IoW light rail conversion proposed

[Jon Fitness]

£700 million to build a tunnel under the Solent?

 

That is government speak for £17 billion no doubt.

 

I doubt they could even design it for £700 million.

..and to be true to the island tradition, it would use a redundant TBM from the Elizabeth line and a ship load of second-hand bricks from Ryde Reclamation...

 

JF

[lmsforever]

 ​Cant see a tunnel being built at anytime in the next fifty years it would not provide a big enough return and the island would be swamped by to many cars requiring major road construction to be carried out for no benefit to the population .The area would be covered in housing developments totally destroying the character of the place,I have no wish to see developments that benefit the current population stopped but a permanent link would destroy the place.The railway is a very important part of the total transport package and should be refurbed asap  and the prospect of trams is non starter as the roads would not support them.Off road running will cost to much due to the high land prices and the use of much of the available area having houses etc on it ,so buses are the way forward and should be given more priority in road planning.

[Suzie]

I can't see a rail tunnel swamping the island with cars. Whether it will bring a return or not is down to how much it costs to build and run. A Ryde - Portsmouth project would be similar in scale to the Severn tunnel. The existing tunnel proposers reckon that they can build an all-singing, all-dancing road/rail/everything else single bore tunnel for £1000 million, so cut it down to a pair of single bore rail tunnels and it will be more in budget. The Portsmouth - Gosport section will surely produce a bit of revenue that will subsidise things too.

 

Get the first bore up and running and have a revenue stream to pay for the second bore after four years! I am thinking that a 4-mile long single bore should be good enough for four trains an hour each way (a through to London passenger, a freight, a car shuttle and a stopping passenger train) which should provide an initial service better than the existing ferries by taking an hour less time.

[Edwin_m]

15-20 years ago there was a proposal for a tram line from Fareham to Portsmouth that would have used the rail formation to Gosport and then an immersed tube.  It was abandoned (the first part becoming a busway) partly because the tube would have fouled the draft of the new aircraft carriers.  I think with heavy rail much less flexible in terms of gradient the same problem would arise with a Portsmouth-Gosport-IOW rail tunnel.  And wouldn't it have to go as far north as Fratton to find a big enough space for the portal and ramp? 

[caradoc]

I would have thought that if a tunnel to the IOW (whether rail or road) was viable and practical it would have been built long before now. And would there not need to be a third bore, as per the Channel Tunnel, for safety reasons ? I do also agree with lmsforever that such a tunnel would utterly change the Island, and not for the better, in terms both of increased traffic, and the land area required for the terminal. Even if a tunnel was built, would it automatically attract all the traffic currently using the ferries; The Channel Tunnel, on a much longer route, has not done so. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

No prospect whatsoever of a tunnel. Simply does not and will not stack up  financially, particularly when built to modern safety standards. And I agree with those who say that being an island is a big part of what makes the IoW special.

 

The roads though are pretty poor with little prospect of improvement so very little chance of major improvements to bus services. A light-rail solution on the existing railway is surely the most viable option but it has to be looked at in a wider context of how it integrates with the ferries to the mainland and the bus network.

[Zomboid]

As someone who occasionally visits, the fact that it's a bit cut off and remote is a large part of the charm.

I don't see a tunnel (road/ rail/ both) completely wrecking that, but it would have an impact, particularly if you could get a train from London to Sandown without leaving your seat.

Whilst it's the less populated end on both sides, construction-wise the Lymington crossing would be a smaller project to build a bridge or tunnel. I just don't see it though, not with the high speed catamarans and hovercraft being available.

[Christopher125]

Details of the plan South Western Railway are required to give the DfT, regarding Island Line, are now emerging in the IW County Press and KILF

- New timetable, with a loop at Brading allowing a 30min service

- Fully refurbished rolling stock of a larger profile, allowing guards to move between carriages (almost certainly Vivarail's ex-District stock)

- Onboard wifi and charging ports, information boards and new CCTV

- A new platform layout at Ryde Interchange, allowing improved access for Hovertravel passengers

- Track upgrade

- A structural survey of Ryde Pier shows the supporting steelwork to be sound, but decking and track require replacement which is the recommended option

This will be put to the DfT shortly with a decision due by the end of year. If agreed replacement stock could arrive by 2020.

Edited May 4, 2018 by Christopher125

[Dava]

Will there be provision for an extension of the IWR steam service to Ryde Esplanade as suggested in the past?

[Joseph_Pestell]

Will there be provision for an extension of the IWR steam service to Ryde Esplanade as suggested in the past?

 

I can't see them taking the steam past St John's. It gets complicated with all the gauge clearance issues as well as sharing track.

 

I did make a bit more of a study of this recently. Not difficult in a light rail/tram context to divert the line overground from St John's to Esplanade. So light rail using the existing trackbed from St John's to Sandown/Ventnor does seem like a sensible option, perhaps metre gauge to make it easier to create dynamic loops. Perhaps the next rolling stock on IoW will be secondhand from Manchester instead of London.

 

But an interesting line in Adrian Shooter's recent presentation of Class 230 (Friends of LT Museum AGM). In response to a question from the audience, AS said that the Esplanade tunnel would not be a problem to a Class 230. And IoW would be ideal for the battery operated version.

[Christopher125]

Will there be provision for an extension of the IWR steam service to Ryde Esplanade as suggested in the past?

If you look at the comments on the KILF page linked to, they are not proposing anything that prevents an extension to Ryde but obviously it's not a core part of their proposals. However no-one (including the IWSR) is seriously proposing to go beyond St Johns, if nothing else there just isn't room.

 

I think it's pretty clear now that Vivarail's old District Line stock, probably fitted with batteries, are the favoured option.

Edited May 5, 2018 by Christopher125

[Zomboid]

Why would batteries be needed when the route is fully electrified?

[locoholic]

Why would batteries be needed when the route is fully electrified?

For the same reason that Class 158 DMUs are used on the electrified Lymington Branch - total lack of common sense.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Why would batteries be needed when the route is fully electrified?

 

It helps with issues when that tunnel gets flooded by seawater.

 

And also, of course, generally a whole lot safer with no live rail.

[phil-b259]

Why would batteries be needed when the route is fully electrified?

 

Because the existing 3rd rail kit is on its last legs and is overdue for replacement. It also limits the number of units that can be in traffic to 3 - and thats without all the modern on board stuff like air con increasing the demand.

 

A battery solution allows for partial electrification - you could ditch it on the pier (gets rid of any galvanic corrosion problems) and through the below sea level tunnel to St Johns, and maybe also  lose it from the Shankin end too with just the St Johns - Braiding or Sandown bit renewed to top up the batteries during the day.

Edited May 5, 2018 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

For the same reason that Class 158 DMUs are used on the electrified Lymington Branch - total lack of common sense.

 

Actually if you bothered to do some research you would find out hat the use of a 158 during the week IS 'COMMON SENSE'

 

The volumes Passenger traffic on the Lymington branch did not need a 4 car train - while other parts of the SWR were suffering from artificially short trains due to a lack of rolling stock. By the careful juggling of rolling stock diagrams it was realised that a 158 from Sailsbury depot could be spared thus freeing up the 450 to be used on more heavily used services.

 

At weekends the demands on the EMU fleet are less, so a 450 can be allocated to the branch.

 

While its true that since the decision was made, SWR has taken on the 456 fleet from Southern, these are fully utilised meeting the franchise commitments to provide 10 car suburban trains in London and cannot be spared to work the Lymington branch (plus of course Bournemouth depot does not handle the maintenance of said units).

Edited May 5, 2018 by phil-b259

[Zomboid]

Because the existing 3rd rail kit is on its last legs and is overdue for replacement. It also limits the number of units that can be in traffic to 3 - and thats without all the modern on board stuff like air con increasing the demand.

 

A battery solution allows for partial electrification - you could ditch it on the pier (gets rid of any galvanic corrosion problems) and through the below sea level tunnel to St Johns, and maybe also lose it from the Shankin end too with just the St Johns - Braiding or Sandown bit renewed to top up the batteries during the day.

I can see the benefit of running St Johns to the Pier on batteries, but I suspect that there would be little benefit to removing the con rail anywhere else. Renewing and upgrading the power supply would be necessary anyhow no matter how short the electrified bit, as the energy ultimately still has to come via the rectifiers, so the trains will draw more power on the con rail whilst charging the batteries and providing traction compared to just traction.

 

Or they could go bi mode, but if they're going to do that they may as well de-electrify the line. Which would be a severe step backwards.

[phil-b259]

I can see the benefit of running St Johns to the Pier on batteries, but I suspect that there would be little benefit to removing the con rail anywhere else. Renewing and upgrading the power supply would be necessary anyhow no matter how short the electrified bit, as the energy ultimately still has to come via the rectifiers, so the trains will draw more power on the con rail whilst charging the batteries and providing traction compared to just traction.

 

Or they could go bi mode, but if they're going to do that they may as well de-electrify the line. Which would be a severe step backwards.

 

This is true - but (i) DC conductor rail systems are very inefficient due to the laws of physics - the further you go from the feed in point the worse it gets and (ii) Conductor rail doesn't look after itself - insulators, cabling etc requires regular checking and occasional replacement even if the rail itself doesn't.

 

Unlike mainland 3rd rail systems, the IOW installation only has a single feed point so the electrical losses incurred at each endpoint are not trivial

 

Thus it is more efficient overall to have a short conductor rail section (even if the draw through that section is higher to recharge the batteries) than it is to maximise the amount of conductor rail fitted.

Edited May 5, 2018 by phil-b259

[Zomboid]

There's 3 substations on the Island line, at Ryde, Sandown and one in the middle (Rowborough I think). I suppose consolidating those into one bigger one might have some merit (but could cause some resilience issues), but a fair amount of the the weakness is caused by the island having a weak power supply overall.

[phil-b259]

There's 3 substations on the Island line, at Ryde, Sandown and one in the middle (Rowborough I think). I suppose consolidating those into one bigger one might have some merit (but could cause some resilience issues), but a fair amount of the the weakness is caused by the island having a weak power supply overall.

 

But if the trains are bi-modes then concerns over the 'resilience' of the power supply are less as a sudden outage won't leave trains stranded. True a prolonged outage might cause a planned shutdown to take place but if you are only renewing a single substation rather than 3, then you use the savings to build in more redundancy to it.

 

National grid issues on the IOW are matters for the national grid to resolve - but unlike the Island line I would have thought that continued reinforcement over time was inevitable to cope with the demands of residents and businesses. If anything the railways supply has gone the other way over the years to try and simply keep what they have got working.

[Zomboid]

If the trains are bi mode with diesel then you might as well forget the electrification and run the service with DMUs.

 

If they're bi mode with batteries then they need the right ratio of electrified to non-electrified track to keep them charged (where the North Downs route fails with its present infrastructure). I don't know what the answer is, but on gut feel I think St Johns to the Pier is the only bit which could be readily de-electrified, and the only bit where a real been benefit would be found. Yes, con rail doesn't look after itself, but the whole route is only about 8 miles long and mostly single track, so we're not talking big savings by removing it from Sandown to Shanklin.

[locoholic]

Actually if you bothered to do some research you would find out hat the use of a 158 during the week IS 'COMMON SENSE'

 

The volumes Passenger traffic on the Lymington branch did not need a 4 car train - while other parts of the SWR were suffering from artificially short trains due to a lack of rolling stock. By the careful juggling of rolling stock diagrams it was realised that a 158 from Sailsbury depot could be spared thus freeing up the 450 to be used on more heavily used services.

 

At weekends the demands on the EMU fleet are less, so a 450 can be allocated to the branch.

 

While its true that since the decision was made, SWR has taken on the 456 fleet from Southern, these are fully utilised meeting the franchise commitments to provide 10 car suburban trains in London and cannot be spared to work the Lymington branch (plus of course Bournemouth depot does not handle the maintenance of said units).

 

Trying to excuse the inexcusable. Common sense would dictate that an operating company has the appropriate trains to run its routes. The next step according to your logic would be for the 158s to be replaced by buses.

[locoholic]

This is true - but (i) DC conductor rail systems are very inefficient due to the laws of physics - the further you go from the feed in point the worse it gets and (ii) Conductor rail doesn't look after itself - insulators, cabling etc requires regular checking and occasional replacement even if the rail itself doesn't.

 

Unlike mainland 3rd rail systems, the IOW installation only has a single feed point so the electrical losses incurred at each endpoint are not trivial

 

Thus it is more efficient overall to have a short conductor rail section (even if the draw through that section is higher to recharge the batteries) than it is to maximise the amount of conductor rail fitted.

 

Exactly how is the "efficiency" of carting great big batteries up and down the island calculated? They are also affected by the laws of physics, don't forget.

[009 micro modeller]

Won't the tunnel trackbed have to be lowered again to operate District line stock, thus making the flooding worse?

[mdvle]

Trying to excuse the inexcusable. Common sense would dictate that an operating company has the appropriate trains to run its routes. The next step according to your logic would be for the 158s to be replaced by buses.

 

Alternately, common sense would suggest that a TOC maximize the utilization of its fleet to provide the maximum level of service, which they appear to be doing.

 

Having a dedicated fleet may be nice from a purist point of view, but it would cost extra money and its hard to justify that when the existing fleet can provide the service.