11 The parties reported to us that they have learned valuable lessons about how to optimise responses to bad weather and improve contractual definitions. Remedial action since the event included:
■ To deal with future bad weather: more frequent and localised weather forecasts; snow and ice contingency plans for each line; ensuring train de-icing units are in good working order; and improved capability to move staff and materials - use of engineer trains and associated staff and materials.
■ To improve the functioning of the PPPs - a library of incidents that can be attributed without the need for extended discussion.
12 In late January 2004, there was a similar, though less severe, case of winter weather that affected Tube services. On this occasion, the snow fell more on the lines that Infraco SSL is responsible for - the Metropolitan line in particular. Total Lost Customer Hours resulting from the incident were some 10,000 on JNP lines and 120,000 on SSL lines.
13 The main problems that arose in 2004 indicate that some lessons from managing last year's more severe weather were not disseminated across the network:
■ De-icing equipment on several trains failed, but on SSL trains rather than JNP trains this time.
■ A number of platforms iced up, indicating inadequate use of the de-icing fluids by LUL and Infraco SSL staff, as they are jointly responsible for clearing of ice and snow. (Infraco SSL are now providing additional training to LUL staff who undertake these duties).
Some of the passenger delays were caused by trains getting stuck in the depot at Neasden, and therefore not being available for service. Infraco SSL has admitted financial liability for this service disruption, but precise financial impacts were not determined through the formal fault attribution process as at May 2004.