IoW light rail conversion proposed

[rodent279]

Though looking at the sizes, the metre gauge stock doesn't seem much smaller than the standard gauge, which might blow a hole in the idea of using it on the IoW.

[Mark Saunders]

The Tyne & Wear Metro cars are probably the only other stock that would fit but they are rather long in the tooth and I will believe the replacement stock is real when it appears!

 

This goes for both Metro and IoW!

 

Mark Saunders

[PhilJ W]

Or the DLR stock should fit, and it comes equipped with the underrunning third rail, conversion of the Island line to that system should be easy. Problem is that DLR do not seem to have plans to dispose of any stock at present.

[rodent279]

Or the DLR stock should fit, and it comes equipped with the underrunning third rail, conversion of the Island line to that system should be easy. Problem is that DLR do not seem to have plans to dispose of any stock at present.

Best suggestion I've seen yet!

[Grovenor]

DLR B92 stock is up for replacement (budget approved, tenders underway) but probably won't be available till 2021/22.

Regards

[009 micro modeller]

DLR B92 stock is up for replacement (budget approved, tenders underway) but probably won't be available till 2021/22.

Regards

Thought DLR stock was close to full height? Although if necessary it can be manually driven assuming Island Line is unlikely to go driverless.

[mdvle]

According to https://www.londonreconnections.com/2018/third-ryde-tube-transfer-troublesome/  the tunnel has a current max height of 3.3m (prior to electrification it apparently was 3.56m) at its centre.

 

The DLR trains are about 3.49m from the drawing referenced here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/133528-Hornby-announcement-8th-may/?p=3141830

 

Can't find anything about the class 230, but the D78 is 3.62m according to wikipedia, the 1938 stock is 2.9m

 

If the figures are correct then

 

a) The D78 doesn't fit, which means the class 230 doesn't fit unless they have lowered it.

 

edit - according to http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Interviews/they-dont-make-trains-like-this-anymore they have raised the class 230 by 73mm, making them3.69m.  On the plus side the newish bogies are apparently good on "indifferent track"

 

b) while the DLR fits in the centre if the return the track to its original level, the DLR units are very square topped and likely would be too tall on the sides.

Edited May 18, 2018 by mdvle

[Trevellan]

Southern  Vectis  probably  is  a  good  company  compared  to  some  others  however  they  are  far  from  a  wonderful  comprehensive  local  transport  system.

 

I'm not here to be an apologist for Southern Vectis, but as a former press officer in the bus industry I think some of your comments are wide of the mark.

 

I am 99% certain that the majority of the island's bus network is commercial, i.e. not receiving subsidy. The exceptions are the community services, e.g. 24, 32, 39 etc, which are scheduled to use volunteer drivers (although paid staff fill in as necessary). Payments for concessionary permits do not reflect service levels and costs. I would repeat my earlier point, namely that the island has a much better bus network than some conurbations. One reason why SV has no competition on the island is that the costs of operating competing services would not be covered by revenue. And that's before we look at ownership and use of the bus stations in Ryde and Newport.

 

And finally, Newbridge regained an hourly service in 2014, by diverting alternative route 7 journeys via Calbourne, Wellow and Thorley. Needless to say, usage from these villages is low, with longer distance customers making up the numbers.

[roythebus]

I would be very interested to learn the background behind your comment. The current Southern Vectis network is now more than a decade old and very stable. It is also comprehensive, with frequencies that compare favourably with larger conurbations, let alone a small island. Certain routes do not pay their way and are cross-subsidised by the viable parts of the network, yet this is not always understood by critics. I am not aware of any "heavily used" routes being withdrawn in the last 10-12 years.

 

Incidentally, the latest generation of electronic ticket machines do record concessionary passes and this is a significant figure.

 

There's no regular bus to Haven Street these days for a start. concessionary fares reimbursement is a thorn in the side for all bus operators; it doesn't cover the cost of the additional buses they have to run to cope with demand. But we digress.

[roythebus]

So much for using ancient BR/LT stock, then there's ideas here to use ancient European stock1 WTF, where do you get spares from for those? It's bad enough getting parts for British stuff. Does the Island actually KNOW what a metric bolt is? Plus of course the cost of shipping the stuff from Switzerland to the island won't be cheap. And, being direct replacements, has to comply with the latest disability access laws whatever they're called these days.

[Mike Storey]

So much for using ancient BR/LT stock, then there's ideas here to use ancient European stock1 WTF, where do you get spares from for those? It's bad enough getting parts for British stuff. Does the Island actually KNOW what a metric bolt is? Plus of course the cost of shipping the stuff from Switzerland to the island won't be cheap. And, being direct replacements, has to comply with the latest disability access laws whatever they're called these days.

 

True enough Roy, but in the absence of knowing exactly what SWR have proposed, froth must have its day. If the D78 stock is the preferred option, then we are left wondering just how this will fit through the Ryde tunnel. But we don't even know if that is their preferred solution, although word on the street......who knows (apart from them and now the DfT)?

[Christopher125]

And, being direct replacements, has to comply with the latest disability access laws whatever they're called these days.

 

They may well do but PRM TSI doesn't actually apply to Island Line, as mentioned in the South Western franchise prospectus:

 

"Plans are in place for all classes of rolling stock within the current South Western fleet, within scope of the regulations, to be PRM TSI compliant by 1 January 2020. The Class 483 rolling stock, operated on the Island Line, are excluded from the requirements of these regulations"

Edited May 26, 2018 by Christopher125

[frobisher]

Er, doesn't that "just" mean that the 483's have an exemption. Any new stock would not automatically get said exemption.

[Christopher125]

Er, doesn't that "just" mean that the 483's have an exemption. Any new stock would not automatically get said exemption.

 

I'm not aware of any - from what I gather Island Line is specifically excluded from the 'Railway (Interoperability) Regulations 2011', which is what requires all rolling stock on the 'interoperable rail system' to be compliant with PRM TSI by 2020.

 

Island Line is similarly exempt from the 'mainline railway requirements' of 'Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations (ROGS)'

Edited May 27, 2018 by Christopher125

[Zomboid]

Presumably the same thing that means heritage operations don't have to provide contrasting door colours and disabled toilets.

Seems unusually proportionate, actually.

[Mike Storey]

 

I'm not aware of any - from what I gather Island Line is specifically excluded from the 'Railway (Interoperability) Regulations 2011', which is what requires all rolling stock on the 'interoperable rail system' to be compliant with PRM TSI by 2020.

 

Island Line is similarly exempt from the 'mainline railway requirements' of 'Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations (ROGS)'

 

Quite right, and (I think without reading the whole bleading thing again) RVAR 2010 excludes vehicles extant prior to 1999, but only if they have not been refurbished. Quite what that means has been a source of constant enquiry by the preserved railway peeps, but that was clarified for them in the Approved List of TSI Exclusions (for networks), and they just have to show some attempt towards it, and the IOW is on that list. 

 

However, if the Island Line is re-invented as a Light Rail Network, it will require compliance, under a separate regulation. Hence the race by the trammies to do so.

 

So, if say the D78's are used, but are totally refurbished then RVAR 2010 would apply but IOW is exempt as a network, but if any attempt is made to make operations cheaper to run under light rail conditions or whatever, the legal status as regards DDA compliance is (to me anyway) a little blurred. I am sure, given the age profile of the average IOW resident, this could be an important issue. Clearly DafT have the ability to find a way around that, and let's hope a sensible compromise is reached. It could be argued that if a decision is delayed after March 2019, they might not need to worry anyway (but again, there seems to be an intent to continue to UIC cooperation, which existed pre-EU, but, as with much else, no-one knows what that really means - does it include TSI? If it does not, why on earth have they sanctioned continued development of ERTMS?). On the other hand, HMG have also said that they intend to safeguard all disability and other human rights currently applicable. I am sure this is not a problem in Vanuatu, with whom we will apparently have an enormous free trade agreement and thus huge export potential. Oops, sorry.

 

Depending on what and whom you believe, it might be cheapest to keep the Island Line as a museum piece, and bring vehicles in from, say, the Blackpool Zoo Miniature Railway?

Edited May 27, 2018 by Mike Storey

[Foulounoux]

There are some vehicles that will fit a bit closer .....Poole Park miniature railway as the volunteers have withdrawn their services.

[rodent279]

There are some vehicles that will fit a bit closer .....Poole Park miniature railway as the volunteers have withdrawn their services.

Have they? Do tell, I was hoping to rake this line in soon!

Edited May 27, 2018 by rodent279

[96701]

Have they? Do tell, I was hoping to rake this line in soon!

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/16244842._The_track_issue_is_a_diversion___Poole_Park_miniature_railway_closed_as_staff_go_on_strike/

[Foulounoux]

Have they? Do tell, I was hoping to rake this line in soon!

Sorry off topic

We grew up with trips from Hertford to Bournemouth guest houses with trips to Compton Acres,Poole Pottery (original shed)and my brother and I highlight was fresh pies from the bakers on Poole high street (still there just) a kayak around the boating lake and the minstrel railway

 

 

Back on topic

 

I have an interview for an IOW based role....biggest issue the cost and time for the 12mile commute from home. Wife has suggested bicycle and canoe

 

Colin

[Mike Storey]

Sorry off topic

We grew up with trips from Hertford to Bournemouth guest houses with trips to Compton Acres,Poole Pottery (original shed)and my brother and I highlight was fresh pies from the bakers on Poole high street (still there just) a kayak around the boating lake and the minstrel railway

 

 

Back on topic

 

I have an interview for an IOW based role....biggest issue the cost and time for the 12mile commute from home. Wife has suggested bicycle and canoe

 

Colin

 

Go on, take it (if offered). You know you want to. "Sorry I am late. Force 8 in Solent.......".

[Coryton]

 If it does not, why on earth have they sanctioned continued development of ERTMS?). 

 

Because whether we're actually required/forced to use ERTMS or not  in a few years time, the UK network is still likely to move to an ERTMS-like signalling system and there would be little point in trying to go our own way and invent our own incompatible system.

[Mike Storey]

Because whether we're actually required/forced to use ERTMS or not  in a few years time, the UK network is still likely to move to an ERTMS-like signalling system and there would be little point in trying to go our own way and invent our own incompatible system.

 

I understand your concerns historically.

 

But for this, you will need to explain that a little more expansively. BR has a nearly unique, conventional system already, and the new effort is being co-led with a Dutch team, and the supporting players who are certainly not UK companies. If the UK/Dutch can develop a much cheaper and less disruptive way to deliver ETCS/ERTMS, whichever is correct, Phase 3, why would it necessarily be incompatible? Dutch and Belgian signalling owes much to previous UK practice, as does Italy, in the non-LGV sense. But the supporting players must obviously realise there is potential for global (and particularly European) application. Shades of APT, being pinched and improved upon elsewhere, if there is not sufficient support for this domestically.

 

It seems to me that only the Danes are pursuing a unique solution which might well match their experience with IC3........ The big boys (DBAG, SNCF and the Swiss chaps) don't seem to be pursuing much else at all, just a slavish trudge towards the revolution, instead of evolution.

[sem34090]

Well, still nothing back from SWR regarding my thoughts, besides this, so I assume that they have had their laughs and the email has been deleted!

Our Reference: SWR-180515-AAB

Dear Mr XXXX

Thank you for your Email of 15 May 2018.

Your comments regarding The Island Line have been noted and I appreciate the time and trouble you have taken to contact us about this.

Whilst I cannot guarantee your suggestions will be implemented, they have been logged and forwarded to the relevant manager for their attention.

Thank you for taking the time to contact us.

Kind regards

XXXXXX XXXXXXX
Customer Service Centre Advisor

 

[Satan's Goldfish]

I don't know much about the island line, but this thread is an interesting read and good for a bit of 'what if' speculation. I may have missed the point somewhere, but all the replacement stock talk is on finding something 2nd hand as a replacement. A stand alone brand new build would obviously be a very expensive proposition to replace the stock, but are any of the tube lines are due to receive brand new stock? If so, could island line not just tack their stock order onto the end of that production run for up to date units? Yes it would be a little more expensive than 2nd hand still but not as bad as a standalone bespoke order, and spares for maintenance/faults would also be easier to source if shared with a much larger fleet. There would be differences in the way that current is collected (3 rail instead of 4), the seating arrangement would be less 'standing room' orientated, unit length of 2 vehicles rather than 6+ (?), space taken into account for some batteries to get it along the pier, etc, but most parts could be common between the 2x fleets.

 

Was just a thought. I suspect someone's about to come along and say there's no tube stock replacement plans due anytime soon