|
|
Post by malcolmffc on Dec 29, 2012 8:29:54 GMT
A couple of weeks ago there was a fatality at Earsfield causing massive disruption to SWT. Many surburban services were re-routed from Clapham J to Wimbledon via East Putney and the District line. I was lucky enough to be on one of these services (though not sure it was worth the 2 hour delay...)
This was clearly a contingency plan being put in motion. I was just wondering whether NR have to co-ordinate with LU when this happens? Are District line services reduced or suspended?
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Dec 29, 2012 9:29:13 GMT
The track south of Putney Bridge station is owned by Network Rail and the route via East Putney is used for weekend diversions.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Dec 29, 2012 10:23:04 GMT
I thought it was owned by LU but signalled by NR?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Dec 29, 2012 11:15:12 GMT
I thought it was owned by LU but signalled by NR? Yes, the infrastructure is owned by LU but with traction current and signalling to NR standards. Once the SSR resignalling gets going the balance will change more toward LU, with ATO signalling optimised for LU trains but having lineside signals placed for NR use. In times of disruption it is customary for NR to inform LU of diversionary tactics, so that a possible reduction in frequency can be implemented. (I remember one occasion when this didn't quite happen, i was sitting next to the District Controller at the time, when the Hammersmith desk signaller realised that all trains were returning from Wimbledon some 12-15mins late. When the Controller spoke to Wimbledon SCC he was informed that a fire at Earlsfield was preventing movements via the main-line, so that all trains were being diverted via East Putney. The District Controller remonstrated with the SCC that this was severely delaying his service without even a courtesy call to allow for a compromise to be achieved. To which the SCC replied, there was nothing that LU could do about it- "as i've got the signalling buttons here!") |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 29, 2012 11:20:49 GMT
. Many surburban services were re-routed from Clapham J to Wimbledon via East Putney and the District line. Oh, they did run some that way did they? Mine was indicated at Clapham Junction as running via Wimbledon (despite being on the Windsor side) and a number of people boarded on in the expectation that it would. However, SWT's attitude to passenger information being what it is (nice to have, but not if it gets in the way of running the trains) I was not that surprised when the train actually ran non-stop to Teddington via Richmond. |
|
Fahad
In memoriam
Posts: 459
|
Post by Fahad on Dec 29, 2012 14:09:08 GMT
I thought it was owned by LU but signalled by NR? Yes, the infrastructure is owned by LU but with traction current and signalling to NR standards. Once the SSR resignalling gets going the balance will change more toward LU, with ATO signalling optimised for LU trains but having lineside signals placed for NR use. In times of disruption it is customary for NR to inform LU of diversionary tactics, so that a possible reduction in frequency can be implemented. (I remember one occasion when this didn't quite happen, i was sitting next to the District Controller at the time, when the Hammersmith desk signaller realised that all trains were returning from Wimbledon some 12-15mins late. When the Controller spoke to Wimbledon SCC he was informed that a fire at Earlsfield was preventing movements via the main-line, so that all trains were being diverted via East Putney. The District Controller remonstrated with the SCC that this was severely delaying his service without even a courtesy call to allow for a compromise to be achieved. To which the SCC replied, there was nothing that LU could do about it- "as i've got the signalling buttons here!")An LU controller or signaller would obviously be biased in favour of running LU trains, but would a Network Rail controller or signaller always want to prioritise National Rail trains over London Underground? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2013 4:44:19 GMT
An LU controller or signaller would obviously be biased in favour of running LU trains, but would a Network Rail controller or signaller always want to prioritise National Rail trains over London Underground? It probably depends what's going to cost NR more money, which is why you'll see packed commuter trains held for an almost empty Heathrow Express to go past. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2013 18:05:57 GMT
actually lu signallers on the met tend to prioritise chiltern services over mets due to the fines incurred if chilterns are delayed. generally i've found it to be that nr signallers take very little interest in lu services under their control largely because they tend to be dealing with large areas and many different services
|
|
|
|
Post by londonstuff on Jan 1, 2013 18:14:22 GMT
actually lu signallers on the met tend to prioritise chiltern services over mets due to the fines incurred if chilterns are delayed. generally i've found it to be that nr signallers take very little interest in lu services under their control largely because they tend to be dealing with large areas and many different services The fines aren't as much as people think or commonly quoted and isn't the main reason Chilterns take priority; the following is part of a Freedom of Information request made by someone known to the Forum:
An agreement exists in that a Chiltern train delayed entering London
Underground Ltd (LUL) infrastructure (between Harrow on the Hill and
Amersham) by up-to 5 minutes will be permitted to continue, with the
signaller holding any Metropolitan Line (Met) service, resulting in
potentially a Met service delayed. This is a verbal agreement which has
been in practice for over 20 years; therefore no formal documentation is
available.
We reviewed this regulation policy last year and came to conclusion, due
to the timetable, and the fact Chiltern use the fast line (Met services
predominantly use the slow lane) a limited number of Met services in
theory would be affected by this agreement. As there is no formal
documentation LUL reserve the right to terminate this regulation policy at any time.
Further, please provide me details of LU's understanding of the financial
penalty imposed for each minute of delay caused to a Chiltern Railway's
train whilst on the LU network, for a reason within LU's control. If no
financial penalty is imposed to LU by Chiltern or any other body for a
delay to a Chiltern train please state this.
The financial penalty which can be imposed on LUL for each minute of delay is £10.43.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2013 14:56:50 GMT
A couple of weeks ago there was a fatality at Earsfield causing massive disruption to SWT. Many surburban services were re-routed from Clapham J to Wimbledon via East Putney and the District line. I was lucky enough to be on one of these services (though not sure it was worth the 2 hour delay...) This was clearly a contingency plan being put in motion. I was just wondering whether NR have to co-ordinate with LU when this happens? Are District line services reduced or suspended? IMO, it would beneficial to have the up line bridge and connection reinstated at East Putney for when there are emergencies and engineering works. Another ideal situation would be to have a crossover to allow LUL trains to reverse from the westbound platform to go back east. |
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Jan 3, 2013 15:09:05 GMT
Another ideal situation would be to have a crossover to allow LUL trains to reverse from the westbound platform to go back east. Which was there but removed several years ago. |
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,275
|
Post by roythebus on Jan 5, 2013 12:44:14 GMT
ISTR there were crossovers at each end of East Putney to allow the DR and BR trains to reverse if required. BUT, in these days of economy, all sense of commonsense goes out the window.
It's a bit like back in about 1983-ish, there was a massive fire where the WLL goes under the main lines just east of Clapham Junction. mine was the 2nd train on the up Windsor. I was told to reverse and go back to windsor. how, I asked the Station Manager. Well, change ends and use to crossover west of the station. Ah, the one that was taken out about a month ago... We sat there over 2 hours before going wrong road to Barnes!
False economy or what?
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Jan 5, 2013 17:13:04 GMT
Following the loss of Whitechapel, absolutely definitely false economy. And Hornchurch is next for the chop I believe!! |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Jan 5, 2013 23:29:38 GMT
We reviewed this regulation policy last year and came to conclusion, due
to the timetable, and the fact Chiltern use the fast line (Met services
predominantly use the slow lane) a limited number of Met services in
theory would be affected by this agreement. As there is no formal
documentation LUL reserve the right to terminate this regulation policy at any time.
Slow lane? Please, please tell me that's a typo on your part??!? |
|
|
|
Post by londonstuff on Jan 5, 2013 23:50:43 GMT
We reviewed this regulation policy last year and came to conclusion, due
to the timetable, and the fact Chiltern use the fast line (Met services
predominantly use the slow lane) a limited number of Met services in
theory would be affected by this agreement. As there is no formal
documentation LUL reserve the right to terminate this regulation policy at any time.
Slow lane? Please, please tell me that's a typo on your part??!? Nope, copied and pasted verbatim. I'll DM you. |
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,275
|
Post by roythebus on Mar 25, 2013 16:47:31 GMT
To answer a query in the "photo" section about 455s being used to replace DR trains on the East Putney-Wimbledon section, I worked these several times in my days at Waterloo, once using EPB stock and a couple of times using VEPs. I don't remember dates, it was a long time ago now!
We had single line working on the down (westbound) line, but using the up BR platform, using the crossover by the signal box to gain the down line. The DR terminated in the w/b platform and gained the e/b by using the crossover at the Putney Bridge end of East Putney.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2013 17:41:25 GMT
A long time agi I put details of two of these in a thread giving dates and stock. One was a VEP and a CEP, the other was 2x508s. There may have been others. If someone wants to do a search .....?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Mar 25, 2013 18:23:19 GMT
|
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,275
|
Post by roythebus on Apr 26, 2013 20:02:27 GMT
One of the few times when a train ought to show the destination "railway replacement service"?
|
|
