IoW light rail conversion proposed

[RichardLong]

2 hours ago, Christopher125 said:

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

But note that Shanklin has clearly had its platform height (or track level) adjusted to tube level at some point since - probably during or before the 1980s, to judge from photos.  Only Brading and Sandown (and I thought St John's, but I may be wrong?) retain their original levels - and so significantly higher than the floors of the tube trains.

 

Whether any of them are at the right height for D Stock remains to be seen...

[roythebus]

On 28/09/2019 at 07:14, 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?

 

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.

Yes there is a need for the reinforced cab as they have to be tested and proved on the national network.

[roythebus]

17 minutes ago, RichardLong said:

 

But note that Shanklin has clearly had its platform height (or track level) adjusted to tube level at some point since - probably during or before the 1980s, to judge from photos.  Only Brading and Sandown (and I thought St John's, but I may be wrong?) retain their original levels - and so significantly higher than the floors of the tube trains.

 

Whether any of them are at the right height for D Stock remains to be seen...

I'd suggest you look at the Brinton Report, he seems to have covered all aspects of this.

[jim.snowdon]

7 hours ago, roythebus said:

Yes there is a need for the reinforced cab as they have to be tested and proved on the national network.

That may not preclude application for a derogation to the standard in question. 

 

Jim

[Joseph_Pestell]

On 28/09/2019 at 10:18, Mark Saunders said:

 

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

 

 

 

No, I did not know about this one (or had forgotten it). But not relevant to driver's cab reinforcement. It fell onto the roof of the third carriage of the 4-car EMU.

 

And there would be plenty of places on the LUL network where road vehicles could get onto the tracks. Yet the D stock was judged adequate. The cab reinforcement on 230s is about impact with other trains - many times heavier than any road vehicle and possibly moving at speed in the opposite direction.

Edited September 30, 2019 by Joseph_Pestell

[Joseph_Pestell]

8 hours ago, roythebus said:

Yes there is a need for the reinforced cab as they have to be tested and proved on the national network.

 

Why would they have to be tested on the "national network" if they are going to be built in such a way (ride height) that they can and will only be used on IoW? Typical waste of money that adds so much to the overall cost of any project.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I may have missed this. How many cars are proposed for each Class 231 (as I will hypothetically call them)?

 

It would be nice to see this as an opportunity to increase capacity on the IoW, make more room for bikes, etc, rather than just like-for-like replacement.

 

I agree with Gwiwer that a period of total closure is probably the best way to get the job done. But months??? Send the army in and get it done in a fortnight.

[uax6]

Things take so long to do these days. The extension of the down platform here in work has taken over three years to get to the 'boots on ballast' stage and the works are going to take 8 months to complete.....

 

Andy G

[Mark Saunders]

47 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Why would they have to be tested on the "national network" if they are going to be built in such a way (ride height) that they can and will only be used on IoW? Typical waste of money that adds so much to the overall cost of any project.

 

Do the Drivers and other Staff not deserve Health and Safety to current Standards, never mind the travelling public!

 

Anywhere there is more than two trains there is always a risk of collision!

 

Using your logic the IoW is a backwater not deserving investment .

 

Mark Saunders 

[Zomboid]

The Isle of Wight railway is not the same as the national network, and in some cases applying national network standards is just going to add expense for no real world benefit.

 

I'm not qualified to say what bits should be applied and which parts not, but the reality is that any collisions will be relatively low speed and will involve only D stock trains, so any crash structure doesn't need to allow for colliding with a class 66. Building something appropriate for the conditions that the trains will actually experience ought to be realistic.

[Zomboid]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Why would they have to be tested on the "national network" if they are going to be built in such a way (ride height) that they can and will only be used on IoW? Typical waste of money that adds so much to the overall cost of any project.

Because it'll be a real nuisance to have to take them back to the mainland if any issues arise in testing.

Though there's a 3rd rail bit at Old Dalby that they could use, and failing that they could be tested under a possession if necessary to eliminate any collision risks.

[Chris116]

Since the Vivarail rebuild of the D78 stock includes the stronger cabs why would Vivarail want to build the units for the IOW differently to all the other units they are rebuilding. Changes like that just increase costs and would mean further testing was required. 

[PhilJ W]

22 minutes ago, Chris116 said:

Since the Vivarail rebuild of the D78 stock includes the stronger cabs why would Vivarail want to build the units for the IOW differently to all the other units they are rebuilding. Changes like that just increase costs and would mean further testing was required. 

Also, if something else comes along to replace them and they still have some life left in them it would make it easier to cascade them. The ride height question is also a none starter, if it can be altered once it can be altered back again.

[Mark Saunders]

Zomboid, your logic is perverse and is treating the island as a preserved railway and the people as not deserving a modern railway to modern standards!

 

Using your logic there would be no need to have advanced beyond wooden bodied stock.

 

Mark Saunders

[Zomboid]

I disagree (obviously). The Isle of Wight is entirely deserving of a modern railway to modern standards, but those are not necessarily the same standards as are required on the mainland. If everything that ran on rails in a segregated right of way had to be built to the same standards then the DLR would be built for HST and Freightliner operation. And the Jubilee line would be built for surface stock.

 

Whatever is built for a self contained system should be built within the parameters and risk profile that that system imposes, not the standards required for an entirely different system.

[Reorte]

43 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said:

Zomboid, your logic is perverse and is treating the island as a preserved railway and the people as not deserving a modern railway to modern standards!

What have they done wrong on the island to deserve that?

[RichardLong]

4 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

I may have missed this. How many cars are proposed for each Class 231 (as I will hypothetically call them)?

 

It would be nice to see this as an opportunity to increase capacity on the IoW, make more room for bikes, etc, rather than just like-for-like replacement.

 

 

They've been designated as Class 484.  Five 2-car units are on order but I believe they hope to run some 4-car services in the peak.

[Joseph_Pestell]

3 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Because it'll be a real nuisance to have to take them back to the mainland if any issues arise in testing.

Though there's a 3rd rail bit at Old Dalby that they could use, and failing that they could be tested under a possession if necessary to eliminate any collision risks.

 

Old Dalby was where I had in mind.

 

But a possession at, say, Lymington or Seaford could also work.

[Joseph_Pestell]

4 hours ago, uax6 said:

Things take so long to do these days. The extension of the down platform here in work has taken over three years to get to the 'boots on ballast' stage and the works are going to take 8 months to complete.....

 

Andy G

 

Yes, they do. But they shouldn't.

 

Lengthening a platform can be difficult, especially if it involves changes to signalling. Just changing the height should be nowhere near as difficult. So far as I know, 4 car class 484 whould not require any platform lengthening. Or selective door opening could be used.

[Joseph_Pestell]

4 hours ago, Mark Saunders said:

 

Do the Drivers and other Staff not deserve Health and Safety to current Standards, never mind the travelling public!

 

Anywhere there is more than two trains there is always a risk of collision!

 

Using your logic the IoW is a backwater not deserving investment .

 

Mark Saunders 

 

Think about the basic physics.

 

Two lightweight trains collide = a certain amount of damage. Has an LUL driver ever died as a result of D78 cab proving inadequate?

 

Add those safety cages. More mass means that the collision involves more force. End result, exactly the same - but you have spent money to make something that is actually no safer.

[Joseph_Pestell]

3 hours ago, Chris116 said:

Since the Vivarail rebuild of the D78 stock includes the stronger cabs why would Vivarail want to build the units for the IOW differently to all the other units they are rebuilding. Changes like that just increase costs and would mean further testing was required. 

 

They are starting from a D78 unit. If they completely leave the cab alone, cost = £0.

 

If they cut the cab off and put in a safety cage, cost =£xxxxxx.

 

Which of those is the cheaper?

 

Edit to add: To anyone who thinks that I am against a fully modern solution, I am not. I am just taking the situation from where we are with the choice of the Class 484 (D78). I would have relaid the IoW tracks to metre-gauge and gone for a standard European metre-gauge unit with low floors and platforms.

Edited September 30, 2019 by Joseph_Pestell
Add

[KeithHC]

I seam to recall that the 485/486 units where tested on the South West mainline prior to being transferred to the IOW.  Theses new units could also be trailed as replacements for the 313 units used by Southern as three car units they could include toilets.

 

Keith

[RichardLong]

13 hours ago, roythebus said:

I'd suggest you look at the Brinton Report, he seems to have covered all aspects of this.

 

I am familiar with the Brinton report, thanks.

 

Just looking at some of the photos in my book I can see that St John's doesn't appear to have had its track raised in the 1960s but does appear to have been adjusted to tube height at some point between 1976 and 1999 (perhaps someone can narrow this down to a more precise date?).

 

The 1983 Class 503 proposal recommended that platforms at Pier Head and Esplanade might need raising to suit the introduction of Class 503's but that "The platforms at other Island stations were not lowered to accommodate the present LT stock."  (Of course Smallbrook and Lake didn't exist in 1983.)

 

The bottom line in all this is that Island Line does not currently have a standard platform height - some are at tube level and some are unaltered since the steam era.  None of them were specifically designed with D-Stock in mind.  In the current Rail magazine Adrian Shooter of Vivarail states that "A number of things will have to be done to the infrastructure... including making sure the trains fit with platforms in a few places."

 

[DavidLong]

Harrington Hump(s)?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrington_Hump

 

David

[Christopher125]

17 hours ago, RichardLong said:

 

But note that Shanklin has clearly had its platform height (or track level) adjusted to tube level at some point since - probably during or before the 1980s, to judge from photos.  Only Brading and Sandown (and I thought St John's, but I may be wrong?) retain their original levels - and so significantly higher than the floors of the tube trains.

 

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.

 

Quote

Whether any of them are at the right height for D Stock remains to be seen...

 

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.

 

16 hours ago, roythebus said:

Yes there is a need for the reinforced cab as they have to be tested and proved on the national network.

 

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.

 

Edited September 30, 2019 by Christopher125