On Apr 9, 8:57*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 11:34:15 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant

wrote:
On Apr 9, 12:16*pm, wrote:
Hadn't they notice that the picc and met share the same track between
rayners lane and uxbridge?

Of course they had. The plan was (I think) to have both systems
installed on the track. As long as each one knows where all of the
trains on the section are, there's no problem.

Thank you - I appreciate it is the vogue to denounce LUL as being thick
and short sighted but yes, of course, this point has been considered.

I had composed a sarky reply earlier today along the lines of "No,
nobody realised, the problem being is that Metronet's and TubeLine's
maps only show their own network" but didn't send it because I thought
the tone of discussion could be higher than that... next time however
I'll press send, I feel it's always worthwhile highlighting
ludicrousity (to coin a phrase)!


As far as I know, no new contract has been awarded, so it could still
go to a contractor who uses a different system to the Piccadilly
(which will likely get Alcatel S40 - the same as Jubilee (being
installed), Northern (planned) and DLR (in use for years) - due to
being controlled by Tube Lines.

The SSL resignalling project is at pre-qualification stage only at
present - David Waboso wrote to Modern Railways recently to point this
out. The ITT and spec are not yet finalised so no bidders are yet
identified. *You quite rightly point out that something other than
Seltrac could well be chosen for the SSL network and thus various sets
of integration would be required with all sorts of signalling
technology. *Tube Lines are proposing Seltrac for the Picc Line and how
this is delivered is part of the restated terms process for resetting
the Tube Lines contract from mid 2010.


Under the PPP contracts how much of a say does LUL have in what system
gets chosen? (Obviously LUL have rather a lot of say in what Metronet
decides to do these days!)

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 21:05:18 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:

"Mr Thant" wrote in message

On Apr 9, 12:16 pm, wrote:
Hadn't they notice that the picc and met share the same track
between rayners lane and uxbridge?

Of course they had. The plan was (I think) to have both systems
installed on the track. As long as each one knows where all of the
trains on the section are, there's no problem.

As far as I know, no new contract has been awarded, so it could
still go to a contractor who uses a different system to the
Piccadilly (which will likely get Alcatel S40 - the same as Jubilee
(being installed), Northern (planned) and DLR (in use for years) -
due to being controlled by Tube Lines.

I would imagine that there's now a very high probability that the SSL
will share the same signalling system as the JNP lines.

Why? There's no way under EU procurement rules that LUL can write a
specification that effectively allows only one bidder to be successful
so how else is Thales going to have "a very high probability" of
winning the contract?

Surely LUL can set tough interoperability standards that would lead to a
single system being chosen?

On 9 Apr, 01:40, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Jack Taylor wrote:
Paul Scott wrote:

Rebuilding the 'sub surface railway' track and formation to mainline
standards throughout, so that the S stock will ride properly when
delivered.

I've seen precious little evidence of that yet. There has been
significant slaughtering of the trees on the embankments, though,
north of Rickmansworth - some pretty big ones at that.

Now we know what the S stands for...

Sycamore?

wrote:
On 9 Apr, 01:40, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Jack Taylor wrote:
Paul Scott wrote:

Rebuilding the 'sub surface railway' track and formation to
mainline standards throughout, so that the S stock will ride
properly when delivered.

I've seen precious little evidence of that yet. There has been
significant slaughtering of the trees on the embankments, though,
north of Rickmansworth - some pretty big ones at that.

Now we know what the S stands for...

Sycamore?

Steam!