IoW light rail conversion proposed

[lmsforever]

Maybe the track height was adjusted at some platforms ie more ballast  either way they will all require resurfacing and tactile slabs put in place all in all quite a bit of work.

[PhilJ W]

The 1938 units currently in use had their bodies raised by just over one inch before going to the I-o-W.

[Christopher125]

2 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

The 1938 units currently in use had their bodies raised by just over one inch before going to the I-o-W.

 

Wow, never seen that mentioned before but it would make sense.

[PhilJ W]

I wasn't aware of it until I saw it mentioned in a book on 1938 stock. It seems strange that such a small alteration was deemed neccessary. 

[Trog]

1 hour ago, PhilJ W said:

I wasn't aware of it until I saw it mentioned in a book on 1938 stock. It seems strange that such a small alteration was deemed neccessary. 

 

I wonder if it was a deliberate height adjustment or just a side effect of something done to the bogies or suspension for other reasons.

[roythebus]

When talking about what they may or may not collide with on the island, remember there's still a loco somewhere for engineers' trains and some fairly heavy hopper wagons around.

 

Two units meeting at approaching speeds of 30mph still gives a collision speed of 60mph.

 

On the District the only place D stock would be likely to meet a road vehicle is either in a depot or if something falls on the track somewhere. There's been mention on a FB group of an incident when a Bakerloo train was hit up the rear by a ballast train at Neasden back in the 1980s. the ballast driver was under instruction and the train was not fitted with continuous brake. The ballast driver sadly died. Fortunately collisions on the underground are fairly rare so crashworthiness is not tested that often.

[Christopher125]

5 minutes ago, roythebus said:

When talking about what they may or may not collide with on the island, remember there's still a loco somewhere for engineers' trains and some fairly heavy hopper wagons around.

 

Engineering trains all but died with privatisation, the two diesel shunters left the Island in '98 and most of the rolling stock now resides at Havenstreet. 

[DavidB-AU]

17 minutes ago, roythebus said:

On the District the only place D stock would be likely to meet a road vehicle is either in a depot or if something falls on the track somewhere. There's been mention on a FB group of an incident when a Bakerloo train was hit up the rear by a ballast train at Neasden back in the 1980s. the ballast driver was under instruction and the train was not fitted with continuous brake. The ballast driver sadly died. Fortunately collisions on the underground are fairly rare so crashworthiness is not tested that often.

 

And bear in mind a lot of changes were made after Moorgate. 

[DavidB-AU]

Getting a little off topic, but a full 3rd rail version of the D-Train bring up the idea the Harrogate council had about a decade ago to electrify the Harrogate line with third rail and use D78 stock. IIRC they proposed using DLR style contacts rather than LU/SR style. Personally I can't see any new third rail beyond extensions to the existing network, but it makes you wonder whether a 484 could potentially be used elsewhere. For example a Lymington or Bognor Regis yo-yo.

 

Cheers

David

[Reorte]

9 hours ago, DavidB-AU said:

Getting a little off topic, but a full 3rd rail version of the D-Train bring up the idea the Harrogate council had about a decade ago to electrify the Harrogate line with third rail and use D78 stock. IIRC they proposed using DLR style contacts rather than LU/SR style. Personally I can't see any new third rail beyond extensions to the existing network, but it makes you wonder whether a 484 could potentially be used elsewhere. For example a Lymington or Bognor Regis yo-yo.

 

Isn't there a rule that third rail is only allowed as part of extensions to existing networks? (or is it just a policy?)

[Mark Saunders]

9 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

Isn't there a rule that third rail is only allowed as part of extensions to existing networks? (or is it just a policy?)

That is for bare contact not sheathed as Docklands is.

[Zomboid]

Leeds - Harrogate - York would probably be cheaper, and would definitely be better, if it were electrified at 25kV. Wonder if Vivarail could do a 25kV D78...

 

Which is nothing whatsoever to do with the Isle of Wight.

[rodent279]

1 hour ago, Reorte said:

 

Isn't there a rule that third rail is only allowed as part of extensions to existing networks? (or is it just a policy?)

Harrogate probably thought that 750V electricity is cheaper than 25kV electricity.

[woodenhead]

2 hours ago, Mark Saunders said:

That is for bare contact not sheathed as Docklands is.

They teach you this in school, all contact should be sheathed never bare....

[Trog]

7 hours ago, woodenhead said:

They teach you this in school, all contact should be sheathed never bare....

 

The lengths teachers will go to just to get class sizes down a bit.

[jim.snowdon]

21 hours ago, Reorte said:

 

Isn't there a rule that third rail is only allowed as part of extensions to existing networks? (or is it just a policy?)

There is, in as much as the ORR will not sanction any new top contact conductor rail unless there is no practicable alternative. What that means in practice is that new sidings and minor infill connections on the existing network would normally be permitted, but extensions and major in fills such as the gaps in the Reading - Redhill route would not. The latter have effectively been killed off by the development of bi-/tri-mode units like the 769. 

 

Bottom contact act systems such as the DLR are permitted, as the live surface is not exposed to accidental contact, but, given a choice, 750V DC overhead is preferable to conductor rail. The DLR would have been overhead had it not been for a decision by the then LDDC that it would spoil the aesthetics of their new Canary Wharf development.

 

Jim

[Coryton]

10 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

There is, in as much as the ORR will not sanction any new top contact conductor rail unless there is no practicable alternative. What that means in practice is that new sidings and minor infill connections on the existing network would normally be permitted, but extensions and major in fills such as the gaps in the Reading - Redhill route would not.

 

There was an article in Modern Railways a few months back arguing that the decision to effectively ban more third rail was made when people believed the HOPS train would do what was promised, and that now we know the true costs of overhead electrification these days we should think again about extending third rail.

[jim.snowdon]

39 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

There was an article in Modern Railways a few months back arguing that the decision to effectively ban more third rail was made when people believed the HOPS train would do what was promised, and that now we know the true costs of overhead electrification these days we should think again about extending third rail.

Essentially, the real nail in the coffin for extending top contact conductor rail is the Electricity at Work Regulations. The exposed nature of the live conductor rail is technically illegal, but the HSE, as the enforcement authority, accepts that converting the existing conductor rail network to something safer is not reasonably practical. Extending it, though, is not really acceptable. The East London Line is a bit of an oddity, but it is segregated to a large extent by being either up on arches or down deep cuttings.

 

Jim

[PhilJ W]

Most if not all of the East London Line was fourth rail so it was only a matter of removing the centre conductor rail. The only extension was the new link at Shoredich connecting it to the former Broad Street lines which were third rail as was the other lines with which it was combined.

[mdvle]

This article at Railway Gazette provides a little more detail that answers some of the issues that have been discussed here:

https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/isle-of-wight-lines-future-secured-with-26m-investment/54576.article

 

In particular for those who don't wish to read it mentioned are:

 

- 3 electric substations to be upgraded

- track renewals during winter 2020/2021

- Class 484 to be leased, same company that is leasing the 230's to West Midland (not mentioned, but as owner they in turn would presumably decide on the cab strength issue if it is optional, and may want it done on the grounds that it provides future options).

[Joseph_Pestell]

Something that had passed me by until I got Railnews update this morning is that Network Rail have committed to replacing Ryde Pier as well.

 

Is that the best way? Or should they be looking at "ferries" that could reach Espanade at all states of the tide.

 

If they have to replace the pier? How do people get from ferry to land during the work? Or will they build the replacement pier at a slightly changed location?

[uax6]

Its only the railway part of the pier that will be being replaced, the ferries have their own section so access isn't a problem.

 

Andy G

[Joseph_Pestell]

2 minutes ago, uax6 said:

Its only the railway part of the pier that will be being replaced, the ferries have their own section so access isn't a problem.

 

Andy G

 

It's a bit of a trek for passengers. And buses are, I think, too heavy for the roadway.

 

So any facilities for passengers, especially the disabled, to get from ferry to the Espanade?

[Christopher125]

3 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Something that had passed me by until I got Railnews update this morning is that Network Rail have committed to replacing Ryde Pier as well.

 

I imagine it's the steel deck of the railway pier they'll replace, that was last renewed around the time of electrification and must be feeling it's age - I should think the legs, cast iron presumably, will be fine. 

 

Quote

 

Is that the best way? Or should they be looking at "ferries" that could reach Espanade at all states of the tide.

 

Ryde Pier exists because that's as close as conventional craft can go due to the exposed sands - that's why Ryde has the only commercial hovercraft service in the world.

 

As for access, the vehicle/pedestrian pier should remain open so while inconvenient for railway users it's no different to any other time trains aren't running.

 

Edited October 3, 2019 by Christopher125

[Reorte]

4 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Is that the best way? Or should they be looking at "ferries" that could reach Espanade at all states of the tide.

 

We've had rail replacement buses, it's rail replacement boats now?