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

On Jan 14, 4:48*pm, "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

I would have thought that the single track approach to East Putney and
crossing all the Putney tracks on the flat might be a bigger problem.

Avoiding both Putney trains and District line trains either side of
the junction must be quite a challenge.

On 14 Jan, 17:01, MIG wrote:
On Jan 14, 4:48 pm, "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

I would have thought that the single track approach to East Putney and
crossing all the Putney tracks on the flat might be a bigger problem.

I forget how the lines there are paired - UIVMM it changed fairly
recently. But the single track up to East Putney is on the southern
side of the four mainline tracks and hence comes off one of the down
lines - so up trains are the ones that will cause more disturbances
here. (Without looking at Quail, which isn't to hand, I forget which
location Point Pleasant junction actually refers to - the junction
with the mainline or with the District line at East Putney station.)


Avoiding both Putney trains and District line trains either side of
the junction must be quite a challenge.

Though LUL contracts Network Rail to signal the line from East Putney
(or from Putney Bridge in fact) down to Wimbledon, so theoretically at
least there could be a slightly more co-ordinated approach (or just a
jam of backed up District line trains being held at East Putney so a
diverted SWT service can get down there first).

On Jan 14, 5:47*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 14 Jan, 17:01, MIG wrote:





On Jan 14, 4:48 pm, "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

I would have thought that the single track approach to East Putney and
crossing all the Putney tracks on the flat might be a bigger problem.

I forget how the lines there are paired - UIVMM it changed fairly
recently. But the single track up to East Putney is on the southern
side of the four mainline tracks and hence comes off one of the down
lines - so up trains are the ones that will cause more disturbances
here. (Without looking at Quail, which isn't to hand, I forget which
location Point Pleasant junction actually refers to - the junction
with the mainline or with the District line at East Putney station.)

They are paired by direction, but it's a bit odd in that the down fast
is the outer, while the up slow is the outer on the other side.

So if diverted trains used fast tracks, it would minimise the
disruption (or maximise it if they used the slow tracks). In fact, it
looks like you can't reach the up slow track anyway.

Point Pleasant seems to be the section between the mainline and the
side platforms at East Putney (the join to the District coming south
of the station).

Avoiding both Putney trains and District line trains either side of
the junction must be quite a challenge.

Though LUL contracts Network Rail to signal the line from East Putney
(or from Putney Bridge in fact) down to Wimbledon, so theoretically at
least there could be a slightly more co-ordinated approach (or just a
jam of backed up District line trains being held at East Putney so a
diverted SWT service can get down there first).

By the way, I've often seen empty stock going that way in the last
year or two, using the down fast at the end of the morning peak. I
assume that sort of thing is regular.

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

Though LUL contracts Network Rail to signal the line from East Putney
(or from Putney Bridge in fact) down to Wimbledon, so theoretically at
least there could be a slightly more co-ordinated approach (or just a
jam of backed up District line trains being held at East Putney so a
diverted SWT service can get down there first).

ITYF that the signalling from Putney Bridge to East Putney is to LUL
standards these days, not NR's.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Jan 14, 8:41 pm, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article
,

(Mizter T) wrote:
Though LUL contracts Network Rail to signal the line from East Putney
(or from Putney Bridge in fact) down to Wimbledon, so theoretically at
least there could be a slightly more co-ordinated approach (or just a
jam of backed up District line trains being held at East Putney so a
diverted SWT service can get down there first).

ITYF that the signalling from Putney Bridge to East Putney is to LUL
standards these days, not NR's.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

The signalling is operated by Network Rail and their rules and
operational procedures apply. Maintenance and faults are dealt with by
Metronet (though it was previously sub-contracted out under Railtrack
I believe).

Under the PPP Upgrades there will need to be more frequent trains (so
that the Infraco can get extra money through improving journey times).
One way of doing this is installing the new SSR signalling down to
Wimbledon.
It has not yet been decided if LUL will then take over the operation
of the line.

Also under PPP Upgrades, tripcocks will go, being replaced by ATP.

In article
,
(chunky munky) wrote:

On Jan 14, 8:41 pm, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article
,

ITYF that the signalling from Putney Bridge to East Putney is to
LUL standards these days, not NR's.

The signalling is operated by Network Rail and their rules and
operational procedures apply. Maintenance and faults are dealt with by
Metronet (though it was previously sub-contracted out under Railtrack
I believe).

Under the PPP Upgrades there will need to be more frequent trains (so
that the Infraco can get extra money through improving journey times).
One way of doing this is installing the new SSR signalling down to
Wimbledon. It has not yet been decided if LUL will then take over the
operation of the line.

Also under PPP Upgrades, tripcocks will go, being replaced by ATP.

What I really meant was that there are tripcocks now from Putney Bridge
to East Putney.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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.