Paul Scott wrote:

SWT's advance engineering works info for the Easter weekend shows a 6 tph
service through East Putney. Will this result in a much reduced District
Line service?

"Two Basingstoke/Alton to Waterloo services per hour, two Woking to Waterloo
services per hour and two Shepperton to Waterloo services per hour diverted
via East Putney. (Sunday: Woking service starts at Guildford; one Kingston
via Shepperton and one Twickenham via Kingston)."

info from SWT website:
http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/SWT...Easter2008.htm

Presumably this will all be a bit harder to organise if/when TfL take full
responsibility for the line at some time in the future, such as at SSL
resignalling?

Paul


My understanding was that when the Putney to Wimbledon stretch was
handed over to LUL at privatisation, there was an agreement reached
with regards to continuing 'National Rail' use of the line - and it is
under this agreement that SWT makes use of the line for diversionary
purposes. Given that SWT do find it a valuable route (as demonstrated
by the use they'll be making of it at Easter), one can't see them (or
the DfT) being keen on ending that agreement. Therefore, the onus
would seem to fall on LUL ensuring that any future resignalling on
this line can accommodate National Rail trains.

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...


Presumably this will all be a bit harder to organise if/when TfL take
full
responsibility for the line at some time in the future, such as at SSL
resignalling?


My understanding was that when the Putney to Wimbledon stretch was
handed over to LUL at privatisation, there was an agreement reached
with regards to continuing 'National Rail' use of the line - and it is
under this agreement that SWT makes use of the line for diversionary
purposes. Given that SWT do find it a valuable route (as demonstrated
by the use they'll be making of it at Easter), one can't see them (or
the DfT) being keen on ending that agreement. Therefore, the onus
would seem to fall on LUL ensuring that any future resignalling on
this line can accommodate National Rail trains.

There was a discussion recently that quoted TfL as saying SWT wouldn't be
allowed on the line after resignalling unless they fitted all their stock
(that might need to use the line) with trip cocks...

Paul

On 14 Jan, 18:02, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote in message

...





Presumably this will all be a bit harder to organise if/when TfL take
full
responsibility for the line at some time in the future, such as at SSL
resignalling?

My understanding was that when the Putney to Wimbledon stretch was
handed over to LUL at privatisation, there was an agreement reached
with regards to continuing 'National Rail' use of the line - and it is
under this agreement that SWT makes use of the line for diversionary
purposes. Given that SWT do find it a valuable route (as demonstrated
by the use they'll be making of it at Easter), one can't see them (or
the DfT) being keen on ending that agreement. Therefore, the onus
would seem to fall on LUL ensuring that any future resignalling on
this line can accommodate National Rail trains.

There was a discussion recently that quoted TfL as saying SWT wouldn't be
allowed on the line after resignalling unless they fitted all their stock
(that might need to use the line) with trip cocks...

Paul

Oh really - I missed that. I wonder if that quoted comment is
accurate. It's just that one party unilaterally changing the terms of
an agreement sounds unlikely. That said, I don't know anything about
the details of the agreement whatsoever.

What I'm almost totally ignorant on is what's going to happen to
signalling after the upgrade - I was under the vague impression that
the LU SSLs were ditching the whole trip cock system altogether.

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Mizter T wrote:

On 14 Jan, 18:02, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote in message

...

Presumably this will all be a bit harder to organise if/when TfL take
full responsibility for the line at some time in the future, such as
at SSL resignalling?

My understanding was that when the Putney to Wimbledon stretch was
handed over to LUL at privatisation, there was an agreement reached
with regards to continuing 'National Rail' use of the line

There was a discussion recently that quoted TfL as saying SWT wouldn't
be allowed on the line after resignalling unless they fitted all their
stock (that might need to use the line) with trip cocks...

I was under the vague impression that the LU SSLs were ditching the
whole trip cock system altogether.

They are. They just put that restriction in to get a rise out of SWT.

tom

--
Transform your language.

at SSL resignalling?

the LU SSLs were ditching the
whole trip cock system altogether.

When the line transferred the new SSL signalling was not defined
either technically or in timescale.

--
Nick

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Mizter T wrote:

On 14 Jan, 18:02, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote in message

...

Presumably this will all be a bit harder to organise if/when TfL take
full responsibility for the line at some time in the future, such as
at SSL resignalling?

My understanding was that when the Putney to Wimbledon stretch was
handed over to LUL at privatisation, there was an agreement reached
with regards to continuing 'National Rail' use of the line

There was a discussion recently that quoted TfL as saying SWT wouldn't
be allowed on the line after resignalling unless they fitted all their
stock (that might need to use the line) with trip cocks...

I was under the vague impression that the LU SSLs were ditching the whole
trip cock system altogether.

They are. They just put that restriction in to get a rise out of SWT.


I found what triggered that discussion - an article on the District in
Modern Railways (Oct 2007):

"East Putney & Wimbledon. The infrastructure of this outpost of the London
&South Western Railway [1] will be transferred to LU and the SSL signalling
scheme will apply. This in turn will require SWT either to fit all the
trains which it wishes to use on this line with the appropriate equipment,
or to abandon its use altogether."

[1] Network Rail surely!

Based on interview with the District line general manager, apparently...

Paul S

Paul Scott wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Mizter T wrote:

On 14 Jan, 18:02, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote in message

...

Presumably this will all be a bit harder to organise if/when
TfL take full responsibility for the line at some time in the
future, such as at SSL resignalling?

My understanding was that when the Putney to Wimbledon stretch
was handed over to LUL at privatisation, there was an agreement
reached with regards to continuing 'National Rail' use of the
line

There was a discussion recently that quoted TfL as saying SWT
wouldn't be allowed on the line after resignalling unless they
fitted all their stock (that might need to use the line) with
trip cocks...

I was under the vague impression that the LU SSLs were ditching
the whole trip cock system altogether.

They are. They just put that restriction in to get a rise out of
SWT.

I found what triggered that discussion - an article on the District
in Modern Railways (Oct 2007):

"East Putney & Wimbledon. The infrastructure of this outpost of the
London &South Western Railway [1] will be transferred to LU and the
SSL signalling scheme will apply. This in turn will require SWT
either to fit all the trains which it wishes to use on this line
with the appropriate equipment, or to abandon its use altogether."

[1] Network Rail surely!

Based on interview with the District line general manager,
apparently...

It'll be interesting to see if they apply the same criteria to the
running of Piccadilly Line trains through Ealing Common.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Jan 15, 5:00 pm, "Richard J." wrote:
Paul Scott wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
th.li...
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Mizter T wrote:

On 14 Jan, 18:02, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote in message

...

Presumably this will all be a bit harder to organise if/when
TfL take full responsibility for the line at some time in the
future, such as at SSL resignalling?

My understanding was that when the Putney to Wimbledon stretch
was handed over to LUL at privatisation, there was an agreement
reached with regards to continuing 'National Rail' use of the
line

There was a discussion recently that quoted TfL as saying SWT
wouldn't be allowed on the line after resignalling unless they
fitted all their stock (that might need to use the line) with
trip cocks...

I was under the vague impression that the LU SSLs were ditching
the whole trip cock system altogether.

They are. They just put that restriction in to get a rise out of
SWT.

I found what triggered that discussion - an article on the District
in Modern Railways (Oct 2007):

"East Putney & Wimbledon. The infrastructure of this outpost of the
London &South Western Railway [1] will be transferred to LU and the
SSL signalling scheme will apply. This in turn will require SWT
either to fit all the trains which it wishes to use on this line
with the appropriate equipment, or to abandon its use altogether."

[1] Network Rail surely!

Based on interview with the District line general manager,
apparently...

It'll be interesting to see if they apply the same criteria to the
running of Piccadilly Line trains through Ealing Common.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

This a Metronet area (though currently Tubelines deal with faults).
The PPP contract states that inter-running of Piccadilly and District
line trains must be maintaned between Hanger Lane Junction and Barons
Court. How this will work, I don't know!
(However, South Harrow to Rayners Lane has been missed out!)