lot more sense now. Thanks for explaining.
Hopefully it'll fix the problem on the District line where I arrive a Tower Hill at 08:30 to find there isn't another westbound train for 8-10 minutes. Doesn't happen every day, but often enough.

 

[plcd1]

Why was the contract originally awarded to Bombardier, if they're system couldn't actually do it?

Original post was very poorly worded. The Northern Line didn't go through the process of having the tender fall through, and be re let all over again. At unnecessary expense had it had been done properly in the first place.

I think the contract was awarded to Bombardier because LU was so delighted to be free of the PPP that it was prepared to accept almost anything that was different to what went before. It was all about being able to prove that the evil PPP and nasty Infracos were completely clueless and brave new dynamic LU could do things more cheaply, faster and more efficiently. Unfortunately they lost their heads in the process having been mesmerised by what Bombardier had achieved in Madrid, Spain. Remember that the context was the horror of the never ending closures to resignal the Jubilee Line and the attendant massive political criticism being thrown at LU's door. The Madrid installation was an overlay on existing signalling and apparently done without disruption so it would have appeared to be ideal.

The Northern Line installation benefitted massively from the learning curve from doing the Jubilee Line. LU and Tube Lines transferred experienced personnel from the Jubilee Line to the Northern so all the lessons learnt transferred across. Thales themselves had been through a massive learning curve about how LU operates so it was at a big advantage too. The removal of the PPP undoubtedly allowed LU more control over Tube Lines but for all the hype about "no closures" there were plenty of weekend possessions and months of late starts to Sunday services on the Northern Line. There's no doubt that the Nthn line resignalling was a much smoother affair from the viewpoint of the travelling public and there was less political criticism. I think behind the scenes there were still problems as published completion dates for sectional milestones were missed and reworking was necessary to fine tune the system.

By removing the Picc Line from the SSR workscope that has massively reduced the risk that Thales face. The old scope was to retrofit the 73 stock to work automatically beyond Rayners Lane and through Ealing Common - Acton Town but that won't now happen. I know there were significant concerns about cutting holes in the 73 stock cab floors to fit interface units and also about disturbing the trains cabling because of the risk of breaking or damaging cables which then resulting in trains failing in service.

I expect Thales and LU will move some people from previous upgrade teams to help smooth the way for SSR resignalling.

 

[swt_passenger]

The Bombardier CityFlo 650 system was world proven, in Madrid etc. However, it wasn't quite to LUs requirements and they kept tweaking things to suit their needs rather than letting Bombardier get on with it.
In the end Bombardier claimed that the product to be installed on the SSR was nothing like the actual CityFlo 650 system that they sold LU and could no longer guarantee the performance quoted.

Wasn't the (much simplified) explanation that the "example of a system already running" in Madrid was rather more like the Waterloo and City with a few extra stations, compared to the complexity of the SSR, with all its different branches, flat junctions, triangular junctions etc, etc, not to mention the odd Electrostar or Desiro flying around, as well as interlopers form the deep tube...

 

[Blindtraveler]

Great news given how the Sub Surface routes will soon all have new trains but not the promised signaling. What other line upgrades are being referred 2 in the opening post that cant start till 2023?

 

[swt_passenger]

Great news given how the Sub Surface routes will soon all have new trains but not the promised signaling. What other line upgrades are being referred 2 in the opening post that cant start till 2023?

As per the end of the linked article:

Once the Sub-Surface Lines have been modernised, work would begin to introduce new trains and control systems for the Piccadilly, Central, Bakerloo and Waterloo & City lines.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Woops my bad. Whilst Im quite happy personally with what the Waterloo and City, Central and Pic offer Id hazzard a guess that users of the Bakerloo are itching for the investment to reach them?

 

[swt_passenger]

Woops my bad. Whilst Im quite happy personally with what the Waterloo and City, Central and Pic offer Id hazzard a guess that users of the Bakerloo are itching for the investment to reach them?

Yes, I think there's still some debate going on about where the Bakerloo comes in the priority order. I think it is the fleet that they are currently planning to do last, on the basis of some sort of structural repair programme for the trains, that provides some degree of life extension.

There might be some info in the TfL 'board papers' somewhere, I'll try and dig it out when I get a moment.

 

[TheNewNo2]

Judging by miles per casualty rates, it's the Central which needs new trains soonest, though I can see an argument for introducing them on the Bakerloo first as a test environment which won't affect too much if it goes wrong.

It's good to know that the resignalling has finally been agreed, let's hope this contract actually makes it to fruition.

 

[Via Bank]

Yes, I think there's still some debate going on about where the Bakerloo comes in the priority order. I think it is the fleet that they are currently planning to do last, on the basis of some sort of structural repair programme for the trains, that provides some degree of life extension.

There might be some info in the TfL 'board papers' somewhere, I'll try and dig it out when I get a moment.

This might be the paper you're on about. London Reconnections have written it up here.

Broadly speaking, the Bakerloo line stock is on the edge of falling apart, and needs a substantial refurbishment to keep it operating safely. So that would keep the units soldiering on until the NTfL arrives.

The alternative, of course, is to reshuffle delivery dates and get the NTfL to service on the Bakerloo as quickly as possible. But that seems unlikely. An ITT hasn't even been issued yet, and the estimated date of entry into service on the Picc has slipped back to 2023 (presumably to ease the strain on TfL's cash flow.)

 

[swt_passenger]

This might be the paper you're on about. London Reconnections have written it up here.

Broadly speaking, the Bakerloo line stock is on the edge of falling apart, and needs a substantial refurbishment to keep it operating safely. So that would keep the units soldiering on until the NTfL arrives.

The alternative, of course, is to reshuffle delivery dates and get the NTfL to service on the Bakerloo as quickly as possible. But that seems unlikely. An ITT hasn't even been issued yet, and the estimated date of entry into service on the Picc has slipped back to 2023 (presumably to ease the strain on TfL's cash flow.)

Thanks for digging that out, I've been away for a couple of days so that's saved a few minutes of searching...

 

[Blindtraveler]

Thanks for this foalks, looks like its all to play for then. Whilst Im not dissing the Bakerloo, it is pritty obvious that the fleat is getting past it so I awate developments with interest.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Judging by miles per casualty rates, it's the Central which needs new trains soonest, though I can see an argument for introducing them on the Bakerloo first as a test environment which won't affect too much if it goes wrong.

It's good to know that the resignalling has finally been agreed, let's hope this contract actually makes it to fruition.

Agreed on your points on the signaling. As a huge fan of the 92 stock Il be very sad when it goes and believe firmly that it should be the last to do so. I doubt Central Line pax and staff will agree with me here though.