This is not a blog with particularly much thought behind it (are any of them you may well ask), but I am in favour of High Speed 2.
It will make little to no difference to my working life, as even if it arrives on time I should be on track for retirement (pardon the pun).
That this is a the first major investment in new train lines north of London for nearly a century shows how little we as a country have responded to the changes in behaviour and interconnectedness over that time. I rarely work within walking distance of my house (apart from when I am working from my office), and the motorways are increasingly full at all times of day and in all weathers. So we use the trains.
2 and a bit hours to London is not bad but 1 and a bit hours is better. I find it difficult to grasp that people value their own time so little that they dont want to save 2 hours on the round trip. Obviously they are made of hardier stuff than me, and are never resort to thinking "Oh its too much trouble", as I do.
Are there better things to spend the money on? Possibly. That is a choice and decision that a lot of people have opinions about - mostly of the "spend it on this thing I know about" variety. In fact HS2 may be one of those things. Meanwhile Thameslink and CrossRail will cost about the same and are hardly on people's radar.
Should we protect the countryside? Oh please. We are not as a nation rich enough that we can afford to have a perfectly landscaped environment everywhere. No nation is. So again there are choices, and sometimes perfectly nice places will need to have train lines, wind turbines or electricity pilons (or all 3) in order that the country as a whole benefits. And a damaged view is not the same as a broken leg - take pictures and photoshop them if you must.
Then there are the usual "it will never work" voices, that I hoped would have been at least slowed down by the Olympics.
Personally I think the Birmingham -Manchester line should go on at full speed to Glasgow. That would do wonders for both Scotland and places on the way such as Carlisle and Preston.
Will it really benefit the North? There are arguments both ways, but I think it is better to have improved infrastructure than not.
In the meantime it will create employment and economic impact, and at the end of it we will be able to travel that much more easily and quickly.
In short, I'm in favour.
Showing posts with label trains. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trains. Show all posts
Tuesday, 29 January 2013
Tuesday, 9 October 2012
The West Coast Mainline Debacle
The story is being covered in a number of places - Peter Smith at Spend Matters has covered it a number of times, including providing links to the original tender (if you are interested enough). Robert Peston over at the BBC has of course also commented.
Rather than rehash entirely, I will just make a few points. Peter Smith has pointed out that there are 3 possibilities - first that the process was flawed, secondly that the correct process was not followed correctly, and finally that something changed somewhere through the process. The current line is that it is the first problem, and that the fault lies with the civil servants who set up process. Some of them are disputing that.
I think the first thing to say is that the problem in many people's eyes was the result, regardless of the process. If the process had been flawed but awarded it to Virgin there would not have been this fuss. People I know who use the service are happy with Virgin and concerned about changin - even if First are promising a better service. We all know that people are very reluctant about change - even for the better (see Machiavelli). This allowed Richard Branson to create the fuss which lead to the review which got us to the current situation. I do not believe First group would have been able to achieve that.
If it is the wrong process, then we have to understand why. There are suggestions that it was wrong assumptions about Risk - which is part of the process, not how it was applied. It is a very long contract (15 years) and all assumptions about what will happen over the length of the contract are speculation ("It's difficult to make predictions - especially about the future" - Yogi Berra). What will the oil price be in 2027? Which party will be in power? Will we have superconducting electricity distribution? Will we have self driving cars? All of these could have impacts on both demand and delivery of train services. So, it is tricky.
As to why we should compensate bidders for the cock up in the process - we want them to bid again in future, and the fault was ours (the public sector) not theirs. EU procurement law allows them the potential recovery of the damage to their company resulting from the mistake, so they are due compensation. The costs will in any case in some way be charged to the public purse - through higher fees if not a direct payment.
This one is going to rumble on and on. Sadly there is a great risk it will be a political football rather than a learning opportunity.
The one lesson I would like the government to take from this is that procurement is important, and needs to be supported to ensure value for money and efficiency. It is not just a cost.
Robert Peston's blog at the BBC is here.
Spend Matters latest post on the matter is here
BTW the illustration is not a Virgin train but an old Russian train iirc.
Wednesday, 31 August 2011
CrossRail - fall out from the Bombardier/Siemens decision
The Prime Minister has announced (rather quietly I thought) that there will be no review of the decision to award the Thameslink to Siemens rather than Bombardier. This is not surprising as the alternatives were going to be extremely unpleasant - at best we could find a valid reason to annul the competition, and restart the process with the award (hopefully) coming to a different company. At worst the UK gets a hefty fine from the European Union and sued by Siemens. In the middle the government looks powerless to act.
The fallout continues though, and in the link here it is reported that Alstrom have withdrawn from the process to supply trains to the CrossRail project. Now if you have not been following these projects, it should be pointed out that CrossRail and ThamesLink are major projects - far larger and more expensive than the Olympics, but with a much lower public profile. Both should make a major contribution to travel in London and the South East.
The government has announced that it delay the tend for the trains by a few months (from late 2011 to early 2012) and will review the procurement process. The shortlisted companies are Siemens, Bombardier, Hitachi and Ferrocarrilles. Alstrom have withdrawn from the bidding process.
The question is what can the government achieve? Although they blame the previous administration for the rules, in reality all that is happening is that the process is following EU procurement rules. Transport Secretary Philip Hammond says he wants to change the rules so that "UK companies compete on an equal footing with Continental competitors". Of course that is already happening, or we would be able to lodge a case with the EU for illegal support, non-competitive behaviour, cross subsidies or something similar. If we have evidence that it is not happening, then what are we doing using the EU legal system to correct the problem.
What the minister means, and most of us would be behind him on this, is that he wants the work to go to a British company. In practice this means Canadian company Bombardier, rather than German company Siemens. The withdrawal of Alstrom may be a sign that they perceive the UK government to be "rigging" the process so that Bombardier wins.
Which then leads us to ackward consequences. If Bombardier do win, will people think it is a political fix? Will Bombardier actually have the best bid? Or will we be paying a higher price for lower quality to keep jobs in Britain? And will the EU approve it? Will it actually help Bombardier in the long term if they can only win business that is "sorted" for them?
If Siemens, or one of the other bidders win, what will that mean for the government's rhetoric?
It is politically unpopular, but the government could take the tack of pointing out that we want fair competition across Europe, and the way to do that is not to impose barriers but to ensure other countries follow the due process. If we give preference to national companies, how can we complain about other countries doing the same? And where does the balance lie between encouraging business competition and nurturing developing or weak business sectors? And having given a lead that national governments can ensure business goes to national companies, what will the impact be on UK exports?
The government is encouraging British business to have an input on their submissions on proposed changes to EU procurement legislation, and I encourage companies to have their say. However realistically the choice for the UK government is to agree to EU procurement policy, and the consequences of that single market, or to withdraw from the EU. There is a lot of support for withdrawal in both the country and the government (though personally I do not agree) and it is possibly the time to have that debate about the benefits (advantages) and obligations (disadvantages) of being in the European Union.
The fallout continues though, and in the link here it is reported that Alstrom have withdrawn from the process to supply trains to the CrossRail project. Now if you have not been following these projects, it should be pointed out that CrossRail and ThamesLink are major projects - far larger and more expensive than the Olympics, but with a much lower public profile. Both should make a major contribution to travel in London and the South East.
The government has announced that it delay the tend for the trains by a few months (from late 2011 to early 2012) and will review the procurement process. The shortlisted companies are Siemens, Bombardier, Hitachi and Ferrocarrilles. Alstrom have withdrawn from the bidding process.
The question is what can the government achieve? Although they blame the previous administration for the rules, in reality all that is happening is that the process is following EU procurement rules. Transport Secretary Philip Hammond says he wants to change the rules so that "UK companies compete on an equal footing with Continental competitors". Of course that is already happening, or we would be able to lodge a case with the EU for illegal support, non-competitive behaviour, cross subsidies or something similar. If we have evidence that it is not happening, then what are we doing using the EU legal system to correct the problem.
What the minister means, and most of us would be behind him on this, is that he wants the work to go to a British company. In practice this means Canadian company Bombardier, rather than German company Siemens. The withdrawal of Alstrom may be a sign that they perceive the UK government to be "rigging" the process so that Bombardier wins.
Which then leads us to ackward consequences. If Bombardier do win, will people think it is a political fix? Will Bombardier actually have the best bid? Or will we be paying a higher price for lower quality to keep jobs in Britain? And will the EU approve it? Will it actually help Bombardier in the long term if they can only win business that is "sorted" for them?
If Siemens, or one of the other bidders win, what will that mean for the government's rhetoric?
It is politically unpopular, but the government could take the tack of pointing out that we want fair competition across Europe, and the way to do that is not to impose barriers but to ensure other countries follow the due process. If we give preference to national companies, how can we complain about other countries doing the same? And where does the balance lie between encouraging business competition and nurturing developing or weak business sectors? And having given a lead that national governments can ensure business goes to national companies, what will the impact be on UK exports?
The government is encouraging British business to have an input on their submissions on proposed changes to EU procurement legislation, and I encourage companies to have their say. However realistically the choice for the UK government is to agree to EU procurement policy, and the consequences of that single market, or to withdraw from the EU. There is a lot of support for withdrawal in both the country and the government (though personally I do not agree) and it is possibly the time to have that debate about the benefits (advantages) and obligations (disadvantages) of being in the European Union.
Friday, 19 August 2011
Changing EU Procurement rules
The government has signalled its displeasure at its inability to award the ThamesLink train contract to Canadian company Bombardier Transportation in order to support the train manufacturing facilities in Derby. Instead the contract has gone to German company Siemens, who will in return create 300 jobs in Hebben, South Tyneside. In total some 3000 or so jobs are at risk in Derby, and a campaign to overturn the decision has seen well supported marches, and angry questionning of government minister - see here.
I have pontificated about the decision in other places on the blog, but in principle the decision is right (if unfortunate). The government really has no choice because of EU procurement legislation, which it has hinted it would like to change - no easy task. Luckily there is a review of the rules in process (kicking off in earnest next year) and the UK government would like to know our views and gain our support in changing the current legislative framework.
There is a paper about it here. Some of the proposals seem a little anodyne, but that is understandable - you don't want to go into a difficult negotiation with all guns blazing. The specific changes suggested include;
- higher limits, quicker processes, measures to exempt 3rd sector organisations from some of the legislation, and to increase (in reality create) opportunities to negotiate with suppliers.
If you have an interest in public procurement in the UK, and Europe, and strongly suggest you have a look and let the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Francis Maude, know what you think, and what you would like to see changed. This is an opportunity, and we should all take it. Rather than complain about what the rules are without doing anything about it, let's engage and see if we can get any improvements.
But don't hold your breath - the chances are the process will be slow, and the changes incremental.
I have pontificated about the decision in other places on the blog, but in principle the decision is right (if unfortunate). The government really has no choice because of EU procurement legislation, which it has hinted it would like to change - no easy task. Luckily there is a review of the rules in process (kicking off in earnest next year) and the UK government would like to know our views and gain our support in changing the current legislative framework.
There is a paper about it here. Some of the proposals seem a little anodyne, but that is understandable - you don't want to go into a difficult negotiation with all guns blazing. The specific changes suggested include;
- higher limits, quicker processes, measures to exempt 3rd sector organisations from some of the legislation, and to increase (in reality create) opportunities to negotiate with suppliers.
If you have an interest in public procurement in the UK, and Europe, and strongly suggest you have a look and let the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Francis Maude, know what you think, and what you would like to see changed. This is an opportunity, and we should all take it. Rather than complain about what the rules are without doing anything about it, let's engage and see if we can get any improvements.
But don't hold your breath - the chances are the process will be slow, and the changes incremental.
Tuesday, 5 July 2011
Business Ethics - Bombardier
The railway firm Bombardier is blaming the government for 1400 job loses after losing a procurement process for £3bn for trains for Thameslink to Siemens. The government is saying that their hands are tied by EU procurement rules (with an insinuation it was the previous government's fault for signing up to such rules).
I have some knowledge of the sector, having done some work for ADtranz before they were taken over by Bombardier. I hope and trust that Bombardier have improved things in the intervening 12 years or so, but there were plenty of cost improvements that could have been made at ADtranz.
Curiously ADtranz had a strong presence in Germany, the D representing Daimler, so although the Thameslink trains might have been designed and built in Derby we should not think of Bombardier as a UK company - they are international.
It is unfortunate to that the contract did not go to Bombardier, and the accompanying comments that Germany and Japan would never give a contract to any firm who was not German or Japanese may have some truth - or may not. I don't have any facts to confirm or deny that. However, let us be clear - if the Germans awarded such a contract on the grounds of nationality it would be just as illegal as doing the same here (and Deutsche Bahn is partly government owned so the rules would apply).
Bombardier accused the government (in practice I assume TfL) of "just opening the envelopes" - and then giving the contract to the best bidder rather than a UK firm.
Let us think about that. TfL went out to tender, and took the best bid. We may not like the result, but what can be wrong about that? You may argue about how the specification was written, the process, and may not like the result - but basically Bombardier lost a fair process and would now like us to rig the result in their favour. You can dress it up any way you want, but that is basically what is being asked.
Assuming that we did, what would be the consequences? If Siemens have a better technical element, is it sensible to award a contract to a lower quality bid? Well Bombardier might offer to match Siemen's price - if they can do that, why did they not do it initially? Probably because they wanted to have a higher price. So, we would be rewarding a high bidder. And tax payers money to people who did not put in the best price.
Overseas companies would be put off bidding for UK contracts because after all the time and effort there would be a risk that even if they had the best bid, it would be given to a UK company for political reasons. So competition would drop, and prices would rise - and maybe quality would drop too. UK companies would learn that they do not have to be competitive to win. And everyone would realise that our UK procurement system is corrupt. That is an ugly word, but it is what people are wanting.
If you give public money to businesses who are not the winning bid because you like them more, it is corruption. All done with the best of intentions, but it is what it is. Commercial offers are no longer the determining factors, but how some one thinks and feels about you. We can dress it up with the national interest, but it is really about giving contracts to the firm that you want to. The reasons for which may be because of the UK economy, voters in a key constituency, personal relationships, or little brown envelopes. But make no mistake - you are opening the door, and many people will stroll through and you cannot control what will happen next.
I am very sorry for the people of Derby and Bombardier Transport. But that is not a reason to put aside business ethics - particularly when public money is involved. If they can prove the process was unfair, illegal or corrupt they can appeal against the decision and hope to win a rebid, or to be awarded the contract if Siemens are disqualified. Otherwise, they have to face the fact that they lost and to deal with the consequences. Complaining about it does not help the UK.
I have some knowledge of the sector, having done some work for ADtranz before they were taken over by Bombardier. I hope and trust that Bombardier have improved things in the intervening 12 years or so, but there were plenty of cost improvements that could have been made at ADtranz.
Curiously ADtranz had a strong presence in Germany, the D representing Daimler, so although the Thameslink trains might have been designed and built in Derby we should not think of Bombardier as a UK company - they are international.
It is unfortunate to that the contract did not go to Bombardier, and the accompanying comments that Germany and Japan would never give a contract to any firm who was not German or Japanese may have some truth - or may not. I don't have any facts to confirm or deny that. However, let us be clear - if the Germans awarded such a contract on the grounds of nationality it would be just as illegal as doing the same here (and Deutsche Bahn is partly government owned so the rules would apply).
Bombardier accused the government (in practice I assume TfL) of "just opening the envelopes" - and then giving the contract to the best bidder rather than a UK firm.
Let us think about that. TfL went out to tender, and took the best bid. We may not like the result, but what can be wrong about that? You may argue about how the specification was written, the process, and may not like the result - but basically Bombardier lost a fair process and would now like us to rig the result in their favour. You can dress it up any way you want, but that is basically what is being asked.
Assuming that we did, what would be the consequences? If Siemens have a better technical element, is it sensible to award a contract to a lower quality bid? Well Bombardier might offer to match Siemen's price - if they can do that, why did they not do it initially? Probably because they wanted to have a higher price. So, we would be rewarding a high bidder. And tax payers money to people who did not put in the best price.
Overseas companies would be put off bidding for UK contracts because after all the time and effort there would be a risk that even if they had the best bid, it would be given to a UK company for political reasons. So competition would drop, and prices would rise - and maybe quality would drop too. UK companies would learn that they do not have to be competitive to win. And everyone would realise that our UK procurement system is corrupt. That is an ugly word, but it is what people are wanting.
If you give public money to businesses who are not the winning bid because you like them more, it is corruption. All done with the best of intentions, but it is what it is. Commercial offers are no longer the determining factors, but how some one thinks and feels about you. We can dress it up with the national interest, but it is really about giving contracts to the firm that you want to. The reasons for which may be because of the UK economy, voters in a key constituency, personal relationships, or little brown envelopes. But make no mistake - you are opening the door, and many people will stroll through and you cannot control what will happen next.
I am very sorry for the people of Derby and Bombardier Transport. But that is not a reason to put aside business ethics - particularly when public money is involved. If they can prove the process was unfair, illegal or corrupt they can appeal against the decision and hope to win a rebid, or to be awarded the contract if Siemens are disqualified. Otherwise, they have to face the fact that they lost and to deal with the consequences. Complaining about it does not help the UK.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
