Wimbledon branch operational rules

Doom & gloom surrounds 4LM!!

Of course it'll happen! They've built new SER's at East Putney and Wimbledon and have installed the new cable runs. "They" are far too deep into it now to pull out.

As @aetearlscourt says, the Wimbledon branch will still operate under Network Rail rules just as it does today. The CBTC system that S stock will operate under will take its information from the current signalling system which isn't going anywhere as it's still needed by SWR trains that operate empty stock moves along the branch.

The reason why the branch operates under Network Rail rules and with Network Rail traction supplies is that it was formerly owned by British Rail/Railtrack until London Underground bought it for £1 in 1994.

There incident teams cover massive areas compared to LU which are line based and usually have atleast 2 teams on duty at all times per line

I would assume that I way of mitigating these inefficiencies would be to further break down Network Rail's sectors into an increased number of smaller sectors. I don't know anything about the extra costs that would be incurred in order to achieve this though.

NR work in a ‘very different way’ for sound reasons.

Firstly train operation and infrastructure on the national network are not intergrated - NR cannot turn round to SWR and demand the use of one of their trains to take response staff to site* due to the franchise system. Neither will said TOC be prepared to have their train sat there for an extended period of time - they will want it cautioned through the area and sent on its way.

Secondly having a SWR train sat there to act as protection is unnecessary as much of the railway infrastructure on NR can be accessed using the traditional lookout warning setup as there is space to stand clear of the line when an approching train is sighted. By contrast lots of LU is in tunnels or brick lined cuttings where it is unsafe for staff to be present. If line blockages are required on the national network it is relatively simple to do so via the signaller. Due to the ability to gain access to the lineside between stations plus the use of lookout warning sending staff straight to site via Road is logical.



It is disappointing that some don’t appreciate that what works well for a vertically intergrated urban metro system (which only runs ‘all station’ stoping services using identical rolling stock) does not work for a national system that has to cater for express, semi-fast, freight, light loco and charter services as well as all station stoppers - all using rolling stock with very different performance charichteristics and all operated by someone other than the infrastructure provider.

Yes there are undoubtably things which LU do which NR could use to improve itself - but equally there are bound to be examples of things NR does which may be of benefit to LU, however given the very different structural approach put in place for each it’s unwise to assume everything is transferable.

LU = Opperations + infrastructure vertically intergrated, under direct control of the regional transport body, strong mayoral oversight

NR = Opperations franchised out, infrastructure losely controlled by the DfT, very little direct political accountability i.e. we don’t vote in the Secretary of State for Transport like the London Mayor


* Very occasionally infrastructure staff may be taken to site where the faulty equipment is in the middle of a tunnel say, but this is the exception rather than the rule and still requires a sign off by the senoir on duty management of the TOC.

The controller has no say whatsoever over traction current once you are at the home signal after crossing the bridge your nothing to do with London Underground you speak to the network rail signaller. All calls that go through the radio from the home signal go to The network rail signaller so if you need traction current off in your example you speak to network rail not the district controller

Whilst on Network rail no matter if you press the LC button or the Signal button on the radio they BOTH go to Network rail same as the mayday button, So pressing the controller button on the NR will not direct you to the LC but to the NR Signaller.

I’m fully aware of the differences thank you, no need to show off your knowledge. However, the necessity of taking line blocks in many cases has prolonged an incident and L.U.L are often more than happy to allow people to take a taxi train to the site and hold it there in section because it’s quicker than walking to site and also allows the D.R.M or N.I.R.M to give updates to the service manager and senior operating officer about what is going on with the incident.

Network Rail do not have the same or even similar incident management processes or experience in managing incidents in a reasonable timeframe as London Underground do.

I'm intrigued by this. Why haven't LU brought these things in-house? What is the reason it is still different?

So why can't the occasional National Rail trains run over LU controlled infrastructure rather than frequent LU trains run over LU owned but NR controlled infrastructure.

What advantage was gained by LU buying the branch?

There is no reason in theory why LU could not ‘control’ the south end of the branch and give SWR ‘running powers’ over it like they do with Chiltern and the Met.

However:- 

(1) The signaling on the branch is installed to BR / NR standards NOT LU standards (and we are not just talking the visible bits here - it’s quite likely there are fundamental design / wiring / technical / nomenclature differences too all of which require the S&T from LU to learn a whole new way of doing things.

(2) The aforementioned signaling was modernised in the late 1980s / early 1990s by BR and is fully intergrated with the signalling installed on the SWML. It is far from life expired and renewal now is a massive waste of money.

(3) Likewise the conductor rail feeding arrangements are fully integrated into the SWML control infrastructure and have been heavily enhanced to BR/NR standards in recent years to cope with the change from slam door stock to the power hungry Desiros.

(5) If LU kept things as they are as regards signaling / power but tried to ‘take control’ of the infrastructure and rapid response it makes things very difficult as you end up with a bespoke structure - which requires bespoke training, etc. Far better to keep things as they are and let NR handle all aspects of the branch which signaled / controlled / supplied from the SWML in accordance with NR standards

(4) Even if LU did spend vast amounts of money re-arranging the signaling / power side of things to confirm to their norms not only would they still have to find a way of catering for SWR moves* but also due to the shared use of the NLL beyond Gunnersbury LU stock would still need to be able to work with BR/NR signalling / power control.

Now it may be that when the SWML signalling interlockings / power distribution setup require replacement in two or three decades time, then LU could instead install their own systems - but in the meantime it’s simply not worth the money.



*remember SWR would have ‘grandfather rights’ so to speak which means it would be necessary for LU to fit the SWT fleet with LU style tripcocks, etc if LU ditched the BR / NR signalling - an expense that LU can ill afford.


If you are awere of the differences why did you put up a post which implied ignorance of said differences.

Let me repeat, NR and LU have very different cooperate structures as a direct result of how HM Government have decided they want to run things.

LU are a vertically intergrated organisation - they can do what they like with trains - use them to block the line, use them as Taxis precisely because  doing so does not involve any outside parties.

The privatisation of British Rail deliberately broke that link and ANY decisions regarding train Opperations require the explicit agreement of the external operator who not only has to right to say ‘no, get lost’ but who can also demand large wads of monetary compensation.

If you want NR to start behaving like LU then you had better start campaigning for a certain political party to be elected - because sorry, until the national rail network is re-intergrated / nationalised then moving closer to the LU style response is not remotely feasible due the legal / contractural and cost implications.

Also the fact that the majority of the LU network is in tunnels or brick lined cuttings where staff cannot work while trains are running CANNOT be dismissed as lightly as you seem to think. Yes it’s not a deal breaker, but it is very relevant when it comes to response techniques.

The Waterloo & City is actually very different to the Wimbledon branch because when BR modernised it back in 1992, they actually used LU kit and standards - even putting back the 4th rail that had been removed at the time of the late 1930s modernisation by the Southern Railway.

This was done so BR could take advantage of LUs order for new Central Line trains rather than have to spend a fortune on their own bespoke designs.

Obviously the other factor is the W&C is self contained and has no interaction with any other BR/NR services - after the Eurostar rebuild got rid of the old hoist to the surface even overalls were done underground or with the stock cranked out and put on road vehicles. This again facilitated the use of LU standard kit.

Therefore come privatisation, the transfer of the W&C to full LU control was pretty easy - very different from the Wimbledon branch LU purchased at the same time.

<<superteacher: Three consecutive posts merged into one.>>

I think that advantage was to the British Railways Board. The Wimbledon Branch saw few BR trains on it, and as far as I remember, none of those stopped at any of the intermediate stations. Expecting a franchise company (TOC) to take on those three stations whilst not actually running any trains calling at them might have been a step too far. There was precedent of moving lines from BR to LT (and vice versa) for example Campbell Road Junction to Upminster. Winding up the BRB gave another chance to remove some of the anomalies.

Not within this topic, I am sure that someone has contributed to DD about their role in the Waterloo and City line coming under LT control.

Don't forget that before BR was privatised, the ticket offices on the branch were still staffed by British Rail, even though no British Rail trains actually called at the stations (or did they? When did non-LT trains last actually call at the stations on the branch?)

BR also operated a service from Wimbledon pfm.4 to East Putney pfm.3 while LT undertook weekend engineering work on their side in May 1983.

Indeed.

districtdavesforum.co.uk/post/445821/thread

districtdavesforum.co.uk/post/383962/thread

districtdavesforum.co.uk/post/348667/thread

You might want to pick grahamhewett 's brains about that (strictly methaphorical though).

Sorry for the off topic.