Jump to content
 

IoW light rail conversion proposed


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Ncarter2 said:

It was a workout walking along it! Myself and a colleague covered the full

line in two days. We were sensible and started at Shanklin so were walking down grade. 

 

 

Thanks for the photos. Aside from shingle making for rubbish ballast, can't be much fun to walk on either!

 

Don't suppose you've any idea how old the bullhead sections are? Must be 70/80+ years old and here to stay presumably.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
51 minutes ago, Christopher125 said:

 

 

Thanks for the photos. Aside from shingle making for rubbish ballast, can't be much fun to walk on either!

 

Don't suppose you've any idea how old the bullhead sections are? Must be 70/80+ years old and here to stay presumably.

 

It wasn’t that much fun, that feeling of making very little progress! 
 

The I will dig out my report to see if I noted it, but the last age of road report on our system identified that there is bullhead rail from 1924 through to current. By comparison, flatbottom seems to be from the late 40’s on. 

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

  • RMweb Premium
57 minutes ago, johnlambert said:

It probably looks worse in the photos than it is in reality but it looks like there's a bit of a kink in the curved track in the second photo.

Agreed, there was a very slight misalignment, it looks worse due to the joint being dipped and me having used a bit of zoom. 

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

On 22/03/2021 at 12:01, corneliuslundie said:

I am not sure that 60 ft rail lengths have an engineering basis. They are simply the longest lengths which can easily be carried on a single rail vehicle, and came after periods where standard lengths were 23 ft, 27 ft, 30 ft, 45 ft etc. At earlier times it was probably the rolling mills which were the limiting factor.

Jonathan

 

Up until the mid 1980's I believe that 60'-0" rails were the longest length that could be moved through the side door of the rolling mill shed at Workington steel works.  The doorway was then altered to allow 120'-0" lengths out of the shed. The cut rails would then be transported to the BR CWR welding depots where they would be flash butt welded up again and loaded onto the CWR trains for transport to site, as 720'-0", 600'-0" or 300'-0" lengths.

 

Beyond the maintenance savings and better ride, a train running on CWR needs about 10%  less energy to move it than the same train running on 60'-0" jointed.

Edited by Trog
Added titbit of information
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 23/03/2021 at 13:52, Christopher125 said:

Talking of kinks, this rather interesting curve at Yarbridge certainly catches your attention at 40mph! There's a few troublespots like this I was hoping might be addressed...

 

1409152535_IMG_0591-Copy.JPG.fb0374872482fd2f012a6fd688942a2a.JPG

 

Another good reason to use 120'-0" rails half as many joints to 50p piece your track. If putting them in when relaying use concrete sleepers, perhaps put in a couple more sleepers each length, and have CWR shoulders to the ballast.  If converting existing wooden track again do the CWR shoulders and fit lateral resistance plates such as those shown in the photo above. Having good fastenings is also important as if the track is under heat stress and starts to move you do not want the rails to be able to keep feeding themselves to that weak point.

 

Not long before I retired there was an instruction forbidding the creation of more LWR (long length jointed) as there had been incidents caused by welding up rails to reduce the number of joints, without also thinking is this track fit to take the increased stress loads and if not taking appropriate action to strengthen it.

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

  • 2 weeks later...
52 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Is there any particular reason for this?

 

Presumably modern standards, the sand drag seemingly replaced by a sliding friction buffer?

 

I've also managed to grab photos this evening of the rather odd split-level platform at Sandown, and the replacement signal protecting the line to Shanklin:

 

51103399964_f3e29f43c4_z.jpg
Sandown by Chris, on Flickr

  • Like 6
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, 313201 said:

The only possibility I can think of unless I am incorrect could be a difference in the length of the coaches of the 483s and 484s

 

A 4-car 484 should be around 10m longer than it was with the old fleet, so not much room to play with.

Edited by Christopher125
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, 313201 said:

The only possibility I can think of unless I am incorrect could be a difference in the length of the coaches of the 483s and 484s

 

1 hour ago, Christopher125 said:

 

A 4-car 484 should be around 10m longer than it was with the old fleet, so not much room to play with.

The D stock trains ran on the District line in six car formations that were the same length as the previous seven car formations. IIRC they were the longest Underground stock.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Christopher125 said:

 

Presumably modern standards, the sand drag seemingly replaced by a sliding friction buffer?

 

I've also managed to grab photos this evening of the rather odd split-level platform at Sandown, and the replacement signal protecting the line to Shanklin:

 

51103399964_f3e29f43c4_z.jpg
Sandown by Chris, on Flickr

 

I do hope they take advantage of the power outage to at least re-paint the canopy before all goes live!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
19 hours ago, 313201 said:

The only possibility I can think of unless I am incorrect could be a difference in the length of the coaches of the 483s and 484s

 

18 hours ago, Christopher125 said:

 

A 4-car 484 should be around 10m longer than it was with the old fleet, so not much room to play with.

 

17 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

 

The D stock trains ran on the District line in six car formations that were the same length as the previous seven car formations. IIRC they were the longest Underground stock.

 

The platforms probably hadn't been changed since electrification though, so would have been suitable for a 7-car standard stock train - now they're only needed for 4-car 484 sets.

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

1 hour ago, 313201 said:

Is there any likely possibility that due to the current restrictions, there could be a requirement for further class 484 units 484006/007 etc so that more passengers can travel and maintain the current distance requirement.

 

But will they actually want or need to do this, assuming that restrictions end either in June as planned, or slightly later? That would make any extra units redundant fairly early in their lives.

 

That said, is 5 likely to be enough anyway? Or is the plan that they will generally only be used singly, so that they are not coupled when in service and only 2 or 3 would normally be needed?

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

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, 313201 said:

Is there any likely possibility that due to the current restrictions, there could be a requirement for further class 484 units 484006/007 etc so that more passengers can travel and maintain the current distance requirement.

The current distance requirement is only going to be for a short duration. The crucial factor is line restrictions and capacity.

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

2 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

But will they actually want or need to do this, assuming that restrictions end either in June as planned, or slightly later? That would make any extra units redundant fairly early in their lives.

 

That said, is 5 likely to be enough anyway? Or is the plan that they will generally only be used singly, so that they are not coupled when in service and only 2 or 3 would normally be needed?

 

I agree the short term need is unlikely to be met in time, even if wanted, and the medium to long term demand is rather different.

 

I suspect that, if these units prove to be reliable and popular, the reputation of the line may increase and "staycations" remain popular given continued anxiety and Brexit, to the extent that 5 units will not prove sufficient on summer Saturdays. The question then becomes whether there is sufficient justification to purchase extra units just to be used possibly only 16 - 20 days a year?

 

It would take a significant increase in demand spread over other days, and probably greater usage by the domestic population, to balance that business case, I suspect. However, the age profile of IOW residents is rising (although we must await the results of this year's census to validate that), which normally translates into greater public transport usage, although the steep hill at Shanklin would put many off. The buses may be the beneficiaries of that.

 

The extension of the line to Ventnor has to be a requirement - this was cut off in 1966 due to the need for an extra substation at Wroxall, but the lost traffic was enormous - and the Council and the MP have managed to get some money to explore this and a re-opening to Newport. Things are certainly looking more promising than over the past 60 years. https://www.iow.gov.uk/news/Railway-plans-for-Newport-and-Ventnor

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
15 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

But will they actually want or need to do this, assuming that restrictions end either in June as planned, or slightly later? That would make any extra units redundant fairly early in their lives.

 

That said, is 5 likely to be enough anyway? Or is the plan that they will generally only be used singly, so that they are not coupled when in service and only 2 or 3 would normally be needed?

 

 

The basic plan is for a 30 minute service using two single units out of the main holiday season, but with the possibility of making one or both trains up to 4 cars if maintenance allows when things get busy.

 

The location of the passing loops permit a 20 minute, 30 or 40 minute service however as the ferry service runs at 30 minute intervals its unlikely anything other than that will be provided.

 

Platforms can only take a maximum of 4 cars

 

As such unless reliability is truly awful, 5 units should be sufficient.

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

  • RMweb Premium
1 minute ago, Mike Storey said:

 

I agree the short term need is unlikely to be met in time, even if wanted, and the medium to long term demand is rather different.

 

I suspect that, if these units prove to be reliable and popular, the reputation of the line may increase and "staycations" remain popular given continued anxiety and Brexit, to the extent that 5 units will not prove sufficient on summer Saturdays. The question then becomes whether there is sufficient justification to purchase extra units just to be used possibly only 16 - 20 days a year?

 

It would take a significant increase in demand spread over other days, and probably greater usage by the domestic population, to balance that business case, I suspect. However, the age profile of IOW residents is rising (although we must await the results of this year's census to validate that), which normally translates into greater public transport usage, although the steep hill at Shanklin would put many off. The buses may be the beneficiaries of that.

 

The extension of the line to Ventnor has to be a requirement - this was cut off in 1966 due to the need for an extra substation at Wroxall, but the lost traffic was enormous - and the Council and the MP have managed to get some money to explore this and a re-opening to Newport. Things are certainly looking more promising than over the past 60 years. https://www.iow.gov.uk/news/Railway-plans-for-Newport-and-Ventnor

 

 

And how are you going to use any extra units?

 

Increasing the frequency from 30minute intervals messes up connections with the ferries at Ryde and the passing loops don't allow for anything smaller than 20 minute intervals.

 

The maximum length which the rebuilt / raised platforms can accommodate is 4 cars so lengthening trains beyond that isn't possible.

 

The only need for extra units would be if reliability is rubbish or the railway gets extended - and despite all the hot air / studies over the years, given Englands woeful record (compared to Scotland) when it comes to re-opening railways I simply don't see that happening

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

22 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

And how are you going to use any extra units?

 

Increasing the frequency from 30minute intervals messes up connections with the ferries at Ryde and the passing loops don't allow for anything smaller than 20 minute intervals.

 

The maximum length which the rebuilt / raised platforms can accommodate is 4 cars so lengthening trains beyond that isn't possible.

 

The only need for extra units would be if reliability is rubbish or the railway gets extended - and despite all the hot air / studies over the years, given Englands woeful record (compared to Scotland) when it comes to re-opening railways I simply don't see that happening

 

Hmm. Seems you are caught in the "can't do anything" spiral. The 4 car limit is only physically confined to the Down at Sandown and Lake, plus the revised length of Shanklin. The raised sections are easily extended elsewhere (as we did for the 2012 Olympics). None of the rest are insurmountable, at limited cost. 

 

The capacity for ferries is not matched to their arrival times due to unloading times, which are, from previous observation, around 10-15 minutes. A twenty minute interval service is perfectly feasible, capacity-wise, to serve demand on summer Saturdays, as was the case in the 1960's. 

 

Any fule kno that, if you have 5 units, only 4 will likely be available on any given day - trust me, I had that duty during my BR career. Ergo, a 6th and 7th unit would be needed. But only if demand is sufficient.

 

Whether the railway gets extended is another matter entirely, but I had the temerity to point out that the likelihood of this has increased exponentially with the access to grant (geddit?)  money to explore the possibility, something that the IOW Council has been extremely lethargic at doing over the past 60 years, but it is now doing it, with a consortium - the report is due in May. It all might turn out to be jobs for the boys, but I get the sentiment of the Council, the MP and of HMG, suggests a more optimistic view. I won't regale you with my thoughts on the few that are being done, but suffice it say that they would have had far less of a fat chance, were it not for certain constituencies. That is also a good point for the IOW, whose MP, Seeley, is a bit of a "wet", and whose campaign manifesto, in two GE's, promised improvement to the rail system, something rather absent from most Tory MP's pledges. But it may come to nothing, I concur.

 

So, let's agree, it is perfectly possible, unless you have some greater knowledge than me?

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
19 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Hmm. Seems you are caught in the "can't do anything" spiral. The 4 car limit is only physically confined to the Down at Sandown and Lake, plus the revised length of Shanklin. The raised sections are easily extended elsewhere (as we did for the 2012 Olympics). None of the rest are insurmountable, at limited cost. 

 

The capacity for ferries is not matched to their arrival times due to unloading times, which are, from previous observation, around 10-15 minutes. A twenty minute interval service is perfectly feasible, capacity-wise, to serve demand on summer Saturdays, as was the case in the 1960's. 

 

Any fule kno that, if you have 5 units, only 4 will likely be available on any given day - trust me, I had that duty during my BR career. Ergo, a 6th and 7th unit would be needed. But only if demand is sufficient.

 

Whether the railway gets extended is another matter entirely, but I had the temerity to point out that the likelihood of this has increased exponentially with the access to grant (geddit?)  money to explore the possibility, something that the IOW Council has been extremely lethargic at doing over the past 60 years, but it is now doing it, with a consortium - the report is due in May. It all might turn out to be jobs for the boys, but I get the sentiment of the Council, the MP and of HMG, suggests a more optimistic view. I won't regale you with my thoughts on the few that are being done, but suffice it say that they would have had far less of a fat chance, were it not for certain constituencies. That is also a good point for the IOW, whose MP, Seeley, is a bit of a "wet", and whose campaign manifesto, in two GE's, promised improvement to the rail system, something rather absent from most Tory MP's pledges. But it may come to nothing, I concur.

 

So, let's agree, it is perfectly possible, unless you have some greater knowledge than me?

 

 

Oh anything is possible with enough cash - but thats the point, it needs cash.

 

The approved budget for the current works does not provide the infrastructure necessary for more than 4 car trains running at 20, 30 or 40 minute intervals. Whether the infrastructure can be modified / upgraded further is rather irreverent, particularly as I imagine the current 'refurbishment' of the system is expected by the DfT to 'deal' with the IOW system for the next two decades at least - thus you are basically stuck with those infrastructure constraints.

 

Moreover for most of the year only 2 car trains will suffice - its only the influx of holiday makers over the summer that will cause significant issues. We all know that the DfT and the bean counters in Whitehall consider providing 'seasonal' rolling stock a waste of taxpayers money.

 

I agree that 6 trains would have been a better number giving a bit more slack in the fleet to cover repairs and allow strengthening of more services, but what I think and what the money men at the ministry think are two very different things...

 

 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 minutes ago, 313201 said:

Ok ok points taken.

 

If not extra units, extra coaches therefore making the 5 units into 3 or 4 coaches

 

Still needs extra cash though! The funding given by HMG will buy 5 two car units.

 

In any case adding one (or more) 2 car unit(s) would be a better investment than lengthening trains.

 

However, based on the most intensive service the infrastructure will allow (20 min interval) and every unit doubled up, the maximum that can ever be in service at once will be 8 units. If you say 2 units under maintenance then that makes it 10 units needed.

 

BUT in the winter the number of passengers is not going to need more than single units - and mostly likely only running at 30 minute intervals. That brings the number of units needed to run the service down to 2 with 6 sitting idle (assuming 2 under maintenance / repair) which is vert wasteful to the bean counters in Whitehall.

 

The reality is that outside of peak holiday season, 5 units will be sufficient. A 6th unit would in my view be desirable - but presumably the DfT expect the new units to be untra reliable and thus only one will ever be out of traffic at any one time thus allowing either a 30 minute interval 4 car service or a 20 minute interval 2 car service to be run

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
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...