Jump to content
 

Christopher125

Members
  • Posts

    737
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Christopher125

  1. You are reading something into my post that simply isn't there, I'll assume you've had a bad day and leave it at that.
  2. Perhaps operating 345s west of Paddington is so unique that many decades and billions of passenger journeys on longitudinal seats around the world aren't a useful indicator... but I just find that ludicrously unlikely, and I think TfL would be perfectly entitled to take the same view.
  3. I don't see what a risk assessment would prove that billions of passenger journeys around the world on trains with longitudinal seating hasn't - if there was an issue it would have become clear a very long time ago.
  4. I think these might be units which have only had a partial refurb, so have been left unbranded. Other units continue to be delivered with the full livery, including the first 323: Northern 323234 by Mike McNiven, on Flickr
  5. That's a perfectly valid theory, but longitudinal seating has been used around the world for decades - is there any actual evidence that it has health implications?
  6. What do you mean? Rail use continues to grow nationally. What 'health implications' are they were meant to be thinking of? Looking sideways out of a train isn't just normal, it's the only option normally available! If there are any people who can't handle seeing the outside going past they can always look at the floor/ceiling/other people/phones/books etc, staring through the window is not compulsory.
  7. They were testing with 230002 a few weeks back, which is now running as a diesel/battery hybrid prototype for the TfW units.
  8. It was much worse a few years back when they spent months rebuilding the original vehicle pier, if there wasn't a train you had no choice but a half mile scaffold walkway above the old tramway structure - quite an experience on a stormy winter's evening!
  9. I imagine it's the steel deck of the railway pier they'll replace, that was last renewed around the time of electrification and must be feeling it's age - I should think the legs, cast iron presumably, will be fine. Ryde Pier exists because that's as close as conventional craft can go due to the exposed sands - that's why Ryde has the only commercial hovercraft service in the world. As for access, the vehicle/pedestrian pier should remain open so while inconvenient for railway users it's no different to any other time trains aren't running.
  10. Engineering trains all but died with privatisation, the two diesel shunters left the Island in '98 and most of the rolling stock now resides at Havenstreet.
  11. I see what you mean about Shanklin, it's not easy to compare periods with all the changes - especially as the 483s appear to have a floor slightly higher than their predecessors. St Johns is a conundrum - the platforms were rebuilt to a 'standard height' in the late 20s and appear higher than other IWR platforms in the steam era, and at least one photo shows a considerable step down into the Standard Stock at the Shanklin end of the platforms. Perhaps when the track was relaid at electrification most of the platform track was lifted slightly, but the complex trackwork and signalling kept the far end as-is? I'm really not sure. Not if they want level, or level-ish, boarding - the floor of the D78s is 1110mm, so around 350mm (more than a foot) higher than typical deep tube designs. Testing on the national network would also require AWS, TPWS, GSM-R, OTMR and probably an increase in ride height - unless they fit some batteries they may well decide it's easier to do dynamic testing on the Island, Old Dalby is a busy place at the moment and probably expensive too.
  12. Adding around a foot in height to around 80m of every platform is a 'big job' for Island Line and not as straightforward as 'modifying a few short platforms' would suggest, especially as it will complicate if not preclude any transition period with the old fleet. You are reading a tad too much into my comment! As I posted at the top of the page the track was raised at St Johns and the rail height lifted at Pier Head when they replaced the deck - however the others either had their platforms lowered (Esplanade), built for tube stock (Lake and Smallbrook), or kept their original low platforms (Brading, Sandown and Shanklin) with little or no alteration.
  13. There shouldn't be any 'need' as it's not considered a part of the national network, but it may be considered desirable - it's not really other trains that justify cab strengthening but vehicles on level crossings, though I think it's only buffer and shunting collisions that have caused damage on the Island. Every platform will have a significant height difference, it's a big job.
  14. AIUI they won't be lowered, but remain at their original height - Vivarail lifted the 230s to reduce gauging issues on the national network. Significant platform height alterations appear unavoidable.
  15. https://www.railengineer.co.uk/2019/06/11/the-5-bidders-for-hs2-train-order-reveal-their-designs/ Bombardier/Hitachi, Alstom, Siemens, CAF and Talgo
  16. It goes out to Reading because most people see the obvious logic in having a stopping service that goes the whole way than have Crossrail terminate at Maidenhead, requiring a separate shuttle to fill the gap as was planned before electrification was confirmed.
  17. The track was raised at Pier Head and St Johns but the others either had their platforms lowered (Esplanade), built for tube stock (Lake and Smallbrook), or retained their original low platforms from the 1860s (Brading, Sandown and Shanklin) with little or no alteration. Bit of a dogs dinner and not straightforward to fix...
  18. The tunnel is twin single-track bores at each end, with a double-track bore between them. Mostly arched apart from a short covered-way under the esplanade roundabout; that end also features quite a sharp reverse curve which also impacts gauging for long/wide/tall vehicles.
  19. Yes, being relatively short and low they fit through the tunnel - as I think I've said before 03079 was squeezed through in 1984 with it's original cab so there's more room than people assume, but clearances generally (including Rink Road overbridge and the curved platform at Esplanade) still preclude conventional rolling stock designs. Gareth Dennis has tweeted about it: https://twitter.com/GarethDennis/status/1173851373185712129
  20. I've just had a look at the Brinton Report and he has the following to say about the power supply:
  21. That's true but they never actually needed 9 even with the Pier Shuttle in operation and the fleet was quickly reduced - with the D78s being several metres longer, more spacious and hopefully requiring less maintenance 5 seems a realistic number for a service that appears to have got by for 5 years (until today!) with running 2-car trains with three operational units. To be fair it's hard to say for sure what the situation, it's been suggested that the power supply is fragile with a significant voltage drop at Shanklin while others have refuted this - presumably the forthcoming upgrade will address any issues.
  22. 2-car trains are fine during the winter, can fit in the shed and yard without splitting and can easily run in pairs - 3-car sets would be very awkward operationally. The power supply isn't up to it and platform lengths would be significant constraint - Lake and Smallbrook were only built for shorter (5-car?) Standard Stock trains, and stopping positions are now some distance from the buffers at Pier Head and Shanklin.
  23. As far as I'm aware 319s remain banned from Oxted Tunnel, so I think that's one rumour easily debunked.
  24. Nothing significant, if anything at all - a couple of bridges are tight but again any work should be pretty minor. It seems most of the work required will be addressing platform heights and probably modifying the depot.
×
×
  • Create New...