London Banter - View Single Post

Colin Rosenstiel · March 23rd 08, 11:46 AM posted to uk.transport.london

In article
,
(chunky munky) wrote:

On Mar 22, 3:22 pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 22 Mar, 10:55, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

wrote in message

Does that part of LUL have AWS (I don't recall seeing it when I
was down there.)? If not, then whar sort of safety back up are
SWT trains using on that segment, lower speeds? AFAIK, SWT
trains are not equipped with tripcocks.

At the risk of restarting an old thread, although there are
tripcocks for LU trains, the line is still signalled and owned by
Network Rail, so I believe that's why mainline trains don't need
tripcocks.

Wrong. The line is owned by LUL. It used to be owned by British Rail
but on rail privatisation ownership passed to LUL. East Putney to
Wilbledon is still signalled by Network Rail under a contract with
LUL, and I believe Network Rail also handles the power supply. I
understand that maintenance on the line is carried out by the SSL
infraco, Metronet.

However I don't know which signalling rules apply down that line
(i.e.
LUL or Network Rail).

Having signalling handled by Network Rail does suggest that some
element of co-ordination is possible in handling the District line
service as well as the diverted SWT trains.

Its possible there isn't AWS - perhaps that explains the 30 mph
limit?

Absolutely no idea on that issue.

Network Rail rules apply. This may change (or at least the signalling
operators) later on under the SSR upgrade though.

LUL did once try to get them to switch off their traction current to
protect an over run of engineering work in the Parsons Green area and
were laughed off!

Mainly because the NR traction current feed limit is at Putney Bridge?

The NR trains operate at lower speeds due to less responsive braking
on their rolling stock.

That makes a lot more sense than the voltage difference given as a reason
earlier. Most of the London area of the Southern runs on 650v too.

--
Colin Rosenstiel