Jump to content
 

IoW light rail conversion proposed


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

The D stock is only a couple of inches narrower than the A stock but is still wider than any 'tube' stock. The replacement bogies were to the same dimensions as the originals. The single leaf doors caused problems  with ventilation which was solved by installing forced air ventilation.

Edited by PhilJ W
Link to post
Share on other sites

The situation with platform heights at the moment is that some remain unaltered since the steam era while others have been built or adjusted to suit tube trains.  I imagine the intention is to try and achieve step-free access from platform to train at all stations.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, roythebus said:

There might be some track lowering through platforms to make wheelchair access easier. Track was raised in places to take this into account.

 

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...

Edited by Christopher125
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, RichardLong said:

The situation with platform heights at the moment is that some remain unaltered since the steam era while others have been built or adjusted to suit tube trains.  I imagine the intention is to try and achieve step-free access from platform to train at all stations.

The problem now is that the introduction of new stock (of any design) means that the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations have to be complied with. The grandfather rights currently enjoyed by the ex-1938 stock will expire with their departure.

 

Jim 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

The problem now is that the introduction of new stock (of any design) means that the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations have to be complied with. The grandfather rights currently enjoyed by the ex-1938 stock will expire with their departure.

 

Jim 

Although clearly derogations must exist in some form or other because there are places where the stepping height from Class 80X trains is far from easy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, roythebus said:

It's not "new" stock if it was built in 1978.

 

Whilst it might have been built in 1978, it is not only new to the national network and sufficiently rebuilt to qualify as a new train for legal purposes. Add to that that it will be the only stock running on the Island line. 

 

Jim

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
51 minutes ago, roythebus said:

D stock is already passed to run on the national network if you think about it. :) East Putney-Wimbledon, Gunnersbury-Richmond.

They are also passed to run between Bedford and Bletchley as class 230. 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, roythebus said:

D stock is already passed to run on the national network if you think about it. :) East Putney-Wimbledon, Gunnersbury-Richmond.

Except that they don't any more, and East Putney-Wimbledon isn't part of the national network any more, it's LU's, with running rights for non-LU operators.

 

8 hours ago, Chris116 said:

They are also passed to run between Bedford and Bletchley as class 230. 

As class 230, not D78, stock.

 

Jim

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably they can't raise the platforms until the 38 stock leaves?

 

Any platforms that are worked on will need to comply with the new regs but will the grandfather rights expire with new stock?  I'm not sure that has happened elsewhere.

 

That said the difference in step height from an HST to an 800 can't be much.  Is there a vast amount of difference between 38 and D stock? 

 

The 230's are raised up to platform height by spacers which the new IOW stock won't have.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

Except that they don't any more, and East Putney-Wimbledon isn't part of the national network any more, it's LU's, with running rights for non-LU operators.

 

As class 230, not D78, stock.

 

Jim

Having spent all my LUL career on the Earls Court to Wimbledon Park group I can confirm that East Putney to Wimbledon is a strange situation. LUL staff are not allowed on the track as it is still National Rail but the stations have been LUL stations for over 20 years. The signalling is National Rail controlled which results in ECS National Rail trains being given priority at East Putney over LUL passenger services.

Edited by Chris116
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
54 minutes ago, Hesperus said:

Presumably they can't raise the platforms until the 38 stock leaves?

 

Any platforms that are worked on will need to comply with the new regs but will the grandfather rights expire with new stock?  I'm not sure that has happened elsewhere.

 

That said the difference in step height from an HST to an 800 can't be much.  Is there a vast amount of difference between 38 and D stock? 

 

The 230's are raised up to platform height by spacers which the new IOW stock won't have.

As stated above the ride height of the units is going to be adjusted/lowered so probably not a lot of work will be neccessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 25/09/2019 at 21:50, PhilJ W said:

As stated above the ride height of the units is going to be adjusted/lowered so probably not a lot of work will be neccessary.

 

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.

 

Edited by Christopher125
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

In a situation where these are the only train on the line i.e. no risk of collision with a faster/heavier train, is there any need for the reinforced cab of the 230?

 

As to platform/train interface, there will always be some stations where full access can not be achieved (platforms on curves). But where possible, I think that full accessability is desirable. Surely not too difficult/expensive to modify a few short platforms on the IoW, even if it involves a short total closure of the line for the work to be done.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

In a situation where these are the only train on the line i.e. no risk of collision with a faster/heavier train, is there any need for the reinforced cab of the 230?

 

Trains don't just collide with trains other vehicles somehow manage to end up on railways!

 

Remember the cement mixer landing on top of a train! 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327209/Injured-train-passengers-stable-condition-cement-mixer-bridge-plunged.html

 

 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

In a situation where these are the only train on the line i.e. no risk of collision with a faster/heavier train, is there any need for the reinforced cab of the 230?

 

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.

 

Quote

 Surely not too difficult/expensive to modify a few short platforms on the IoW, even if it involves a short total closure of the line for the work to be done.

 

Every platform will have a significant height difference, it's a big job.

Edited by Christopher125
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, Christopher125 said:

 

 

Every platform will have a significant height difference, it's a big job.

 

That  is the sort of attitude which is killing the future of our railways. Every job is "big" and costs ten times what it does elsewhere (including railways abroad). HS2 is, of course, the prime example.

 

If a platform is too low, it really is a simple job to lay a bit more material on it to raise it. If too high (seems unlikely on the IoW), a bit more complex. Probably demolish and rebuild. But a platform is not exactly a complex structure! Remember when they had to build the emergency platform at Workington (or Whitehaven???). Done in days. It's only a "big job" if you let it be.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The question has to be this: 

Was the track raised when the tubes first came to the island? (I’m guessing that they might have been in some cases, even though 9” wasn’t thought of being too much of a step up to get out of the tube vehicles).

 

If yes, then a bit of scraping back would restore height. If not, are the platforms still higher that the trains? And if yes, how much lower than the new trains? Again it might not be that much away from being correct.....

 

andy g

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 28/09/2019 at 16:59, Joseph_Pestell said:

That  is the sort of attitude which is killing the future of our railways. Every job is "big" and costs ten times what it does elsewhere (including railways abroad). HS2 is, of course, the prime example.

 

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!

 

21 hours ago, uax6 said:

The question has to be this: 

Was the track raised when the tubes first came to the island? (I’m guessing that they might have been in some cases, even though 9” wasn’t thought of being too much of a step up to get out of the tube vehicles).

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

As with the steam-to-electric conversion there would be a closed period of probably several months to allow for the changes required.  It also allows for the Brading loop to be reinstated and commissioned.  The basic infrastructure is there but needs raising / lowering and a thorough overhaul.  The entire dc electric set-up is said to be beyond life-expired and the signalling might be too.

  • Informative/Useful 1
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...