Lack of available trains
 

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Paul Scott wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
.li...

Clive also says of the District "the Richmond and Wimbledon branches
are shared with NR trains" - Richmond, yes, but Wimbledon?

I don't think SWT actually use the platforms at Wimbledon, but they
definitely run empty stock off the Windsor lines via East Putney to
Wimbledon Park depot, and there are crossovers from both LU lines onto
the main line just before Wimbledon station. There are a couple of early
and late trains that use the route in service, and of course it is
available as required for engineering diversions.

Okay. I knew about the use as a diversionary route, but i sort of read it
as implying that there were NR passenger services that way. Here's what
His Cliveness says:

"The Richmond and Wimbledon branches are shared with NR trains, and so are
restricted to C and D stock only"

Which is slightly nonsensical on the face of it. If Silverlink withdrew
NLL service from Richmond, would A stock suddenly be usable there?
Presumably, what he means is that the branches use tracks built and/or
maintained to NR structure gauge, and therefore A stock won't fit. Except
that the reason the Putney branch isn't cleared for A stock is presumably
nothing to do with sharing with NR, and everything to do with the complete
lack of any current, historical or planned service there from the
Metropolitan!

Who owns the Putney metals, LU or NR?

tom

--
They entered the Vortex and the dreams became reality

Lack of available trains
 

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
.li...

Okay. I knew about the use as a diversionary route, but i sort of read it
as implying that there were NR passenger services that way. Here's what
His Cliveness says:

"The Richmond and Wimbledon branches are shared with NR trains, and so are
restricted to C and D stock only"

Which is slightly nonsensical on the face of it. If Silverlink withdrew
NLL service from Richmond, would A stock suddenly be usable there?
Presumably, what he means is that the branches use tracks built and/or
maintained to NR structure gauge, and therefore A stock won't fit. Except
that the reason the Putney branch isn't cleared for A stock is presumably
nothing to do with sharing with NR, and everything to do with the complete
lack of any current, historical or planned service there from the
Metropolitan!


Who owns the Putney metals, LU or NR?

LU since the early seventies I believe, although regular main line services
had ceased in the 1940s IIRC. I remember the SR style platform signage in my
teens...

Paul

Lack of available trains
 

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:40:15 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:


"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, John B wrote:

On 27 Sep, 13:17, Tom Anderson wrote:

We know A-stock can get between Liverpool Street and Aldgate East
(because that's how units get to and from the ELL) - so why can LUL not
divert [some of] the Met service from Aldgate to join up with the
District?

- Where would you reverse? A stock can get to Aldgate East, but there
are apparently infringements at Whitechapel,

According to CULG, they're allowed on the District between Aldgate East
Junction and Upminster.

Also according to CULG, they're allowed on the H&C between Aldgate
Junction and Edgware Road! Does that mean that only the Aldgate Junction
to Aldgate East junction is banned (which contradicts the known use for
ELL stock moves), or does that description just reflect the way Clive's
divided the lines up?

My source is Tubeprune:

http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/SS...%20Upgrade.htm

Who says "[A] stock is currently barred east of Aldgate because of
infringements at St Marys, Whitechapel, near Bow Road, Barking and
Dagenham". He also says in:

http://www.geocities.com/tubeprune/unstories.htm

"As there are some gauge infringements along the route, some work will be
necessary to allow the A Stock to run out there and the platforms will
have to be extended at Barking at least. The locations of OPO CCTV
screens and mirrors will also require alteration at most stations between
Aldgate East and Barking. Some signalling improvements will also be
necessary."

I don't know how much of this is still up to date.

Clive also says of the District "the Richmond and Wimbledon branches are
shared with NR trains" - Richmond, yes, but Wimbledon?


I don't think SWT actually use the platforms at Wimbledon, but they
definitely run empty stock off the Windsor lines via East Putney to
Wimbledon Park depot, and there are crossovers from both LU lines onto the
main line just before Wimbledon station. There are a couple of early and
late trains that use the route in service, and of course it is available as
required for engineering diversions.

According to the latest Modern Railways SWT will have to fit their
trains with tripcocks and other LU devices if they wish to continue
using the Wimbledon line. I find it surprising that LU can dictate
this.
--
Peter Lawrence

Lack of available trains
 

"Peter Lawrence" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:40:15 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:


"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
th.li...
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, John B wrote:

On 27 Sep, 13:17, Tom Anderson wrote:

We know A-stock can get between Liverpool Street and Aldgate East
(because that's how units get to and from the ELL) - so why can LUL
not
divert [some of] the Met service from Aldgate to join up with the
District?

- Where would you reverse? A stock can get to Aldgate East, but there
are apparently infringements at Whitechapel,

According to CULG, they're allowed on the District between Aldgate East
Junction and Upminster.

Also according to CULG, they're allowed on the H&C between Aldgate
Junction and Edgware Road! Does that mean that only the Aldgate Junction
to Aldgate East junction is banned (which contradicts the known use for
ELL stock moves), or does that description just reflect the way Clive's
divided the lines up?

My source is Tubeprune:

http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/SS...%20Upgrade.htm

Who says "[A] stock is currently barred east of Aldgate because of
infringements at St Marys, Whitechapel, near Bow Road, Barking and
Dagenham". He also says in:

http://www.geocities.com/tubeprune/unstories.htm

"As there are some gauge infringements along the route, some work will
be
necessary to allow the A Stock to run out there and the platforms will
have to be extended at Barking at least. The locations of OPO CCTV
screens and mirrors will also require alteration at most stations
between
Aldgate East and Barking. Some signalling improvements will also be
necessary."

I don't know how much of this is still up to date.

Clive also says of the District "the Richmond and Wimbledon branches are
shared with NR trains" - Richmond, yes, but Wimbledon?


I don't think SWT actually use the platforms at Wimbledon, but they
definitely run empty stock off the Windsor lines via East Putney to
Wimbledon Park depot, and there are crossovers from both LU lines onto the
main line just before Wimbledon station. There are a couple of early and
late trains that use the route in service, and of course it is available
as
required for engineering diversions.

According to the latest Modern Railways SWT will have to fit their
trains with tripcocks and other LU devices if they wish to continue
using the Wimbledon line. I find it surprising that LU can dictate
this.

Is it because the line in question still has NR style signalling without
tripcocks, rather than LU? (I haven't bought MR yet this month). Doesn't
surprise me though - its often been pointed out as an oddity when people
mention Chiltern Stock as having to have trip cocks.

On a similar point, the Crossrail2 Chelsea/Hackney line 'safeguarding' notes
that Wimbledon Park depot will be taken over from SWT for the line's use
whenever it happens, so in the long term the SW franchisee probably won't be
using the line for ECS moves anyway.

Paul

Lack of available trains
 

On 27 Sep, 09:18, John B wrote:
If, as it sounds, the defect in question doesn't prevent the DMH from
operating (i.e. your asleep/dead driver will still let go of it and
the train will still stop), how does this have even the pretence of a
safety issue?

Basically, there is no safety issue. These trains have been in service
for nearly 40 years, so statistically the chance of an incident
occurring is pretty minimal. If there were concerns, implement double
manning until assurances could be made. Certainly any minute risk is
easily outweighed by the risks associated with overcrowding.

This issue is all about train operators asserting their authority, and
IMO they should be ashamed of themselves for inconveniencing and
potentially endangering passengers for no good reason.

Lack of available trains
 

In article ,
(Peter Lawrence) wrote:

According to the latest Modern Railways SWT will have to fit their
trains with tripcocks and other LU devices if they wish to continue
using the Wimbledon line. I find it surprising that LU can dictate
this.

Are they planning to resignal it? The present signalling isn't that old.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Lack of available trains
 

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Peter Lawrence) wrote:

According to the latest Modern Railways SWT will have to fit their
trains with tripcocks and other LU devices if they wish to continue
using the Wimbledon line. I find it surprising that LU can dictate
this.

Are they planning to resignal it? The present signalling isn't that old.


The SSL signalling is definitely being upgraded (theoretically as part of
PPP), but this could consist of anything from 100% resignalling to
controlling existing signals from new control rooms.

What is interesting is that my understanding of the Putney Wimbledon
transfer seems to have been wrong, because apparently the stations, track
and signalling must have been dealt with as 3 different transfers, in the
case of the signalling, yet to happen? Complicated aint it...

Paul