Christopher125

Possibly but this is a few months old so plans may have evolved - either way renewing the Rowborough substation was specifically mentioned by the programme manager at the Bus & Rail Users meeting a week or two back.

I've just come across the PIN, which gives more detail to prospective contractors and appears to confirm the details of the meeting - seems TPWS (and cab radio!) really are on the cards: http://bidstats.uk/tenders/2019/W39/711590030 Track works: A number of interventions are planned along the extent of the Island line to accommodate the new trains and improve track ride quality. These interventions will be items such as rail replacement, closure of current jointed track, ballast replacement, tamping, track lowering at stations and minor gauging interventions. A new passing loop will be provided at brading station and platform 2 will be reopened for passenger use. Civil engineering works: Civil engineering works will be carried out at the current station sites to complement track lowering and where this is not possible, the application of a new surface to the platforms to raise the platform height. There are a number of structures that require intervention such as minor bridge decking works and retaining structures. Signalling works: New signalling will be provided to control the new loop at Brading station together with the provision of a new control panel at Ryde St Johns signal box. Additionally, TPWS will be provided throughout the Island line together with the upgrading of a number of point mechanisms. To support the new signalling system at Brading station, a time division multiplexor system will be installed which will also replace the current westinghouse S2 legacy system provided at Sandown. Telecommunications works: A cots ethernet compatible fibre optic transmission system will be established on the Island Line to support the new signalling equipment and train radio system. This system will be compatible with VOIP systems. Electrical supply works: A number of station power supplies may need upgrading as part of the works to support the new signalling and systems which will require co-ordination with local DNO operators.

Not a chance; in the 21st century there's no political appetite for closing any railway service - hence the Conwy Valley is reopened at vast expense every few years, Island Line get's a £26m upgrade and even a station as lightly used as Breich gets a complete rebuild despite frequent suggestions on forums like this that the money won't be found. In this case the line's aesthetic appeal alone would probably prompt enough of an outcry to make any politician think twice, let alone the size of the local population it serves and the political ramifications of trying. Closing railways is something most modern politicians just want nothing to do with thankfully.

The lowering of the trackbed, a whole loop for £1m would be a tad optimistic! AIUI it's being funded by the DfT, via SWR.

SWR's programme manager for the project has supplied a bit more detail, courtesy of the IW Bus Users Group:http://www.iwbususers.btck.co.uk/RecentMinutes Design work is 75% complete. Platforms heights will be raised or track lowered to provide level boarding. There are gauging issues to address with some bridges. Rowborough sub-station will be renewed. A passing loop will be installed at Brading with level access provided by the foot crossing south of the station. Network Rail is considering the possibility of making Ryde St John’s Road fully accessible. 484s will need 700 miles of test running and should start passenger service in May 2021. Two closures next Autumn; 4 weeks between Pier Head and St Johns, and 8 weeks between Smallbrook and Shanklin. Construction works will require 7,000 tones of material to be moved. Provision of a Train Protection and Warning System is being considered between Ryde St John’s Road and Sandown stations to allow a 20-minute interval service to be run. [why?] Perhaps time to rename the thread?

I had a similar impression, but I've seen subsequent comments suggesting the issues weren't as intractable as some suggested and the real sticking point had proved to be the 345s - thankfully even that seems to have made progress with recent software updates, with training on ETCS/Heathrow imminent?

He comes across as the ultimate 'crayonista' - he knows enough to think he has viable 'alternatives' like his Euston Express scheme, but not enough to see how fundamentally flawed and/or hopelessly undeveloped they are. Even when attempts are made to explain the problems to him, as they were at some length during the committee stage of the hybrid bill, he seems either unable or unwilling to understand. Unfortunately his latest report is just more of the same vague and muddled thinking; William Barter has tweeted a useful analysis of which I've picked out a few: https://twitter.com/WilliamBarter1/status/1214156556566237191

If it was that simple then rolling stock should have become progressively, and significantly, less reliable as the complexity increased - it's hard to see much evidence of that. Surely what we see at Dawlish is the downside of trains designed to protect themselves from damage - ordinarily a big benefit to reliability, but unhelpfully conservative in exceptional circumstances. Thankfully this is something that can be addressed, as it was for Electrostars and Desiros when they struggled in their first bad winters - AIUI the 800s are due a software update which should address issues restarting engines knocked out by a wave, while a long-awaited fix for the Voyagers has been recently tested. I don't think that was ever on the cards, IIRC the initial plan was for a Newbury-Bedwyn DMU shuttle before the plan to lengthen the Bedwyn headshunt and use 800s - no conceivable business case could be found for electrification .

AIUI that's the case - the Cromer branch was resignalled as a trial primarily using axle counters, but as described in The Rail Engineer (pg30) they also fitted level crossing predictors for the first time and these do use track circuits to detect oncoming trains and calculate the appropriate timings. ...a level-crossing predictor was first introduced between Norwich and Cromer when the line was resignalled in 2000. The GETS Harmon HXP-3 uses audio frequency track circuits to detect an approaching train, and the rate of change of the inductance of the rails is used to determine its speed and hence calculate the trigger moment to provide and constant warning time for each train.

Interestingly this is being developed further, with Variable Rate Sanding recently trialled on the Redditch branch whose results are described in the Rail Engineer article below: 'A little sand in the right place works wonders'

That would surprise me - it isn't the first driven axle on the 387s mentioned in the article and I can think of many other classes where that isn't the case, in one direction or both.

This Rail Engineer article appears to suggest sanding the third axle is standard (if not required?) practice, presumably so sand doesn't interfere with the front bogie triggering track circuits. It might be unusual for axle 3 to be so far from the next set of driven wheels but braking performance surely takes priority, so it's as far forward as possible. I think that all makes sense?

Driver training I think?

Perhaps it only shows up as an issue in combination with the track circuits used on the Cromer branch?

Was the messaging actually confused, or does it only seem that way because of the torrent of uninformed speculation in the media and amongst enthusiasts? My initial reactions were influenced by what I was reading here and elsewhere, but on reflection perhaps GA are right to feel aggrieved. I think that's unlikely now the fault seems limited to the Cromer line. According to this 2011 ORR report concerning the Whitlingham LC the Cromer line was resignalled "as a trial site for the Vaughan Harmon interlocking and level crossing predictor / processor technology". Perhaps unsurprisingly for a trial of new technology the system proved unreliable, poorly supported by the manufacturer and limited staff competency - it seems entirely plausible and consistent with recent statements that Stadler met all the relevant standards but the design has exposed characteristics or flaws with the non-standard signalling.

Is this a binary issue though? This appears to be an existing characteristic/flaw that apparently affects everything - presumably previous traction hadn't triggered it to the same degree and/or as consistently as the Stadlers so escaped attention. This would explain the most recent statements, why the Stadlers aren't being blamed and are back in use, and seems way more plausible than some grand conspiracy by Greater Anglia to deceive the public which would surely be exposed?

Absolutely, 100%... but that doesn't mean he hasn't got a point, however badly he puts it across. I do feel there's been an assumption by most enthusiasts that the train *must* be to blame, but it seems entirely possible that the Stadler design merely exposes some kind of fault or design issue with the signalling that shouldn't exist.

IMO it's perhaps the best livery on the network; modern, distinctive and really grabs your attention.

'Avanti West Coast' looks a good bet, possibly orange?

90035 is being used to test the new wires to Cardiff, Gary Keenor explains all in this twitter thread: https://twitter.com/25kV/status/1195098952833601538

They are 26m long vehicles, surely that's to be expected? The offset as they go through tight pointwork is eye-opening.

I gather the vast majority of the fleet will be needed when full dynamic testing through the core gets underway alongside Tfl Rail services to Reading, Shenfield and Heathrow.

Is it? Doug Oakervee's conclusions seem pretty obvious to me, while the cost has risen none of the arguments are new and the fundamentals haven't changed - if they specifically wanted someone to scale back or kill the project, regardless of the evidence, they could have chosen Lord Berkeley to lead it.

Didn't they receive theirs a year or two back?

A little bit more than that - thanks to Ben on the District Dave forum I've been pointed to some NSE-era diagrams showing basic dimensions: https://www.networksoutheast.net/dc.html This suggests a lift of 63mm - roughly 2.5 inches - from 2883mm as-built (according to wiki) to 2946mm which IMO makes them look noticeably less squat from some angles. Note the modern light clusters.