Jump to content
 

IoW light rail conversion proposed


Recommended Posts

....As for getting rid of a new fleet, there has been published reasons on SWR reasons for doing so.

They are able to order a new fleet and lease them cheaper than keeping the 707’s. SWT wanted to retraction the 455’s SWR obviously don’t want to keep these units, and that is their choice.

As has been pointed out, the TOC’s are not here to please enthusiasts, or our views. They are running businesses with small margins so why shouldn’t they get the best deal available?

I'm not querying this as an enthusiast. If I was, I would advocate using steam on the Lymington Branch, as it is in a tourist area. (Why should the Jacobite business model not succeed in the south of England, albeit on a smaller scale?)

 

I am querying it as a taxpayer, since the rail network is still heavily subsidised, and as a potential passenger, since money for replacing nearly-new trains has to come from somewhere, and ultimately passengers and taxpayers foot the bill. Even if the train leasing company takes a hit, they will seek to recoup their losses by increasing hire charges in the future.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That was ultimately a government decision. Apparently they award extra "points" to a franchise proposal which includes new trains. Seemingly with no regard for the fact that the trains they are proposing to replace haven't even been brought into service yet...

 

I'm sure SWR would quite like that 158 to be available for their non-electrified routes - and it's actually possible that the massive new order will eventually free up a 450 to run the Lymington branch, allowing the 158 to go back to routes through Salisbury.

 

(Running the branch with steam would need a significant reduction in frequency or some form of 2 or more train working, as it's a very quick turn round at each end to support the existing half hourly service. Some routes in the South could possibly run on the Jacobite/ NYMR model, but not the Lymington branch. Weren't the Swanage railway recently looking at doing something between Wareham & Weymouth?)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not querying this as an enthusiast. If I was, I would advocate using steam on the Lymington Branch, as it is in a tourist area. (Why should the Jacobite business model not succeed in the south of England, albeit on a smaller scale?)

 

I am querying it as a taxpayer, since the rail network is still heavily subsidised, and as a potential passenger, since money for replacing nearly-new trains has to come from somewhere, and ultimately passengers and taxpayers foot the bill. Even if the train leasing company takes a hit, they will seek to recoup their losses by increasing hire charges in the future.

 

SWR pays a premium IIRC, and does not get a subsidy, so the rationale is moot in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not. My original argument was that common sense says that running battery-powered trains on the electrified IoW line is stupid, just as running a diesel unit on the Lymington Branch is stupid. Are you trying to argue that SWR's plan to make recently-built EMUs redundant is evidence that the 21st century railway in the UK is sensibly run? If that kind of waste is OK, getting an electric unit for the Lymington line should be a doddle!

 

Do not confuse the day to day operation of a franchise with what a bidder may propose to win the Government organised contest.

 

Note that Stagecoach (who instigated the Lymington moves) did not feel  it necessary to propose what amounts to a complete replacement of the suburban fleet - including dumping recently re-tractioned and brand new train fleets. They were content to keep what they had and supplement with more 707s if necessary.

 

First group thought differently and promised the wholesale replacement of suburban fleet with new trains. They were able to do this because of lower leasing costs which translates into a better deal for taxpayers like you and I.

 

Quite frankly what with attitudes in this country prioritising 'low taxes' over everything else most folk are going to be far more concerned with the paying less to lease their trains rather than whether a tiny branch line uses electric or diesel power!

 

Its not the fault of Stagecoach, SWT or SWR that the DfTs franchising process is promoting wasteful practices in an effort to carry favour to the travelling public - who have proved time and again that they subscribe to the view new=better.

 

So I repeat the actions of SWT / SWR in using a diesel unit on the Lymington branch are a common sense approach to (i) a fixed fleet size and (ii) passenger growth. The fact that the wider Governmental rail franchising process is flawed is not something SWT / SWR / Stagecoach / First Group can do anything about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

SWR pays a premium IIRC, and does not get a subsidy, so the rationale is moot in this case.

 

I thought it got both a subsidy and generated a premium.

 

As with lots of former NSE sectors, some bits of SWR do make handsome profits - but others such as the London suburban runs make a significant loss.

 

While these things could be cancelled out internally, I was under the impression the DfT liked to reconcile the numbers themselves as (i) It makes the franchise more attractive to bidders if it generates decent premiums and (ii) It helps HMG identify exactly what services are loss making.

 

All smoke and mirrors that employ lots of finance folk to account for all the monies being moved about - but what else do you expect from the micromanaging DfT and Treasury as far as railway matters are concerned

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it got both a subsidy and generated a premium.

 

As with lots of former NSE sectors, some bits of SWR do make handsome profits - but others such as the London suburban runs make a significant loss.

 

While these things could be cancelled out internally, I was under the impression the DfT liked to reconcile the numbers themselves as (i) It makes the franchise more attractive to bidders if it generates decent premiums and (ii) It helps HMG identify exactly what services are loss making.

 

All smoke and mirrors that employ lots of finance folk to account for all the monies being moved about - but what else do you expect from the micromanaging DfT and Treasury as far as railway matters are concerned

 

I do not recall anything within the new FA which required split accounts, other than for the IOW. There is a requirement to "co-operate" with TfL in the event of any adoption of services into London Overground, being agreed by govt and progressed by them, which I would assume will require the ability to allocate costs and revenue to those services.

 

Total premium committed by SWR will be £2.6bn (NPV) over 7 years. In addition, they have also committed to £1.2bn capital investment, including c.£900m to Bombardier, and some minor amounts to the IOW (under a scheme called CCI, which also applies to the mainland as well as the consultation and proposal development for a long term sustainable operation on the Island). There is no allowance nor commitment to capital funding of that proposal, by either side, only a commitment to explore sources of funding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I'm not querying this as an enthusiast. If I was, I would advocate using steam on the Lymington Branch, as it is in a tourist area. (Why should the Jacobite business model not succeed in the south of England, albeit on a smaller scale?)

 

I am querying it as a taxpayer, since the rail network is still heavily subsidised, and as a potential passenger, since money for replacing nearly-new trains has to come from somewhere, and ultimately passengers and taxpayers foot the bill. Even if the train leasing company takes a hit, they will seek to recoup their losses by increasing hire charges in the future.

Now there is a thought, steam on the branch.

Reality is SWT made best of what it had, replaced the Wessex and slam doors with Desiro units and made do with the London commuter units. It was a better option for them to rebuild the Gat Ex units, re traction the 455’s and take ex Southerm 456 units as opposed to ordering new units to replace them with, instead ordering a small fleet to supplement its operation.

SWR specified new trains as part of it franchise bid, big browny points. Don’t forget they are bringing back the Wessex units for the Pompy directs.

Interestingly neither SWT nor SWR planned to replace the 159/158 units, instead opting for full refurbishment.

I agree it’s a waste of money but it’s the leasing company who ultimately take the hit if alternative work can not be found, when you consider the investment in the 458 and 455 fleet, I’d say something of a bitter pill. Sadly that’s the world we are in, too many feel everything has to be new, when in reality why not remanufacture if viable?

 

Scotland taking HST’s

GWR retaining some

DRS using 20/37’s

Freightliner with the 86’s

 

In my opinion too many assets are being replaced when there is life left, but it’s my opinion. The company’s have a business view and that is too make money while providing the best service possible.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I'm not querying this as an enthusiast. If I was, I would advocate using steam on the Lymington Branch, as it is in a tourist area. (Why should the Jacobite business model not succeed in the south of England, albeit on a smaller scale?)

 

Now there is a thought, steam on the branch.

 

Before the thread drifts even further from the original topic, it’s probably worth pointing out that given the current 2 trains per hour service on the Lymington branch, it’s difficult to see how any form of steam traction could be added/substituted for the current SWR 158s & 450s and the existing timetable frequency maintained. That’s before considering the costs involved, any infrastructure changes that might be necessary, and all the other organisational and regulatory hurdles to be negotiated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought but would it be possible to convert the 3rd rail to 750v AC? That could solve the problem of voltage drop.

Then could those shiny new AC motor sets from the doomed 455s be fitted to an ex-LUL vehicle and run on AC from the 3rd rail?

 

It's probably impossible for several reasons but lack of compatibility with the rest of the network isn't one of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought but would it be possible to convert the 3rd rail to 750v AC? That could solve the problem of voltage drop.

Then could those shiny new AC motor sets from the doomed 455s be fitted to an ex-LUL vehicle and run on AC from the 3rd rail?

 

It's probably impossible for several reasons but lack of compatibility with the rest of the network isn't one of them.

750V AC conductor rail is a non-starter due to the inductances involved, and the currents would be the same, so the volt drps, ignoring the inductive imedance, would be no better. 750V overhead would be no better, as although the conductor can be copper instead of steel, the cross-section is smaller, so the result is roughly the same.

 

Modern 3-phase traction drives actually work off DC, irrespective of whether the incoming supply is AC or DC. If the former, it is simply transformed down to a nominal 750V, rectified and then reconsituted by the drive into variable voltage variable frequency AC for the motors.

 

The sticking point for anything to run on the IoW system is the restricted clearance in the Ryde tunnel. That was a problem even in steam days, which is one reason why the stock was all arc roofed.

 

My understanding is that with the works that were done to Ryde tunnel, surface gauge stock will not fit.

 

Jim

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the tunnel track was raised anyway, why go to that expense? If you care to look on the "Isle of Wight Steam Railways pre-1966" group, Derek Gawn has recently posted some pics of the first tube car being delivered and clearance tested behind W24 and a match wagon. At one stage it ran around with a wooden profile of existing Island stock for checking. I haven't found a way to copy FB pics to here.

Original drawings show both height and width of the portals was 14ft - a modern structure gauging diagram, shown in Mark Brinton's response to the Garnett report, suggest that's been reduced by something like 6 inches.

 

Regarding the wooden profile, if your referring to the photo at the tunnel mouth then it's a Class 503 profile - back in the 80s they were proposed as replacements for the Standard Stock. With their short 58ft (around 17.6m) bodies they were better suited than most to the clearances in the sharp reverse-curved tunnel.

Edited by Christopher125
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Going off at a slight tangent, is the railway still responsible for the costs of the pier?

 

Would it not be sensible to demolish the pier and create a new landing facility for the hydrofoils nearer to shore? When visiting IoW, I usually use the boat to Fishbourne but last time I went to Ryde and was very struck by how inconvenient it is to land so far away from the town.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Going off at a slight tangent, is the railway still responsible for the costs of the pier?

 

Would it not be sensible to demolish the pier and create a new landing facility for the hydrofoils nearer to shore? When visiting IoW, I usually use the boat to Fishbourne but last time I went to Ryde and was very struck by how inconvenient it is to land so far away from the town.

 

Ryde Pier is half a mile long for good reason - at low tide that's as close to the shore conventional vessels like the Catamarans can get, and with the shifting sands there's really no practical alternative. Hence one of the few Hovercraft services in the world.

 

Hydrofoils incidentally were a Red Funnel thing between Cowes and Southampton, alas long gone. 

Edited by Christopher125
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Ryde Pier is half a mile long for good reason - at low tide that's as close to the shore conventional vessels like the Catamarans can get, and with the shifting sands there's really no practical alternative. Hence one of the few Hovercraft services in the world.

 

Hydrofoils incidentally were a Red Funnel thing between Cowes and Southampton, alas long gone. 

 

I had assumed that was the reason. And yet, surely the catamarans can't have that much draft.

 

How difficult could it be to pile in a pair of coffer dams to keep the sand out of a channel? Surely better than the ongoing maintenance (not that much of that seems to be happening) of a badly rusting pier.

 

Edit: Yes, sorry, I meant catamarans. Better than the hydrofoils but I still prefer the ships.

Edited by Joseph_Pestell
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had assumed that was the reason. And yet, surely the catamarans can't have that much draft.

 

How difficult could it be to pile in a pair of coffer dams to keep the sand out of a channel? Surely better than the ongoing maintenance (not that much of that seems to be happening) of a badly rusting pier.

 

Edit: Yes, sorry, I meant catamarans. Better than the hydrofoils but I still prefer the ships.

 

I believe the report confirms that the pier itself is in pretty good shape structurally, and only the main timbers and track need replacement.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Getting permission to do dredging in the UK (and Europe) nowadays is a nightmare. And to pre-empt any comments a certain event is highly unlikely to change that since the UK has consistently been one of the countries pushing for the most rigorous marine environmental protection.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had assumed that was the reason. And yet, surely the catamarans can't have that much draft.

 

How difficult could it be to pile in a pair of coffer dams to keep the sand out of a channel? Surely better than the ongoing maintenance (not that much of that seems to be happening) of a badly rusting pier.

 

Edit: Yes, sorry, I meant catamarans. Better than the hydrofoils but I still prefer the ships.

 

At low tide the sand can be exposed almost the entire length of the pier, so even the shallowest draft is of no help. Creating and maintaining an artificial channel of sufficient size to allow safe navigation in poor weather would seem pretty impractical and unnecessary when there is already a perfectly usable pier that's seen significant investment in recent years.

Edited by Christopher125
Link to post
Share on other sites

Everytime I wait for the ferry at Lymington and I actually see a train arrive the number of passengers is quite small so steam could well be non profitable.

Surely that indicates that electric trains aren't popular? Perhaps a steam train would attract more people - it happens elsewhere, after all? The turnround time would be a problem, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Surely that indicates that electric trains aren't popular? Perhaps a steam train would attract more people - it happens elsewhere, after all? The turnround time would be a problem, though.

Only electric two days out of seven. Other 5 days it’s a Diesel.

It might be the fact that Red Funnel is a better service and easier for most to get to in Southampton. Even in the summer holidays the lymington trains are sparsely populated, Ive done return trips with just me the drive and guard.

Steam won’t happen, it’s not viable. The branch isn’t signalled for anything other than one train, As it’s part of the franchise, I don’t see SWR opting to introduce steam anytime soon.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Two pictures taken during the gauging trials for the Class 503 Merseyrail Units.

 

IWR - Ryde Tunnel Clearance Trials 002 Adj.jpg

 

IWR - Ryde Tunnel Clearance Trials 003 Adj.jpg

 

BR (M) West Kirby - 005.jpg

And finally, a Class 503.

 

A copy of the final report can be found here: IWR Class 503 Proposal 1983-04-25 -.pdf

As part of the proposal, the line between Ryde St Johns Road and the Esplanade would have been singled in order to ease the reverse curves through the double bore section of Ryde Tunnel.

 

Incidentally, when the 03 Class Shunter was delivered to the Island, before modification, it was tested between Ryde Pier Head and Shanklin. The only tight spots recorded were Rink Road Bridge (Up Line), Ryde St Johns Road Platform Canopy (Up Line) and Smallbrook Lane Bridge (Down Line).

The report was very interesting to read, although it doesn't explain why they decided in the end to get more tube stock instead of the 503s. It might also suggest that the current debate about alternative traction will end in the same way, with the 1938 stock simply being used until more tube stock is available (the Standard stock did, I think, run until 1990, too long according to the report).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The report was very interesting to read, although it doesn't explain why they decided in the end to get more tube stock instead of the 503s. It might also suggest that the current debate about alternative traction will end in the same way, with the 1938 stock simply being used until more tube stock is available (the Standard stock did, I think, run until 1990, too long according to the report).

503's were pretty long in the tooth at the time, north of 40 by my reckoning, so not a lot younger than the tube stock that replaced the 487's. Probably not as big a pool of spares either, given the fleet size compared to 1938/59 tube stock.

Edited by rodent279
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...