Jump to content
 

IoW light rail conversion proposed


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
34 minutes ago, 313201 said:

Ok ok points taken.

 

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

Seeing as they are second hand as such it might prove difficult in later years to source extra cars or units.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

Seeing as they are second hand as such it might prove difficult in later years to source extra cars or units.

Possibly an issue as far as Ventnor goes. Presumably to facilitate a 30 minute interval on the extended route, another passing place and 3 train service will be needed. If that is to be 4 car then they'll need 6 units at 100% availability. So if it's going to be extended that needs to be decided very soon for the medium term, or there won't be any D78s left to increase the fleet.

 

I doubt it'll happen though, can't see the economics adding up to anything like what they'd need to.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Five extra centre cars to allow a 20-min 3-car service should be a relatively cheap upgrade compared to the other options to add extra stock.

 

I suspect the better stock will encourage greater ridership so hopefully this option can be explored in good time. Having 3-car trains might make the case for upgrading platforms to 6-car length interesting.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having just posted a bit on the "ultra light rail" topic about the Croydon Tramways, when that was designed the principle of rolling stock provision was something like 21 trams for service, one unit always running spare, one for routine maintenance, and one always off for long-term accident damage or heavy repair. Much the same as the Southern with their DMU fleet. The IoW requirement seems a bit of under-provision to me.

 

While lengthening the trains is of course possible, it is not easy to split a unit as they are permanently coupled. they either run as 2 or 3 all the time. Or 2 and 4, easy to split.

 

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

  • RMweb Premium

One thing that puzzles me. I recall that there was a proposal to send some of the 1984 tube stock to the Island when it was withdrawn. The 1984 tube stock was the tube gauge version  of the D stock that is currently being rebuilt for use on the island. The main reason for rejection of the 1984 stock was the single leaf doors. The new  stock has single leaf doors. So why the change?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
22 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

One thing that puzzles me. I recall that there was a proposal to send some of the 1984 tube stock to the Island when it was withdrawn. The 1984 tube stock was the tube gauge version  of the D stock that is currently being rebuilt for use on the island. The main reason for rejection of the 1984 stock was the single leaf doors. The new  stock has single leaf doors. So why the change?

 

I doubt the reason for the 1984 stock being sent to the IOW was the door configuration. Yes it most certainly was an issue for heavily used Underground trains in the centre of London and a key factor in LU deciding to get rid of them, but not on the IOW.

 

At the time the 1984 stock was withdrawn by LU, the 1938 stock transferred by NSE was coping fine and rail franchising did not allow for replacement of rolling stock unless specifically agreed in the franchise contract.

 

It was only around 5 years ago that the Government finally faced up to the fact that the 1938 stock was on its last legs - unfortunately the renewal of the Piccadilly line stock which some had hoped would provide the next set of Island line stock was significantly delayed by funding problems.

 

As such pretty much the only option was rebuilt D stock regardless of door configuration.

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

5 hours ago, rodent279 said:

What was the service interval and train length like before Ventnor closed?

 

6 bogie coaches (plus loco) was the norm for summer services, but 7 coach trains, and even 8, can be spotted in some photos.

 

Ryde Pierhead could handle up to 6 departures per hour, although one or two of these would be going to Newport/Cowes. You have to remember that, until 1966, the  line was double track all the way from Ryde to Sandown, and there were passing places at Shanklin and even Wroxall.

 

The reinstatement of both platforms at Brading, in the current improvements, does at least allow a 20 minute interval service, or an ability to recover in the event of delays during a 30 minute interval service. One wonders though, why the "beancounters" would have allowed this extra expenditure, if it was not the intention to run 20 minute interval services at some point. If so, then 5 x 2 car units ain't going to hack it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, roythebus1 said:

Much the same as the Southern with their DMU fleet. The IoW requirement seems a bit of under-provision to me.

 

 

It does - but then again at one stage the Government were looking to get rid of it as a railway and use unreliable 2nd hand trams from Birmingham fitted with batteries.

 

When you actually look at what the Government did eventually cough up for (passing loop at Brading, retention of 3rd rail, etc) you could say the IOW has done rather well. Moreover providing Vrail doesn't scrap the rest of the D stock they still hold augmenting the train fleet later on could still happen

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

You have to remember that, until 1966, the  line was double track all the way from Ryde to Sandown...

 

 

Nope!

 

The Smallbrook Junction to Braiding section was always single!

 

IIRC Braiding to Sandown was doubled in Southern Railway days - and apart from the line through Ryde this was the only other section of double track on the island.

 

In summer the double track section went from Ryde Pier Head to Smallbrook Junction - in winter Smallbrook Junction was switched out and the double track between there and Ryde St Johns operated as two parallel lines (one to Braiding, one to Havenstreet).

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

3 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Nope!

 

The Smallbrook Junction to Braiding section was always single!

 

IIRC Braiding to Sandown was doubled in Southern Railway days - and apart from the line through Ryde this was the only other section of double track on the island.

 

In summer the double track section went from Ryde Pier Head to Smallbrook Junction - in winter Smallbrook Junction was switched out and the double track between there and Ryde St Johns operated as two parallel lines (one to Braiding, one to Havenstreet).

 

You are correct, of course, about Smallbrook to Brading. I forgot that bit. If we are being "accurate", then I would point out there was another double track section, from Newport going towards Cowes, for about half a mile, named Up and Down Mains.

 

The winter operation of St Johns to Smallbrook, pre-1966, is irrelevant here as we are talking about peak capacity. What is interesting is that BR undid that, and ran it as a double track all year round after 1966, paid for by demolishing Smallbrook Jn signal box, and controlling the line from St Johns. They did not single the line from Brading to Sandown until 1988.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I wonder how much more it would have cost over a 20 year period to have extended the current loop at Sandown to Brading instead of having two loops with an extra set of points to maintain. Making it one long loop would have operational benefits in that trains could be moving while passing rather than having to wait for each other at a loop in one of the stations. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

One wonders though, why the "beancounters" would have allowed this extra expenditure, if it was not the intention to run 20 minute interval services at some point. If so,

The existing infrastructure was built around a 20 minute service, which meant that the service (when they had at least 2 serviceable 483s) was at a 20/40 minute interval. The loop at Brading simply allows a 2 train service to be evenly spaced. If they'd wanted a 20 minute interval service it would have needed no additional infrastructure.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

The existing infrastructure was built around a 20 minute service, which meant that the service (when they had at least 2 serviceable 483s) was at a 20/40 minute interval. The loop at Brading simply allows a 2 train service to be evenly spaced. If they'd wanted a 20 minute interval service it would have needed no additional infrastructure.

 

The bigger surprise is the bean counters didn't demand the removal of the loop at Sandown as a condition for putting one in at Brading. 

 

As you note the Sandown loop and double track at Ryde allows for a 20 minute service, yet the demand is actually for is for 30 minute intervals so as to match the ferry timetable. Rationalisation of the infrastructure to suit that goal would no doubt have gone down with certain sections of the ministry...

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

  • RMweb Premium
11 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

If they haven't renewed the loop at Sandown, to do so would have been spending money to reduce resilience. Not an easy sell when do nothing is cheaper. Though when the loop does need attention it might be different.

 

That hasn't stopped the Government forcing BR to do exactly that in the past has it? How many resignalling or electrification schemes could only happen because they also involved reducing the infrastructure down to the bare minimum with no resilience. The Uckfield branch, Ely - Kings Lyn, Chiltern lines from Marylebone, etc are all examples where infrastructure rationalisation has occurred at the same time as modernisation.

 

I do grant however that in recent years there has been more of a tendency to leave things alone when work is done - crossovers tend to be motorised and turnback signals fitted rather than being ripped out or left as manually worked ground frames with no signals for example.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Singling a double track line is a bit of a different proposition to taking out a passing loop (especially when the loop in question already has things line sprung points and minimal signalling). And I think the attitude of late has been a little more enlightened than the managed decline of the BR years.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the fair Isle .When we were sitting on Ryde seafront near the pier a gang of teenage neothugs were annoying people.Suddenly a woman appeared and started accusing one of being a burglar.He was very rude back .Not only she blare it out but started beating him up  grabbing his hair and kicking him .Really lashing into him with her fists .He started crying and they all ran off .A rozzer arrived and asked what what was happening .Do you know not a single soul in the onlookers could remember....... including us .

Forgot to add she emptied his pockets of phone and money too.

Edited by friscopete
  • Like 1
  • Funny 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Zomboid said:

The existing infrastructure was built around a 20 minute service, which meant that the service (when they had at least 2 serviceable 483s) was at a 20/40 minute interval. The loop at Brading simply allows a 2 train service to be evenly spaced. If they'd wanted a 20 minute interval service it would have needed no additional infrastructure.

 

Sorry - I don't get it. With a 23 minute run time, and at least a 4 mins turnaround, and no possibility of passing until before/after Smallbrook, how does that add up to a 20 minute, even-interval service? Please explain how you arrived at that conclusion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Sorry - I don't get it. With a 23 minute run time, and at least a 4 mins turnaround, and no possibility of passing until before/after Smallbrook, how does that add up to a 20 minute, even-interval service? Please explain how you arrived at that conclusion.

 

Didn’t they used to have 2 passing loops spaced for an evenly split 3 train service? Which would make 20-minute intervals possible.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
43 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Sorry - I don't get it. With a 23 minute run time, and at least a 4 mins turnaround, and no possibility of passing until before/after Smallbrook, how does that add up to a 20 minute, even-interval service? Please explain how you arrived at that conclusion.

 

19 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Didn’t they used to have 2 passing loops spaced for an evenly split 3 train service? Which would make 20-minute intervals possible.

 

Correct!

 

The 20 minute interval service needs 3 trains to make it happen - only running 2 trains will give alternating 20 minute and 40 minute service intervals.

 

BR knew this - yet it still removed the double track between Brading and Sandown to cut costs when the 1938 stock was bought over!

 

They disguised it by saying that the double track / ability to pass trains at Brading was 'not needed' as a 20minute interval service would be offered - and it was for a year or two until further financial cuts were demanded and the stock started to become unreliable. With the ability to pass at Brading no longer an option the timetable was thus forced into the uneven 20 / 40 minute pattern we have seen for the past two decades.

 

 

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

  • RMweb Premium
13 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

That hasn't stopped the Government forcing BR to do exactly that in the past has it? How many resignalling or electrification schemes could only happen because they also involved reducing the infrastructure down to the bare minimum with no resilience. The Uckfield branch, Ely - Kings Lyn, Chiltern lines from Marylebone, etc are all examples where infrastructure rationalisation has occurred at the same time as modernisation.

 

 

 

The Ely -King's Lynn single lining wasn't part of the electrification project, it was done ten years before electrification was even thought about down here. There were real worries that without accepting it the line would have been closed. But amazingly in the 8 years between the removal of the worst bits of the double track, KL&WNBC managed to put together a robust business case to electrify to remains. The growth since is unbelievable.....

 

It just goes to show what can be achieved when you have a local council that is prepared to support the railway, and press to get improvements...

 

Andy G 

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I can clearly remember that when the 1938 stock was new to the island, there was a Network day, and as a family we travelled down from Lynn to Sandown on the day. We were lucky as when we got to the island our train to Sandown was 1923 stock, which was actually quite comfortable and businesslike (all tastefully lined inside with green formica), and the return journey was in the 1938 stock, which looked quite modern. One of our party was the main person who pushed for electrification of the Lynn road, and he started chatting to the driver at Sandown before departure. The driver was saying then that they were having issues with bogie fractures on the 1938 stock, and that the problem had be identified as being the gravel used as ballast, and that it needed replacing with real ballast.....

 

Andy G

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 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...