In article , Robert Woolley
writes
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:28:08 -0000, "Pre-38"
wrote:


That will be interesting to watch under ATO on the Central Line!
--
Andrew

Well obviously its not going to affect the Central or Victoria lines, so no,
it won't be interesting at all Andy

ahem

If the RMT drivers are feeling particularly militant, expect them to
drive Central Line trains in coded manual.


Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

Only if the control room lets them.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:23:30 +0000, Dave Arquati wrote:

Would these companies be able to make a claim against either the RMT or
London Underground for compensation to cover penalty payments for the
delay caused to their trains?

Network Rail would bill TfL for any delay minutes attributed to them as
a result of the action, which could add up to quite a substantial sum,
as it has the potential to disrupt far more services than you would at
first think, given Chiltern has direct interfaces with Vrigin Cross
Country and Central Trains/Centro services...

Cya,

Barry

--
Barry Salter, barry at southie dot me dot uk
Read uk.* newsgroups? Read uk.net.news.announce!

DISCLAIMER: The above comments do not necessarily represent the
views of my employers.

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:13:14 +0000, Barry Salter
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:23:30 +0000, Dave Arquati wrote:

Would these companies be able to make a claim against either the RMT or
London Underground for compensation to cover penalty payments for the
delay caused to their trains?

Network Rail would bill TfL for any delay minutes attributed to them as
a result of the action, which could add up to quite a substantial sum,
as it has the potential to disrupt far more services than you would at
first think, given Chiltern has direct interfaces with Vrigin Cross
Country and Central Trains/Centro services...

I'd dearly love to see Network Rail try given any agreements are between
the operating companies and LUL not the infrastructure provider. You'll
also find that the extent of "pass through" of penalties between
organisations is very limited.

Also I'd struggle to understand how a slow running Met train would
really have any impact on Virgin Cross Country near Banbury given the
interworked LUL section really only impacts Marylebone - Aylesbury via
Amersham trains. Perhaps I'm missing something?
--
Paul C
Admits to Working for London Underground!

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:14:56 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

I'd dearly love to see Network Rail try given any agreements are between
the operating companies and LUL not the infrastructure provider. You'll
also find that the extent of "pass through" of penalties between
organisations is very limited.

I was under the impression that it was Network Rail who were responsible
for billing the TOCs for delay minutes they [the TOCs] caused, and paid
out for any minutes caused by signallers, trackwork, etc?

Also I'd struggle to understand how a slow running Met train would
really have any impact on Virgin Cross Country near Banbury given the
interworked LUL section really only impacts Marylebone - Aylesbury via
Amersham trains. Perhaps I'm missing something?

Okay...A rather unlikely example, as it'd require Chiltern to miss slots
at Aylesbury and Neasden and have knock on effects on about three
different trains (turn round time at Marylebone being minimal, as I
recall) to have an effect on VXC, but it could happen...

Cya,

Barry

--
Barry Salter, barry at southie dot me dot uk
Read uk.* newsgroups? Read uk.net.news.announce!

DISCLAIMER: The above comments do not necessarily represent the
views of my employers.

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...

Also I'd struggle to understand how a slow running Met train would
really have any impact on Virgin Cross Country near Banbury given the
interworked LUL section really only impacts Marylebone - Aylesbury via
Amersham trains. Perhaps I'm missing something?

The problem lies in the fact that there are a number of tripback workings of
Class 168 'Chiltern Clubman' units between Marylebone and Aylesbury depot
following/prior to Birmingham, Stourbridge and Kidderminster workings. These
tripbacks are made as service trains on the Amersham route (plus a couple on
the High Wycombe route). Whilst the tripbacks *from* Marylebone will not be
a major issue, those *to* Marylebone from Aylesbury, in the early afternoon,
may cause delays on departure from Marylebone, due to short turnaround times
at Marylebone. For example, the 13:32 Aylesbury to Marylebone is booked to
arrive at 14:34 and then forms the 14:40 departure from Marylebone to
Stourbridge Junction. A late departure of this service and subsequent late
arrival at Aynho Junction, where the train drops into the cross-country
network, *could* cause a delay to a Virgin CrossCountry service.

This is because in preparation for the introduction of PPP London
Underground allowed the ongoing deterioration of track.
The action will commence on December the 8th until close of traffic on
December the 9th"

Roger


So London Underground thought, because soon someone else would be
bankrolling the whole maintance of the track they would save the money
and not bother maintaining.
It would be easy for people to suggest that the reasons there has been
so many de-railments just lately on the Underground would be down to
them not bothering to spend much on maitaining the track.
Surely its a good thing London Underground aren't maintaing the track
if this is there attudide to it?
Well if we aren't going to do it from this date. Then we won't
bothering spending any money on it any more

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:09:09 +0000, Barry Salter
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:14:56 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

I'd dearly love to see Network Rail try given any agreements are between
the operating companies and LUL not the infrastructure provider. You'll
also find that the extent of "pass through" of penalties between
organisations is very limited.

I was under the impression that it was Network Rail who were responsible
for billing the TOCs for delay minutes they [the TOCs] caused, and paid
out for any minutes caused by signallers, trackwork, etc?

Agreed for issues purely on the National Network. The case in point
referred to LUL tracks and or trains.

For the Met Line interworking there is an agreement between LUL and
Chiltern with no Network Rail involvement as LUL trains never touch
their infrastructure. The boundary point is north of Amersham and A
stock cannot reach it.

The Bakerloo is more complex but in essence Network Rail can cause
delays to LUL trains / depot operation due to infrastructure issues.
Similarly Silverlink trains can break down and delay LUL ones and vice
versa. However IIRC the compensation rates in no way match either the
typical NR ones or those applicable under the PPP performance regime.

Also I'd struggle to understand how a slow running Met train would
really have any impact on Virgin Cross Country near Banbury given the
interworked LUL section really only impacts Marylebone - Aylesbury via
Amersham trains. Perhaps I'm missing something?

Okay...A rather unlikely example, as it'd require Chiltern to miss slots
at Aylesbury and Neasden and have knock on effects on about three
different trains (turn round time at Marylebone being minimal, as I
recall) to have an effect on VXC, but it could happen...

As another poster has highlighted it is a possibility as a result of the
stock positioning Chiltern use. However VXC has no direct relationship
with LUL so its claim would be with Chiltern. Chiltern in turn could try
to claim from LUL if there was irrefutable proof that the cause was LUL
and that was no mitigation possible and no other influences on the
operation of the train. However I doubt they would succeed or even that
it would be worth their while financially so to do.
--
Paul C
Admits to Working for London Underground!

On 1 Dec 2003 10:04:07 -0800, (CJG Now
Thankfully Living In The North) wrote:

This is because in preparation for the introduction of PPP London
Underground allowed the ongoing deterioration of track.
The action will commence on December the 8th until close of traffic on
December the 9th"

Roger


So London Underground thought, because soon someone else would be
bankrolling the whole maintance of the track they would save the money
and not bother maintaining.

Or it could be RMT spin?

Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk