IoW light rail conversion proposed

[Gwiwer]

Whole fleet replacement at TfL is at least 5 years away and probably more.  But as I mentioned above there is a distinct possibility that slight service reductions on the Piccadilly Line once the Elizabeth Line opens may free up four - six double-cab units of 1973 stock.  Alternatively there is also a mooted slight service reduction on the Central Line once the Elizabeth Line opens which might free up enough units of 1992 stock.  

 

The former is probably better suited to the Island.  It is of a more traditional design and has a family resemblance mechanicall and electrically to the Standard and 1938 stocks Ryde men have been familiar with.  The latter is tube stock of a newer era and does have some of the technologcal advances which the Island really doesn't need.  It also has known issues which include traction motor and door problems - not least because this was the first fleet to have externally-suspended doors rather than internal ones sliding onto pockets in the body sides.  Frankly the more electrics / underfloor gubbins there  is the less suitable are the trains for operation down Ryde Pier.  Next stop and safety announcement systems are probably not needed either.

 

The '73 stock comes in three-car units which could operate singly all year and offer enough capacity.  Sometimes the two-car trains currently offered are overcrowded but only (usually) at major holiday times.

 

1973 stock is not fault-free and is definitely showing its age but so were the two other generations of IoW cars when they left London service.   And '73 stock won't suffer body rot in salty air to the same extent as it's mostly aluminium.  

 

But perhaps the biggest things in its favour is that it is likely to be available in 2019, it fits the loading gauge and it would require minimal retraining and reconfiguring.

[PhilJ W]

This is sort of what I had in mind earlier when I suggested retaining the 483s as hauled stock and using a loco with them (do TfL still have some diesel tube locos or have they been converted to electric?). Re the idea of 'we won't bother because it'll close in 10 years anyway' - in a 'bookazine' I got a few years ago called Britain's Weirdest Railways there is an article about the use of tube stock on Island line. While there are a couple of errors in other parts of the book the IoW bit intriguingly mentions a possible plan by BR in the 1960s to close everything, except for the pier shuttle which would feed the island's bus network. It was suggested that this was simply a worst case scenario so that they could be seen to give concessions when the whole of the current line remained open, but perhaps it was also an attempt to avoid the tunnel issues (since presumably conventional if lightweight stock could run on the pier).

The locomotives converted to battery electric were the Schoma diesel hydraulics. Not all of them were converted, about four were not and if these are available they might prove suitable for hauling the 1938 stock if the latter was converted to hauled stock.

[Titan]

 

I've not heard of a shortage, they've only been running two units in recent years so a third spare should be sufficient. With 006 emerging from a lengthy overhaul last year, and 007 having taken her place (see below), I don't see any immediate cause for concern.

 

They are supposed to be running four units. 2x2 car off peak, 2x4 car peak. If they have only been able to muster two units in recent years the shortage is worse than I thought...

 

What a contrast to the 7 car 1923 stock trains that used to be run!

 

[009 micro modeller]

Whole fleet replacement at TfL is at least 5 years away and probably more. But as I mentioned above there is a distinct possibility that slight service reductions on the Piccadilly Line once the Elizabeth Line opens may free up four - six double-cab units of 1973 stock. Alternatively there is also a mooted slight service reduction on the Central Line once the Elizabeth Line opens which might free up enough units of 1992 stock.

 

 

Is this purely because they expect people to move from the tube lines to the Elizabeth line? If so I'm not sure TfL would want to completely throw away the surplus capacity by selling the trains when the service is reduced as they may want to increase it again in future.

 

Obviously irrelevant now but didn't they look at the Waterloo and City 1940 stock as an alternative replacement for the standard stock? I think the problem with this was the lack of windscreen wipers and having red lights at both ends, since it only operated underground, but surely these could have been altered fairly easily?

[PhilJ W]

I understand the problem with the Waterloo and City 1940 stock was asbestos, they were full of the stuff. The one surviving car housed in the LTM's Acton depot is covered with warning signs about the asbestos.

[jim.snowdon]

Is this purely because they expect people to move from the tube lines to the Elizabeth line? If so I'm not sure TfL would want to completely throw away the surplus capacity by selling the trains when the service is reduced as they may want to increase it again in future.

Obviously irrelevant now but didn't they look at the Waterloo and City 1940 stock as an alternative replacement for the standard stock? I think the problem with this was the lack of windscreen wipers and having red lights at both ends, since it only operated underground, but surely these could have been altered fairly easily?

I can't see why Crossrail should do any more to the Piccadilly Line than abstract some of the Heathrow traffic, but even then Crossrail only provides two extra trains an hour via Hayes and all stations thereafter.

 

Jim

[mdvle]

Whole fleet replacement at TfL is at least 5 years away and probably more.  But as I mentioned above there is a distinct possibility that slight service reductions on the Piccadilly Line once the Elizabeth Line opens may free up four - six double-cab units of 1973 stock.  Alternatively there is also a mooted slight service reduction on the Central Line once the Elizabeth Line opens which might free up enough units of 1992 stock.  

 

The other side is if any replacement program for TfL moves to an unknown schedule would they be willing to let go of any stock given that they may have a need for it in the future just to keep the existing fleet working.

[009 micro modeller]

Would it work to get say, 2 1973 stock units just to keep things going alongside the 38 stock and then replace completely as more 73 stock becomes available? Or would there be problems with lack of standardisation?

[Gwiwer]

Far better to have one type than two not least because of the costs involved in holding two sets of spares.  The Island line is very much a shoe-string operation so cannot afford anything like a luxury.  

 

In terms of service reduction my understanding arising from apparently informed comment within the industry suggests that just two trains fewer might be required on the Piccadilly Line post-Elizabeth Line as some traffic shifts over.  In essence the peak-time headway would reduce to every 4-5 minutes at times rather than every 4 minutes as now and the off-peak would be a standard every 5 minutes.  Each of the two branches at Heathrow would receive half that headway with "Central" (Terminals 2 & 3 currently) having the full service.  

 

That would release two and possibly three trains of 1973 stock.  My argument is that the double-cab units are no longer required as such since they were only ever ordered against a requirement for the Aldwych shuttle which has long since closed.  They are the oldest of the type and likely to have the highest mileage and the lowest resale value.  Single-cab units are of no use to the Island as the resultant six-car trains would be far in excess of needs.  Three-car trains are fine.  The 1973 double-cab units fit the bill.

 

TfL would be monitoring capacity and travel patterns, and the shifts in those patters, closely post-Elizabeth Line opening but in terms of overall capacity this needs to be set against their overall (and currently severely in the red) budget.  Introduction of new services is likely to be offset by at least a slight shift away from the existing offerings.  Taking perhaps one train an hour out of the peak service is hardly noticeable. But removal of (say) three trains, i.e. six 3-car units, from the total cost of the Piccadilly Line operation may be more significant at the bottom line.

 

It's not the only option but to my mind it is a viable and credible option for a relatively quick fix.  If the '38 stock falls over now - and there are no suggestions implicit in my posts that it will - the line may cease operation abruptly and be very difficult to revive.

[009 micro modeller]

Isn't all of this still ignoring the apparent issues with the power supply, regardless of what stock is used?

[Christopher125]

They are supposed to be running four units. 2x2 car off peak, 2x4 car peak.

 

I'm not aware of any requirement to run 4-car trains, and I can't remember seeing a pair of them since privatisation.

 

While one 4-car was normal during the summer, the ban on guards using the interconnecting doors a few years back made them pretty impractical to operate - they did try and continue using second guard at busy times, but I guess SWT decided they could make do without.

 

In terms of service reduction my understanding arising from apparently informed comment within the industry suggests that just two trains fewer might be required on the Piccadilly Line post-Elizabeth Line as some traffic shifts over.

 

I've not seen that suggested before and I find it incredibly unlikely - even if the Elizabeth Line *does* have a notable impact, which I doubt, LU won't know how long that will last.

 

This quote from TfL in a recent London Reconnections article is also worth noting:

 

"Reliability performance has declined in the last three years and is projected to deteriorate further in the final six to eight years of asset life as it becomes more challenging to sustain reliability and availability whilst addressing an increasing volume of repairs"

 

With declining reliability and availability, and no replacements until at least the mid 2020's, I really can't see LU disposing with even a single vehicle - it's not a luxury they can afford.

Edited June 2, 2018 by Christopher125

[roythebus]

BR certainly considered using the W&C stock on the island. It was rejected for several reasons, window wipers, no saloon heaters, and uncomfortable to drive for more than 4 minutes. It was also deemed that 5x5car trains in the 1960s weren't sufficient for the traffic demands.

 

As for the current tube stock, the stock is knackered, and are not really suitable for any loco haulage.

[Gwiwer]

 

 

It was also deemed that 5x5car trains in the 1960s weren't sufficient for the traffic demands.

This being allegedly substantiated by the summer 1967 timetable - the first with electric traction - offering a 12-minute headway using five 7-car trains.  That didn't last.  Many parts of the London Underground would be glad of that much let alone the Ryde - Shanklin route.

 

The service was soon wound back to 15-minute headways then to 20 and then, with track rationalisation, to the present unhelpful 20/40 or 60-minute service.  7-car trains were also quickly found to be unnecessary though the 3Tis units were always thought of as "summer only" boosters.  It was intended to store them through the quieter months though being parked outside at Ryde did them no favours.

 

A 4Vec unit had driving cabs at both ends and could operate alone.  A 3Tis did not as the seven-car trains were formed pretty much as they were in London with a "control trailer" at one end of the 3-car unit.  That had basic controls but required the driver to use the emergency door droplight window for vision and there was no cab as such.  I believe the controls were actually disabled for Island use.

 

Ryde Pier shuttles, when they ran, were only ever 4-car because the "down" platform was shorter than the main one and unable to  accommodate a 7-car train.  They haven't been run for many years now largely due to declining passenger numbers on the Portsmouth ferry.  At one time that supported up to three crossings an hour by steamer; the best now is two an hour by rather smaller catamarans.  

[Christopher125]

This being allegedly substantiated by the summer 1967 timetable - the first with electric traction - offering a 12-minute headway using five 7-car trains.  That didn't last.  Many parts of the London Underground would be glad of that much let alone the Ryde - Shanklin route.

 

IIRC that only operated on the busiest Summer Saturdays - according to Brian Hardy's book the basic service back then was actually less frequent than today's, half hourly in summer and only hourly in winter. 

Edited June 2, 2018 by Christopher125

[Gwiwer]

IIRC that only operated on the busiest Summer Saturdays - according to Brian Hardy's book the basic service back then was actually less frequent than today's, half hourly in summer and only hourly in winter. 

 

Correct - peak summer Saturdays.  But the rolling stock requirement had to take that into consideration.  7x7-car trains were purchased to permit a five-train 7-car service, plus a pier shuttle (4-car) with a spare.  Some of the cars were disposed of without reaching the Island leaving only six 7-car trains for service and "unit" 037 which was only ever a single spare coach.

[RichardLong]

Interesting paragraph from the latest issue of Modern Railways - looks highly likely that Vivarail trains are headed for the IOW

[Satan's Goldfish]

45mm packing there for an operational reason? Or to match platform heights better?

[009 micro modeller]

Interesting paragraph from the latest issue of Modern Railways - looks highly likely that Vivarail trains are headed for the IOW

 

Will these be battery or diesel? Or operate on the existing third rail? I still don't see how they will fit as District stock is not much lower than main line trains.

[Foulounoux]

Will these be battery or diesel? Or operate on the existing third rail? I still don't see how they will fit as District stock is not much lower than main line trains.

Actually higher than some

D class 3.68m. Or. 11'11" in old money

 

Class 313 3.58m

 

So a PEP based unit would be 10cm. 4" lower

[PhilJ W]

They could have used the 1983 tube stock, which was to all intents and purposes was a tube gauge version of the D stock, even sharing such items as bogies, unfortunately the 1983 stock has all been scrapped.

[RichardLong]

Will these be battery or diesel? Or operate on the existing third rail? I still don't see how they will fit as District stock is not much lower than main line trains.

My guess is they'll be either battery or third rail. Possibly they might have to lower the floor of Ryde tunnel to make them fit (it was raised in 1966/67 to reduce flooding risks) - but Vivarail seem surprisingly confident that they'll fit anyway.

[009 micro modeller]

My guess is they'll be either battery or third rail. Possibly they might have to lower the floor of Ryde tunnel to make them fit (it was raised in 1966/67 to reduce flooding risks) - but Vivarail seem surprisingly confident that they'll fit anyway.

But of course then the flooding would get worse again...

[RichardLong]

But of course then the flooding would get worse again...

True. But then it still floods now so debatable if the 66/67 work really achieved much

[DavidB-AU]

Battery would be ideal for IOW. Given the distances and speeds involved it should only take about 2 minutes to charge the battery at each end using the static battery banks. There would be no need for slidey rail anywhere.

 

Cheers

David

[eastwestdivide]

45mm packing there for an operational reason? Or to match platform heights better?

Pretty sure the packing was to raise the door threshold height for NR platforms.

Perhaps the IOW platforms are already lower than standard, and it doesn't matter because the existing tube stock is low.