Jump to content
 

IoW light rail conversion proposed


Recommended Posts

Surely this would be one of the lines where a D-train would be useful.

 

Cheers

David

In the presentation linked in the D train thread, Adrian Shooter confirmed that the Vivarail trains will fit. So a good idea to use them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Vivarail, the range of 230002 is 40 miles with an 8 minute charge or 50 miles with a 10 minute charge. At only 8½ miles from Ryde Pier Head to Shanklin, in theory it should take less than 2 minutes to charge at each end. IIRC the turnarounds are 5-8 minutes.

 

Cheers

David

Edited by DavidB-AU
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

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.

Push-pull.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

According to Vivarail, the range of 230002 is 40 miles with an 8 minute charge or 50 miles with a 10 minute charge. At only 8½ miles from Ryde Pier Head to Shanklin, in theory it should take less than 2 minutes to charge at each end. IIRC the turnarounds are 5-8 minutes.

 

Cheers

David

 

Yes, but you would avoid having live rail on the pier and only charge at Shanklin (with an additional facility at St John's).

 

As I understand it, the batteries can be recharged from a normal mains supply.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

The 503's were in very much better condition than the LT Stock they would have replaced and would probably have lasted until some surplus 508's became available.

 

Spares should not have been a problem, only 9 or 10 were required for the IOW and the remaining 30 or so could have been stripped for spares, with perhaps a couple more being retained in long term storage as insurance.

Edited by bude_branch
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

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).

The Piccadilly stock is due for replacement in the next few years. This stock has extra luggage capacity for working to Heathrow which makes it even more suitable for the island line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not talking about a 240V 13A supply here. That would be pretty much perpetual motion.

 

Removing DC currents from the pier would seem a good idea for it's longevity, and maybe a "charge at station stops" approach would be a good one in this case. I think more places than just Ryde and Shanklin would be sensible though, depending on the auxiliary load of the trains (especially thinking of times of disruption, but I suppose how bad can it really get on the island line?)

Edited by Zomboid
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help thinking that the IoW line has suffered from under investment for far too long. If it was possible for the infrastructure to be altered to 503/508, then not only should it have been, then they could have ordered extra 508s when new, giving the advantage of spares availability and all the economies of scale that would produce, not to mention the massive improvement in passenger experience which would be bound to increase ridership.

 

I don't suppose that there is an option to add a few extra on to the Merseyrail order? If the trains used on the IoW are very similar if not the same as that used on the mainland, then there would be an option to lease them rather than purchase them, which may make them more attractive from a financial point of view. As the power supply needs replacing anyway you may be able to use something modern that can make use of regenerative braking, which may help reduce the loading on the IoW power supply.

 

One other alternative that I think would work well would be the Urbos 3 trams used on the Midland Metro. They have battery capability, and I am sure with the pan lowered would easily fit through the tunnel sections. It would also open up possibilities for street running if there is anywhere that would be of use.

 

However unless battery use is restricted to the minimum, and using as much regen to charge them as possible, then the loading on the Islands electrical supply will be increased, unless sufficient overnight charging is possible to require virtually no charging during the day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but you would avoid having live rail on the pier and only charge at Shanklin (with an additional facility at St John's).

 

As I understand it, the batteries can be recharged from a normal mains supply.

They have an fast charging system that can connect without human intervention. AIUI a static battery bank is charged from the mains and discharges to the train as required.

 

Cheers

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

They also have a scheme for charging from a central third rail which is live only when covered by the train and therefore exempt from the ORR ban. I think this is from 750V DC so the infrastructure is potentially already in place.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The Piccadilly stock is due for replacement in the next few years. This stock has extra luggage capacity for working to Heathrow which makes it even more suitable for the island line.

 

Its also quite a bit longer than the 1938 stock causing problems with stepping distances / gaps at Ryde, plus clearance issues through the S bend shaped Ryde tunnel.

 

The other complicating factor is due to the withdrawal of the revenue support grant by the Westminster Government, TfL are under savre financial pressure with plans to replace tube stock having to be significantly delayed from what was assumed a few years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

I should have said earlier, it was the 1956 built units that would have been transferred to the Island.

Edited by bude_branch
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

 

British Rail-owned Seaspeed operated hydrofoils between Portsmouth Harbour and Ryde Pier Head and Cowes during a brief period in the 1970s(?).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

By coincidence, I have just seen some photos this afternoon of batteries that are very similar to the ones which would be on the power raft of the 230s.

 

In this case, they are stacked into cabinets as it is a land-based facility for the National Grid. But the batteries themselves are about the size of a large suitcase so you would get plenty below the floor of a 230.

 

Running a round trip on the IoW is only going to discharge the battery about 10%, so recharging should not be an issue and not cause undue strain on the power supplies. That said, I could see the sense in having a battery storage unit at the charging point so as to smooth out the demand and have back-up in case of power cuts.

 

Does anyone here know if the original traction motors of the D78 are being used? It might be simpler, in the context of battery operation to use a lower voltage motor???

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hydrofoils  no.

There  was  a  "Sidewall"  operating  for  a  period,  this  was  like  a  hovercraft  but  with  rigid  fixed  blade  like  sides  to  the  hull  with  an  air  cushion  underneath.  No  land  going  capability.  I  did  travel on  it  once.

 

Pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

By coincidence, I have just seen some photos this afternoon of batteries that are very similar to the ones which would be on the power raft of the 230s.

 

In this case, they are stacked into cabinets as it is a land-based facility for the National Grid. But the batteries themselves are about the size of a large suitcase so you would get plenty below the floor of a 230.

 

Running a round trip on the IoW is only going to discharge the battery about 10%, so recharging should not be an issue and not cause undue strain on the power supplies. That said, I could see the sense in having a battery storage unit at the charging point so as to smooth out the demand and have back-up in case of power cuts.

 

Does anyone here know if the original traction motors of the D78 are being used? It might be simpler, in the context of battery operation to use a lower voltage motor???

 

I am pretty sure that they are the original motors, As for batteries, higher voltage is better. You just put the batteries in series. Higher voltage = lower current which almost always improves efficiency.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

British Rail-owned Seaspeed operated hydrofoils between Portsmouth Harbour and Ryde Pier Head and Cowes during a brief period in the 1970s(?).

I'm sure I used it a couple of times using my LT priv card. :)  But was it a hydrofoil or a type of hovercraft?

 

As for D trains, why not just run them from the 3rd rail? and what about the new Luxembourg trams? they can run on overhead then change to battery power in the city cetre, charging from a cntre 3rd rail at stops.

Edited by roythebus
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone here know if the original traction motors of the D78 are being used? It might be simpler, in the context of battery operation to use a lower voltage motor???

 

The prototype retained the original DC motors, but production trains were to use new AC motors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an interesting article on London Reconnections about the Isle of WIght line a couple of weeks ago - apologies if someone else has mentioned this but I haven't had time to read through the whole thread. If I understand it correctly, part of the issue is one of tunnel clearance; the trackbed was raised to try to reduce flooding. Degradation of the power supplies is another. But rather than précis the article from memory here is a link:

 

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2018/third-ryde-tube-transfer-troublesome/

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

There was an interesting article on London Reconnections about the Isle of WIght line a couple of weeks ago - apologies if someone else has mentioned this but I haven't had time to read through the whole thread. If I understand it correctly, part of the issue is one of tunnel clearance; the trackbed was raised to try to reduce flooding. Degradation of the power supplies is another. But rather than précis the article from memory here is a link:

 

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2018/third-ryde-tube-transfer-troublesome/

 

A new article as appeared about the Piccadilly line. https://www.londonreconnections.com/2018/upgrading-the-piccadilly/

 

The EARLIEST new stock will appear there is 2023, so being realistic it won't be till around 2025 before the older stock (which is already 44 years old) becomes surplus to requirements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The article link just given, plus many other comments on here about the suitability or otherwise of existing stock, led me to think about Talgo, which has the vehicle length and height restriction capable of use on the Island Line, I would surmise. We normally associate them with high speed, or at least InterCity types of operations, so I got excited when I found out they were working on a project for the LA Metro......but it seems just as a management consultant and not, according to their own website, about a new design of commuter/local train. Pity.

 

Nonetheless, there are many metro systems in Europe replacing their older stock currently. There must be something out there that might suit. I hope SWR have not confined their search to the UK.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think we ought to have a fleet of these to handle services:

41298270915profilejpg.jpg?width=540&heig

Advantages?

 

  • Already two on the island! Plus a tender version too...
  • Readily available replacements available on the mainland to hire in in the event of a failure.
  • Genuinely more modern design than the existing stock! By over 5 years!
  • No requirement to maintain electric operational infrastructure.
  • Trained staff readily available!
  • Air braked & Vacuum braked.
  • Can be fuelled by several sources, including the possibility of carbon-neutral biofuels.
  • Would increase line usage and tourism.
  • Interchangeability with IOWSR locomotive fleet.

And for the passengers?

BR_MK1_SO.jpg

Advantages?

  • Most modern stock on the island to date!
  • Allows guard to walk through train in complete safety -  first for the Island!
  • Toilet facilities for passengers - An improvement on the existing stock!
  • Tried and tested design.
  • Readily available spares and plenty on mainland to be hired-in in case of emergency.
  • More modern design than the existing stock, by 10 years!
  • Can be vacuum, air or dual braked.
  • Main Line usable.
  • Capable of higher speed running.
  • Removes potential issues as to who closes the doors.
  • Can have door interlocking.

What is wrong with that?!

 

After all, you'd only need to ship a few MK1's over and do a bit of track modification. That's proposed anyway!

 

The reason I suggest 2MT's and MK1's is that they clearly offer a huge range of improvements over the current (though charming) 1938 stock sets, another being steam heating! MK1's would also be more comfortable... I would prefer to have suggested a new fleet of O2's and LBSCR Bogie stock, or even better, E1's and LBSCR 4-Wheeled stock, but opted for the 2MT+MK1 combination on account of their being more modern in both design and construction than the current stock.

 

I am, of course, deadly serious! How dare anyone give this a 'funny' rating! Phil...

Edited by sem34090
  • Like 3
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...