Network Rail axes hundreds of tech suppliers Network Fail Rail has canned more than 260 IT suppliers after wrapping up all its tech requirements in a single framework with five hefty integrators. Places within the agreement were handed to Accenture, BAE Systems Detica, Cognizant, CSC and TCS, allowing them to bid for contracts as they are tendered. Network Rail operates …
I prefer Train wreck in slow motion...........
Allows the bidders to "rinse" network fail for more money as the project delays and then subsequently gets cancelled with out delivering any tangible value. NHS care records system me thinks; HMRC benefits programme.
As regards where do they get these people from simples.......................... offer enough Wonga and the flies start circling...........................
The Amsterdam-Brussels high speed rail line is possibly a complete waste of €6.4bn partly due to crappy software used on the trains. It's not just the UK where monstrous fuck-ups happen.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/85caa660-cc66-11e2-9cf7-00144feab7de.html#axzz2VRbakkuS
http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/news/130605_Fyra_Dutch_reaction
Theses five won't be writing train or signalling software, only back office stuff. The actual software used for the track and trains is written by specialists in those areas, usually the builders.
It's highly complex, safety critical and yes takes a long time to develop and get right, the railway is a hostile EMF environment against which train and signalling systems have to operate and be compatible with systems up to 50 years old, not something most SI's can cope with unless they have specialist divisions.
Sadly looks like mine lost out.
I would hope that Network Rail won't let these five anywhere near these operationally critical IT systems. As you say it is a niche market best served by maintaining the long-standing direct relationships Network Rail's experts already have with the few specialist companies/divisions who have been supplying these systems for decades.
This might also be a contributing reason as to why certain companies lost out.
One aspect that you missed in your thumbnail, is that these systems also had very exacting service levels to achieve, I seem to remember the basic requirement for the signalling IT systems was a 20 year working life and no class A failures during that time (computer hardware/software failure either resulting or could of resulted in a train crash). It was with some personal satisfaction several years back to see the retirement of a system I had designed nearly 20 years previously with a clean record sheet.
It looks as if this framework agreement just applies to the 'Information Technology' category family in the Network Rail catalogue (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/1542.aspx ), hence it will exclude signalling. I expect that also omitted from this agreement are the the major OEM hardware and software vendors that Network Rail uses.
They're still going to have hundreds of legacy systems running over the next few years. And if I were the supplier of one of these who's just been told they're not worthy to bid for any new business, I'd tell Network Rail where to stick their next support request. (Hint: the sun doesn't shine up there).
...now if they were to mandate well (and clearly) defined interfaces between systems then they could pick and choose suppliers as they feel fit and choose the solutions that are most effective, reliable and cost-effective for the job.
Unfortunately we all know that this won't happen and with past experience with the five listed, each will assign twenty project "managers" to each project. These project managers will change every project meeting and the chance of meeting the same one twice will be slim, nobody in these five suppliers will take overall responsibility for anything and all the actual, real work will be sub-contracted out to almost as frustrated sub-contractors as the the client (Network Rail).
promoting a positive image, say we're shit and people will think any small improvement is an advance. In actual fact this statement is just wrong, but one wonders how many other rail networks the CIO has actually used, including our own. Try VIA, AMTRAK, SNCF off TGV and countless others, we have probably the most intensive rail network in the world. It is a very complex system.
The blame is passed around because, stupidly, we make the cause of delay pay and for a single train failure this can run into tens even hundreds of thousands of pounds in compensation to other train operators and passengers, and where does this money come from.......ooooooh higher ticket prices. Shame we can't claim of the insurance of drivers who clog the motorways breaking down and having accidents.
Allow me to correct a couple of misconceptions here. Britain runs one of the more reliable busy railways. Many are more reliable, but simpler. Britain's is unpopular because it is expensive at the point of use. It is otherwise quite nice.
Despite Cooklin's protestations, the reasons it *can* be reliable is that (as Otto has pointed out) it runs in firmware: simple logic gates built by Westinghouse and Siemens, with relays to real points and switches, designed to reflect the physical network, to keep two trains from occupying the same bit of it, and to fail safe. 'IT' is allowed nowhere near any of this.
The reason the railway has got anywhere near its reliability asymptote is that NR has slowly got on top of maintenance, and has also been allowed to invest in actual stuff, at some cost. Maintenance of anything that big, with a paradoxically divided and unionized workforce, is a fairly hard problem. IT is a rounding error in this equation. Its main contribution is to stay out of the way.
This may well hurt the smaller suppliers but time they woke up anyway. Used to find it disconcerting that small to medium sized Reseller's just 'loved' having a big name or two in their client and debtor base. Often used to make little out of them and to top it all, these big clients pinned them to the floor with outrageous demands they always caved in to.
We always add a chunky overhead % to our charges if we have to deal through a "systems integrator" - its not easy to find competent techies willing to spend time with these clowns (not twice, anyway). MInd you, I suspect we could double our rates and it would still get lost in the noise compared to what they charge the customer.
That will deliver clear benefits and efficiencies. Which is what Network Rail should be delivering of course. And I'm sure it'll work. As long as the suppliers on this framework are competent and have clearly written contracts that force them to deliver on time and to budget with no hidden costs.
oh wait....I smell the fail bus a-comin....
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
