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!)