chunky munky wrote:
On Jan 14, 8:06 pm, Charles Ellson
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:51:02 -0600, David Jackman
pleasereplytogroup wrote:



"Paul Scott" wrote in
:

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

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/livetra...me/tube/track-
closures.pdf has work for that weekend as affecting:

"Baker Street to Hammersmith (Hammersmith & City) - No Circle -
Earl's Court to Edgware Road (District)"

So I'd suggest the Edware Road-Wimbledon service won't run atall
which frees up the required paths from East Putney.

The above seems to imply that Wimbleware trains will be reversing
at Earls/Earl's Court (via Triangle Sidings?).

The Edgware Road service will be diverted to run Edgware Road -
Olympia,

But LU say no District service between Earl's Court and Edgware Road.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Jan 15, 9:11 am, "Richard J." wrote:
chunky munky wrote:
On Jan 14, 8:06 pm, Charles Ellson
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:51:02 -0600, David Jackman
pleasereplytogroup wrote:

"Paul Scott" wrote in
:

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

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/livetra...me/tube/track-
closures.pdf has work for that weekend as affecting:

"Baker Street to Hammersmith (Hammersmith & City) - No Circle -
Earl's Court to Edgware Road (District)"

So I'd suggest the Edware Road-Wimbledon service won't run atall
which frees up the required paths from East Putney.

The above seems to imply that Wimbleware trains will be reversing
at Earls/Earl's Court (via Triangle Sidings?).

The Edgware Road service will be diverted to run Edgware Road -
Olympia,

But LU say no District service between Earl's Court and Edgware Road.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Just looking on the tfl website it does say that. Also it sounds like
the other closures are due to the White City Shopping project, so
nothing can get back to Hammersmith. The H&C is running east of Kings
Cross with the trains booked to stable at Barking. So what of the
Olympia shuttle? I'll have a look in the Traffic Circulare and EWSA to
see what they say.

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.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...

Paul S

Paul Scott wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.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)

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

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!)