When do Sheffield TramTrains need TOPS codes to use Network Rail but LU do not?

[delt1c]

Why does South Yorkshire Train trams require a TOPS code to
Operate on the National Network, yet London Underground stock sharing NR tracks doesn’t

 

[gazthomas]

Interesting. Could it be that it is NR trains on LU track?

 

[driver9000]

Most likely due to historic legacy and grandfather rights. The TW Metro units are class 994 on TOPS.

 

[driver9000]

Interesting. Could it be that it is NR trains on LU track?

Bakerloo line trains run on Network Rail infrastructure.

 

[Halish Railway]

Bakerloo line trains run on Network Rail infrastructure.

Do they have the same safety equipment such as AWS or TPWS? It’s worth mentioning that Tube stock was the only regular passenger stock that used NR infrastructure that didn’t have a yellow front end when it was mandatory - Correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[swt_passenger]

Do they have the same safety equipment such as AWS or TPWS? It’s worth mentioning that Tube stock was the only regular passenger stock that used NR infrastructure that didn’t have a yellow front end when it was mandatory - Correct me if I’m wrong.

No they don’t use AWS/TPWS. Their stock still uses LU trainstops and tripcocks.

 

[Domh245]

Those Bakerloo line trains do gain NR headcodes for the bits over NR metals, as do other LU services where they go over NR metals (District line Richmond Branch definitely and fairly sure also on the Wimbledon branch IIRC)

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/L57963/2020-04-11/detailed - District line train from (Upminster) Turnham Green to Turnham Green (then back to Upminster!)

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/F05363/2020-04-11/detailed - Bakerloo line train from Harrow & Wealdstone to Queens Park (then Elephant & Castle!)

Do they have the same safety equipment such as AWS or TPWS?

Nope, only 'standard' LU Tripcocks. I think I'm right in saying that the sections of overground shared with LU trains (Richmond branch and Queens Park - Harrow) use Tripcocks as the primary safety system over those stretches

 

[TheSel]

Interesting that on RTT, those Bakerloo line trains are shown as having both First and Standard class seating!

 

[pdeaves]

I think they are allocated a nominal class 499.

 

[JonathanH]

I think they are allocated a nominal class 499.

Wikipedia says

From 1994, Railtrack allocated the Class 499 designation on TOPS to London Underground electric multiple units that operate on its lines. This does not involve any renumbering of the stock involved, and is only for electronic recording purposes.

• 499/0: D78 stock on the District line from Gunnersbury to Richmond and from East Putney to Wimbledon
• 499/1: C69/77 stock on the District line from East Putney to Wimbledon
• 499/2: 1972 Stock on the Bakerloo line from Queen's Park to Harrow & Wealdstone
• 499/5: S7 Stock on the District line from Gunnersbury to Richmond and from East Putney to Wimbledon

and as posted above Tyne & Wear Metro cars operate as class 994.

 

[Ian Hardy]

The District Line Wimbledon branch between East Putney and Wimbledon is strange in that the ownership of the railway transferred from BR to London Underground on 01/04/1994 but the signals are still controlled by Network Rail from Wimbledon ASC.

 

[Dstock7080]

The District Line Wimbledon branch between East Putney and Wimbledon is strange in that the ownership of the railway transferred from BR to London Underground on 01/04/1994 but the signals are still controlled by Network Rail from Wimbledon ASC.

Power supplies and rules and regulations are also still NR standard.

 

[Class 170101]

I've just noticed that the Metropolitan Line doesn't seem to appear between Harrow on the Hill and Amersham.
Is that right?

 

[JonathanH]

I've just noticed that the Metropolitan Line doesn't seem to appear between Harrow on the Hill and Amersham.
Is that right?

Yes, Chiltern run on LUL infrastructure on that route rather than London Underground running on NR infrastructure.

 

[D365]

The District Line Wimbledon branch between East Putney and Wimbledon is strange in that the ownership of the railway transferred from BR to London Underground on 01/04/1994 but the signals are still controlled by Network Rail from Wimbledon ASC.

Presumably that was just an action that took place as part of the privatisation process.

 

[edwin_m]

Presumably that was just an action that took place as part of the privatisation process.

Yes, somebody obviously had the bright idea of transferring it to LUL, thereby creating something of a nightmare for standards compliance and approvals. The Waterloo and City was transferred at the same time, which did make sense.

 

[MarkyT]

Yes, somebody obviously had the bright idea of transferring it to LUL, thereby creating something of a nightmare for standards compliance and approvals. The Waterloo and City was transferred at the same time, which did make sense.

There was a discussion about this on London Reconnections and an insider recounted a very high level political standoff between London and Westminster that finally resolved the issue at the 11th hour. Some believe there was a concern that if it had become part of Railtrack, long distance train companies might have had free reign to bid for regular paths that way into Waterloo, risking crowding out of or at least serious performance impact on District services. That's a red herring though as the secretary of state has always had the power to declare certain lines or parts thereof as outside the general open access network where justified in a statutory document. As it stands only limited use for empty stock and a small number of 'route knowledge retention' workings are scheduled under normal circumstances, with more substantial diversions possible for planned engineering work or emergencies.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

No they don’t use AWS/TPWS. Their stock still uses LU trainstops and tripcocks.

This is why Chiltern units also have tripcock equipment fitted for running on metropolitan line shared routes, although in this case Chiltern are running on LUL metals

Those Bakerloo line trains do gain NR headcodes for the bits over NR metals, as do other LU services where they go over NR metals

TW Metro running over to Sunderland also gain NR headcodes. On Metro they use internal 3 character numerical codes starting with 1xx and this used to be displayed on the front of the train, but at Pelaw this changes to network standard beginning 2Ixx, so for example train 112 becomes 2I12

Live map of Heworth to Sunderland and Hartlepool

See trains move in real-time on our live map of Heworth to Sunderland and Hartlepool

www.opentraintimes.com

 

[Domh245]

TW Metro running over to Sunderland also gain NR headcodes. On Metro they use internal 3 character numerical codes starting with 1xx and this used to be displayed on the front of the train, but at Pelaw this changes to network standard beginning 2Ixx, so for example train 112 becomes 2I12

The logic used for the LU trains is similar - the last 2 numbers of the LU train number become the last 2 digits of it's NR headcode, so train 006 becomes 2O06

 

[bluegoblin7]

The logic used for the LU trains is similar - the last 2 numbers of the LU train number become the last 2 digits of it's NR headcode, so train 006 becomes 2O06

Only on paper, the reality is that the first train to drop on will be given whatever the next headcode to be used is, with no regard for out of turn working. NR signallers have access to LUL Connect radio systems, so the correct train numbers are always used when required for operational reasons or delay attribution etc.

 

[Snow1964]

The District Line Wimbledon branch between East Putney and Wimbledon is strange in that the ownership of the railway transferred from BR to London Underground on 01/04/1994 but the signals are still controlled by Network Rail from Wimbledon ASC.

The Richmond branch of District was originally LSWR as far as Studland Road Junction (the line continued on the now disused viaduct). It was transferred (years ago) to LT to a point between Turnham Green and Gunnersbury. Think it transferred when the TurnhamGreen-Northfields section was quadrupled. Near the junction with overground, there is a short neutral section, and the transition to Network rail 3 aspect signals

 

[WestRiding]

Are London Underground trains equiped with GSMR then, and the Tyne and Wear Metro, for that matter?

 

[rebmcr]

Are London Underground trains equiped with GSMR then, and the Tyne and Wear Metro, for that matter?

NR signallers have access to LUL Connect radio systems

.....

 

[greatkingrat]

Nope, only 'standard' LU Tripcocks. I think I'm right in saying that the sections of overground shared with LU trains (Richmond branch and Queens Park - Harrow) use Tripcocks as the primary safety system over those stretches

That used to be the case, but these sections have both now had TPWS installed. The 710s now running on the DC do not have tripcocks, and the 378s are in the process of having their tripcocks removed.

 

[AutoKratz]

Are London Underground trains equiped with GSMR then, and the Tyne and Wear Metro, for that matter?

The Tyne and Wear Metro doesn't use GSMR. It uses a Schnoor Industrieelektronik cab radio. When the Metro passes onto the Network Rail section the cab radio automatically switches over to Network Rail mode. The signaller has a separate computer on his desk for communicating with metro trains through the Schnoor radio.

 

[edwin_m]

That used to be the case, but these sections have both now had TPWS installed. The 710s now running on the DC do not have tripcocks, and the 378s are in the process of having their tripcocks removed.

But what does the LU stock on these routes have? I think I read somewhere that the shared sections of the District would be fitted with signaling equipment that looks to the train like part of the SSL signaling system, but is actually controlled via Network Rail's interlocking. However I can't see anyone fitting the elderly Bakerloo stock with TBTC, so presume the tripcocks will remain alongside the TPWS until the Bakerloo trains and signaling are both replaced. When that happens I guess north of Queens Park will similarly be fitted with whatever TBTC system is chosen, but still controlled by NR's interlocking.

Incidentally I believe also that the section shared by the Metropolitan and the Chiltern line will use the opposite solution, where lineside signals and TPWS for Chiltern are driven off the LU signaling system. When commissioned this will allow Chiltern to remove the tripcocks off their 165s, and I expect also allow any of their fleet to use the route via Amersham.

 

[bluegoblin7]

All shared sections retain tripcock operation at the moment.

The Richmond and Wimbledon branches are due to get a CBTC Overlay where, as you say, the in-cab signalling will be driven by the existing interlocking.

The top end of the Met line is due to get a CBTC underlay system, with new three-aspect signalling and train stops for any unfitted trains. There are no plans for this to include TPWS, and part of the reasoning for this system is to continue to permit occasional LUL heritage trips.

There are currently no plans for resignalling the Bakerloo line.

 

[greatkingrat]

Yes, at present Underground trains are still using tripcocks, with the Overground trains using TPWS.

 

[edwin_m]

All shared sections retain tripcock operation at the moment.

The Richmond and Wimbledon branches are due to get a CBTC Overlay where, as you say, the in-cab signalling will be driven by the existing interlocking.

The top end of the Met line is due to get a CBTC underlay system, with new three-aspect signalling and train stops for any unfitted trains. There are no plans for this to include TPWS, and part of the reasoning for this system is to continue to permit occasional LUL heritage trips.

There are currently no plans for resignalling the Bakerloo line.

Thanks for that. I'm surprised the underlay system isn't providing TPWS and therefore Chiltern will have to keep using tripcocks.

 

[bluegoblin7]

LU are paying for the signalling system so LU can provide whatever train protection they deem fit!