London Underground staff have been informed in a internal magazine that the line will be open on 4th July. As they seem to be ripping up the new platforms at Canning Town station, perhaps somebody should inform the DLR of the opening date.
.....the minutes of the recent Newham Public Transport Liaison Group (15 June)
An interesting little read, because buried down inside is this little comment -
"Councillor Vaughan queried the original opening date of Stratford International DLR station and asked if any financial penalty the delay was incurring. Sharon advised that the constructor had already reached the cap and were incurring a financial penalty. DLR are frustrated that there was an ongoing arbitration process and any damages would go to Transport for London (TfL)."
So we are having a very significant contract dispute with the contractor on the project, if they have both reached the delay cap and gone to arbitration. It will have been going on for many months to have reached this stage. Why has this contract dispute never been described before as the reason for the big delay, instead of all the silly stuff about being over a year late opening now because of the cables being stolen and things like that. What is the argument about?
This is just a guess, but it wouldn't surprise me if cable thefts are the primary reason for the delay and the contractors are in dispute with DLR/TfL about whether/how the penalty clause in the contract applies where the cause of the delay is the actions of a third party. If this is the case, then the reason the cable thefts have been given as the cause of the delay is because they are the cause. If the contractural dispute is just about who is liable for the costs then there would not be any reason for DLR to publicly blame the contractors for the delay. Indeed, if the arbitration is about whether the contractors are liable, it would be very unwise for DLR to issue statements that may be interpreted as prejudging the outcome. If the cause of the arbitration is as I have guessed it to be, then I would hope that future contracts would be worded so that matters of this nature were clearer.
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart. --Antoine de St. Exupery
No, that would not be any reason for delay. It's all written out in the standard construction contract. Stealing of materials and all the other issues you can think of are covered for who is responsible at any moment, because they happen on so many projects and there is a long history.
Even when there is a argument about something, another part of the contract says you carry on with work while arguing about any law.
Councillor McAuley asked for clarification on the communication issues that caused the delay on the Stratford extension. It was explained Sub-Contractors went into receivership at the end of last year; the new contractors had to undertake the design and installation.
Post by version3point1 on Jun 25, 2011 0:19:01 GMT
My old manager had stated that should they not get themselves into gear by July, big fines will be had. When the took the hoarding down at Stratford Regional Station, we were told it was to give the impression that they were 'getting there'.
We were all told it was going to open in March... :-P