Jump to content

IoW light rail conversion proposed


Recommended Posts

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

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

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

11 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Would Brading be a passing place for a 3 train service? Or would trains for that only cross at Sandown and on the double track section in Ryde?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Would Brading be a passing place for a 3 train service? Or would trains for that only cross at Sandown and on the double track section in Ryde?

 

The Brading passing loop is only needed for a 30 minute service using 2 trains crossing there

 

As was described earlier, if a 3 train service is operated then trains will cross at Sandown and on the double track section at Ryde.  This gives a 20minute interval service.

 

If, as has been the case for around a decade, there are only 2 trains in operation and passing can only be done at Sandown and in Ryde that will give an uneven 20 / 40 minute service - which is why the passing loop at Brading is being installed to even it out.

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

13 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

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!

If I remember correctly, one of the main reasons for removing the up line between Brading and Sandown was due to slippage of the embankment on Morton Common, near the A 3055 road bridge.  This may have been a legacy from when this section was doubled and additional material was tipped on the upside to widen the formation.

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

a lot of the redundant rail from the lifted double track was used by the IWSR for the extension from Hvenstreet to Smallbrook, as was a lot of rail from the Alton-Farnham line. I'm one of the few IWSR members who can claim to have driven an electric train on those rails at 70mph! :)

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

These facebook posts show progress at Sandown and Shanklin (the split-level platform and miles of fencing look.... interesting), and Smallbrook. Note the missing Up signal alongside the headshunt.

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/355569249197459/permalink/478321476922235/

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/355569249197459/permalink/478111670276549/

 

All the new signals at Brading are now up, though only one has route indicators curiously. Ramps down to the foot crossing are underway and copers back on the Down platform.

 

51120314165_da07a46ed2_z.jpg

Brading by Chris, on Flickr
51119523711_9b056692c2_z.jpg

Brading by Chris, on Flickr
51119432208_2d74f1c231_z.jpg
Brading by Chris, on Flickr

51128071357_1a96f4c0b2_z.jpg
Brading by Chris, on Flickr
51128087114_d696077829_z.jpg
Brading by Chris, on Flickr
51129146550_4da7d52e8a.jpg
Brading by Chris, on Flickr
51128087039_48474efd99.jpg
Brading by Chris, on Flickr

Edited by Christopher125
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Christopher125 said:

All the new signals at Brading are now up, though only one has route indicators curiously. 

Presumably the southbound one? So that trains towards Shanklin can use the platform with direct access to the street if it's not passing another train.

 

Though I'm kind of surprised they haven't gone with sprung points like at Sandown, it's a rather marginal benefit really.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Presumably the southbound one? So that trains towards Shanklin can use the platform with direct access to the street if it's not passing another train.

 

Though I'm kind of surprised they haven't gone with sprung points like at Sandown, it's a rather marginal benefit really.

 

NR dislikes sprung points - too much chance of the switch rail / stretcher bars breaking due to fatigue as trains repeatedly push it over which creates a derailment risk. Again the spectre of Grayrig has a lot to answer for....

 

Those that already exist can stay but no more will be installed on passenger lines.

 

Given the railway is shut I'm surprised that there hasn't been more done in the way of a signal upgrade - particularly making the two passing loops (Sandown as well as the new Brading one) the same,

 

 

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

Fair enough, though I wonder what the risk actually is on a route like the IOW, where more of a light railway approach might be appropriate. There's not much more similarities between the IOW railway and the WCML than the track gauge.

 

But I have no idea what was considered and ruled out.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Given the railway is shut I'm surprised that there hasn't been more done in the way of a signal upgrade - particularly making the two passing loops (Sandown as well as the new Brading one) the same,

 

I was under the impression Sandown was being resignalled to match Brading, it certainly looks that way.

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

On 20/04/2021 at 23:53, Christopher125 said:

 

All the new signals at Brading are now up, though only one has route indicators curiously.


51119523711_9b056692c2_z.jpg

 

Does anyone know why there are two sets of route indicator lights on this signal?  I'm sure in the past there would only have been one, which would normally have applied to the diverging route.

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

On 23/04/2021 at 17:19, bude_branch said:

Does anyone know why there are two sets of route indicator lights on this signal?  I'm sure in the past there would only have been one, which would normally have applied to the diverging route.

 

I don't know for sure, in this case, but such use of feathers has been used in other locations, where both routes are of the same speed limit. Very rare, but they do exist. The sole example I can recall was on the entrance to the platforms at Margate, where the route dissected on a curve and both tracks were 45 mph restriction.

 

Either that, or there is a distinct chance of the Bembridge branch re-opening??

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Various news reports surfacing this afternoon that the reopening has been delayed still further until at least late Summer, maybe even December.

 

Software issues with the new stock apparently.

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

There’s a news item in railway gazette. There are issues with use on 3rd rail it means there will be testing at Eastleigh before the units are moved to the island.

 

Keith

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

The news of the delay does not bode well for the late evening boat to Portsmouth being reinstated. That in turn spoils my day of Isle of Wight Steam Railway followed by Speedway at Smallbrook Stadium and home to Wimbledon on the last boat/train. I was hoping to be able to do that trip on 8th July as the Speedway includes Sidecars which on the big track on the island should be very entertaining. I may have to change my plans somewhat. 

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Talltim said:

Further to my previous message, the above is very disappointing but I have to remember that I am only affected once or maybe twice while those who live on the island and use the railway regularly are in a far worse place. Also it will adversely affect both the steam railway and the Speedway promotion which after the problems they have faced over the last year is something they can do without. 

Edited by Chris116
Missing words!
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Issues with use on third rail..."

 

Just remind me again, what powered said trains when they were on London Underground?  Oh yes, electricity from a live rail!

 

And I am pretty sure they didn't have software, probably not so much as a pocket calculator when they were originally built.

 

All very odd....

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, John M Upton said:

"Issues with use on third rail..."

 

Just remind me again, what powered said trains when they were on London Underground?  Oh yes, electricity from a live rail!

 

And I am pretty sure they didn't have software, probably not so much as a pocket calculator when they were originally built.

 

All very odd....

 

 

 

But surely they’ve been substantially rebuilt since then, so that may not be relevant. Presumably the third rail issues are new because they are not relevant for the 230s, though how much software is actually in a D-train?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, John M Upton said:

"Issues with use on third rail..."

 

Just remind me again, what powered said trains when they were on London Underground?  Oh yes, electricity from a live rail!

 

And I am pretty sure they didn't have software, probably not so much as a pocket calculator when they were originally built.

 

All very odd....

 

 

They had electronics in 1978 when the stock was designed. Its possibly the replacements/updating of those electronics that is the problem. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

They had electronics in 1978 when the stock was designed. Its possibly the replacements/updating of those electronics that is the problem. 

 

They were also 4 rail originally, which has some differences from the Network Rail 3 rail system (particularly relating to track circuits?).

  • 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...