IoW light rail conversion proposed

[locoholic]

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.

This is the tail wagging the dog, isn't it? The rail infrastructure exists, and electrification is beneficial, otherwise why bother to spend all the money? The TOC doesn't have the right mix of trains for the tracks it runs on. Therefore the investment on electrification goes to waste and unnecessary diesel pollution is generated, simply because of the inflexibility of the franchising process. Common sense has gone out of the window.

[John M Upton]

On the rolling stock front, ex Great Northern Class 313's have been suggested apparently...

[009 micro modeller]

On the rolling stock front, ex Great Northern Class 313's have been suggested apparently...

They are 3 cars, able to operate off third rail and slightly reduced height (not as much as tube stock but enough for Ryde tunnel?), all of which are probably useful. And continuing another IoW railway tradition they're 40 years old... I wonder how many would go to the island?

[Suzie]

Would putting catenary up on troublesome sections like Ryde Peir help? The 313 is dual voltage. One feed would easily do all eight miles and 25KV should be a bit more efficient on the power consumption. Might even allow reopening to Ventnor - or at least Ventnor Parkway!

[Trog]

This is true - but (ii) Conductor rail doesn't look after itself - insulators, cabling etc requires regular checking and occasional replacement even if the rail itself doesn't.

 

 

I would have thought that for the use it would get on the IoW a modern 150lb conductor rail set up would just about last for ever.

 

Until recently there were still (and may still be some) of the original LNWR 105lb conductor rail and pots in use between Euston and Watford, and over the years that would have been used much more heavily than the IoW kit ever would be.

[009 micro modeller]

Would putting catenary up on troublesome sections like Ryde Peir help? The 313 is dual voltage. One feed would easily do all eight miles and 25KV should be a bit more efficient on the power consumption. Might even allow reopening to Ventnor - or at least Ventnor Parkway!

I looked up the height of the 313s and it seems they would be too high even if the tunnel was returned to its original height.

[Zomboid]

Would putting catenary up on troublesome sections like Ryde Peir help? The 313 is dual voltage. One feed would easily do all eight miles and 25KV should be a bit more efficient on the power consumption. Might even allow reopening to Ventnor - or at least Ventnor Parkway!

It would help with the corrosion issues on the pier if AC were used, but that would be about the only benefit. The tunnel at Ryde is what demands tube stock, so 25kV clearances in there are going to be near impossible.

 

1500 or 3000V DC would probably do the job for power distribution, but the clearance in the tunnel and pier corrosion would remain a problem. 1500V on a shrouded 3rd rail might be worth looking at as interoperability with the mainland won't be needed. But frankly DMUs are more likely.

[lmsforever]

I cant remember the exact layout at Ryde tunnel is it possible to open it out and then the stock problem would not exist?

[009 micro modeller]

I cant remember the exact layout at Ryde tunnel is it possible to open it out and then the stock problem would not exist?

The problem with this is I think the roundabout and roads over it. I remember reading somewhere that a few years ago major work was done on the road and it might have been possible to raise it and create more headroom in the tunnel but this opportunity was missed. One of the advantages of the tram idea is supposedly that the tunnel could be bypassed by a street running section but does anyone know whether the road layouts around the area would actually permit this?

[009 micro modeller]

Sorry to take things in a completely different direction but would loco haulage be possible? Refurbish the existing stock but, if the traction equipment is life-expired, use it as hauled stock. Then it could be hauled by a locomotive similar to the diesel and battery departmental locos used on London Underground, or alternatively a more conventional loco with the cabs lowered (I think one bizarre proposal when alternatives to electrification were considered in the 1960s was to use 08s with low cabs, re-geared to allow them to maintain the line speed, although this brings its own problems). This doesn't preclude later refurbishment of proper electrification or introduction of new stock but it would keep things running in essentially the same way as currently with the main cost being the locomotives. The cost of those would depend on the ability to acquire/adapt something secondhand but even if this wasn't possible you would probably only need 3 to maintain the service.

[Mike Storey]

Some of you may have seen this already, but it gives the basis on which the original consultation was done, leading to the recommendations submitted just now.

 

https://www.railfuture.org.uk/display1619

 

Of interest, is that Christopher Garnett (his current role is shown on the attached) who produced a set of proposals for the IOW Council a year or two back, which seemed to favour a LRT solution, is one of the key stakeholders, for consultation, but not a member of the steering group (that made the final decision on the recommendations and will make future decisions).

 

One aspect (upon reading again the franchise agreement (FA) itself) that drives the timescales, is the deadline for renewal of the leases with NR on which SWT is legally able to run the entire operation, in 2019. Presumably, there may be some issues over new "franchise assets" v infrastructure owner assets (i.e. NR) to further complicate any final decision by the Sec of State. This was the problem which eventually sunk the Ryde Interchange upgrade project in 2010 (the bus station sits on NR land).

 

The FA also makes great play over the possibility of transferring operation to a third party, and to that extent, has required SWT to set up the Island Line as a separate entity within the franchise, which must declare a separate profit and loss account each year. It is the parent company however, which has been obliged to fund the consultation and project proposals and costings to date. It will also be the entity which then seeks funding from various parties, should the SofS give his blessing, and should the SofS decide not to adopt the project entirely into the DfT, or another party. There is an interesting read to be had, for those of us who led a dull life, in the section on "Risks for the SofS" in the FA. They seem very different from when I used to negotiate these things.

 

The technical/physical issues and nice-to-have, add-ons aside, I see much grumbling in the marsh, to follow.

[phil-b259]

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.

So when are you going to stump up the cash for SWR to order a tiny batch of 2 car EMUs just for the Lymington branch then.

 

Common sense is actually making the most efficient use of the assists you posses, NOT spending more than necessary simply to prove a point.

 

According to you SWR should tell some commuters currently enjoying an 8 or 12 car service that they must go back and experience overcrowding simply so they can satisfy the notion that a 3rd rail branch must have an electric train at all times.

 

Now theoretically when the suburban SWR fleet gets replacded then some 2 car 456 units will become spare and could eek out their days on the Lymington branch - just like the slam door units did. However given they lack toilets, air conditioning and 1st class accommodation they are actually a step down in quality compared to the 158s, even if they do use electric propulsion.

Edited May 6, 2018 by phil-b259

[colinreeves]

I looked up the height of the 313s and it seems they would be too high even if the tunnel was returned to its original height.

 

See Appendix One of

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2754952/A-Response-to-the-Garnett-Report.pdf

[phil-b259]

This is the tail wagging the dog, isn't it? The rail infrastructure exists, and electrification is beneficial, otherwise why bother to spend all the money? The TOC doesn't have the right mix of trains for the tracks it runs on. Therefore the investment on electrification goes to waste and unnecessary diesel pollution is generated, simply because of the inflexibility of the franchising process. Common sense has gone out of the window.

You need to remember why the Lymington branch got 3rd rail in the first place. This was NOT because the branch justified it (the passenger stats have never come close to it working as a stand alone scheme), rather it was to avoid a 'diesel island' along an otherwise electrified line and the requirement for dedicated stock rather than simply using the same kit as the mainline.

 

This is also why the Romford - Upminster line got overheads - it eliminated the final diesel operation in an otherwise electric area even if 4 car trains are overkill and spend most of their time carting fresh air around.

 

In recent times SWR, like most TOCs have seen year on year growth - unlike the year on year decline BR experienced and this has required optimisation of resources. 'Common sense' says that if you are unable to increase the amount of rolling stock you organise it to provide the best customer service you can - not stand there and say "we are not going to increase capcity on certain EMU services so that we can rigidly stick to the 3rd rail must = electric power"

 

It's no to different to FOCs preferring the go anywhere nature of diesels than time consuming and inefficient loco changes simply to make use of overheads. Again 'Common sense' for freight firms is to keep costs low and limit anything that introduces extra costs to the business.

[009 micro modeller]

See Appendix One of

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2754952/A-Response-to-the-Garnett-Report.pdf

Perhaps the figure I had included the pantograph - not present on a 508. If no dual voltage capability is needed these could be better anyway as they are slightly newer and have been upgraded with new light clusters etc. Didn't they attach some bits to a tube train at one point to check clearances for running 503s (also Merseyside units)through Ryde Tunnel?

[Mike Storey]

See Appendix One of

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2754952/A-Response-to-the-Garnett-Report.pdf

 

Very interesting - thanks. I am surprised at the low roof height of a 508. It would seem to fit on a static clearance, so the only issue would be what kinetic envelope would be acceptable. Given the existing speed restriction through the tunnel, that should not be a problem, but as with all such comparisons, the failure mode of the suspension on one side might present a difficulty. I remember such a problem with the theoretical clearances for Mk 3 coaches across the KE VII bridge, when passing each other.

 

is there any such comparative data for LT D stock available?

[locoholic]

You need to remember why the Lymington branch got 3rd rail in the first place. This was NOT because the branch justified it (the passenger stats have never come close to it working as a stand alone scheme), rather it was to avoid a 'diesel island' along an otherwise electrified line and the requirement for dedicated stock rather than simply using the same kit as the mainline.

 

This is also why the Romford - Upminster line got overheads - it eliminated the final diesel operation in an otherwise electric area even if 4 car trains are overkill and spend most of their time carting fresh air around.

 

In recent times SWR, like most TOCs have seen year on year growth - unlike the year on year decline BR experienced and this has required optimisation of resources. 'Common sense' says that if you are unable to increase the amount of rolling stock you organise it to provide the best customer service you can - not stand there and say "we are not going to increase capcity on certain EMU services so that we can rigidly stick to the 3rd rail must = electric power"

 

It's no to different to FOCs preferring the go anywhere nature of diesels than time consuming and inefficient loco changes simply to make use of overheads. Again 'Common sense' for freight firms is to keep costs low and limit anything that introduces extra costs to the business.

1. The Lymington Branch is not far from Southampton, where the line to Portsmouth remained un-electrified for many years, so your theory that the electrification was done so that the Southern Region could eliminate diesel unit working in the area does not hold.

2. If the idea of having a diesel branch to Lymington was so bad for the Southern Region, why is it suddenly fine for SWT? The geographical circumstances haven't changed.

3. The example of Romford - Upminster shows that some TOCs are prepared to devote a multi-carriage electric unit on a relatively lightly-used line. Also, it wasn't the last diesel-worked line in the area - that was Barking-Gospel Oak.

 

As I said, all this demonstrates is that the current franchise model is a poor way to run a railway, with TOCs unable to adjust their fleets to meet the requirements of the lines they are operating.

[Mike Storey]

1. The Lymington Branch is not far from Southampton, where the line to Portsmouth remained un-electrified for many years, so your theory that the electrification was done so that the Southern Region could eliminate diesel unit working in the area does not hold.

2. If the idea of having a diesel branch to Lymington was so bad for the Southern Region, why is it suddenly fine for SWT? The geographical circumstances haven't changed.

3. The example of Romford - Upminster shows that some TOCs are prepared to devote a multi-carriage electric unit on a relatively lightly-used line. Also, it wasn't the last diesel-worked line in the area - that was Barking-Gospel Oak.

 

As I said, all this demonstrates is that the current franchise model is a poor way to run a railway, with TOCs unable to adjust their fleets to meet the requirements of the lines they are operating.

 

Strange agglomeration of arguments to the same end, given that the BR Bournemouth electrification was an absolute cods of aspiration hugely compromised by both funds and then by total over-specification of the REP/TC combination, but that means franchising does not work? BR didn't fit their rolling stock to match their assets, they did the opposite (once they had decided what their preferred traction policy really was)! Or conversely, to use your Lymington analogy, how do you explain BR using 9 x very expensive HST's across the ECML electrified network, just to serve a few non-electrified extensions?

 

The GE TOC's had no option but to devote an expensive EMU to a one engine in steam branch - there was nothing else permissable. On t'other hand, TfL bought some very expensive DMU's (for their contract management TOC, not franchise, to utilise) for the GOB, only to find they were grossly insufficient, and now have to find another user with electrification of same.

 

Obviously the current franchise model doesn't work. Why else would SWR be buying 90 new Aventura units to replace the (non-life-expired) motley collection of EMU's they do not believe are adequate for their passengers. Catch BR doing that!!

 

TOCs are obviously completely able to vary their rolling stock to match demand and/or suitability (look at Greater Anglia, Trans-Pennine, ScotRail, even some parts of Northern lately). But they do it when it makes business sense (including whether the govt have allowed for it), not perfect harmony with NR's historic infrastructure. But don't look at Great Western or East Coast, where the trains have been picked by the DfT (as in shades of old BR), as that would spoil your argument.

[roythebus]

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

 

I don't think the tunnel track was raised anyway, why go to that expense? If you care to look on the "Isle of Wight Steam Railways pre-1966" group, Derek Gawn has recently posted some pics of the first tube car being delivered and clearance tested behind W24 and a match wagon. At one stage it ran around with a wooden profile of existing Island stock for checking. I haven't found a way to copy FB pics to here.

 

As an aside, the pic Derek posted of the first tube car arriving from the ferry behind a Pickfords Scammell, it turns out that Scammell has survived into preservation. the current owner was not aware of its historic connection with the Island railways.

 

Edited to add I've just read through Mark Brinton's report. I've know mark for many years as a volunteer at the IWSR. He is probably the person most qualified to comment on these matters and what he says is very sensible.

Edited May 6, 2018 by roythebus

[phil-b259]

1. The Lymington Branch is not far from Southampton, where the line to Portsmouth remained un-electrified for many years, so your theory that the electrification was done so that the Southern Region could eliminate diesel unit working in the area does not hold.

2. If the idea of having a diesel branch to Lymington was so bad for the Southern Region, why is it suddenly fine for SWT? The geographical circumstances haven't changed.

3. The example of Romford - Upminster shows that some TOCs are prepared to devote a multi-carriage electric unit on a relatively lightly-used line. Also, it wasn't the last diesel-worked line in the area - that was Barking-Gospel Oak.

 

As I said, all this demonstrates is that the current franchise model is a poor way to run a railway, with TOCs unable to adjust their fleets to meet the requirements of the lines they are operating.

 

(2) Geography may not have changed in 50 years but pretty much everything else has. Unless you have been living under a rock for the past 20 years it cannot have escaped your notice that trains have been getting busier year on year - particularly those routes close to London. If you are a TOC which only has a fixed amount of stock and the DfT does not allow an increase in fleet size when it awards the contract, then as a responsible provider of public services it is incumbent on you to arrange your resources in such a way to provide maximum benefits to passengers. Generally passengers couldn't give a rats arse what method of propulsion is used - their priorities are (i) that the train runs on time (ii) getting a seat, and (iii) in many cases the train having 'mod cons' like toilets, air conditioning, wifi and for some first class accommodation. The rolling stock adjustment on the Lymington branch provides all this and to put it bluntly, the railway is not run for enthusiasts, environmentalists or historians - it exists to move as many passengers / goods about the country as it can. The type of propulsion used is irrelevant in this context

 

(3) Firstly lets get things straight as regards timelines shall we. Romford - Upminster was electrified by British Rail back in 1986 and the diesel units were previously maintained at Stratford - which was then closed following the electrification of the Upminster and Soutminster branches. Neither branch merited electrification on a stand-alone basis nor any additional 2 / 3 car electric stock built to work them - the electric services being provided from the existing 4 car GEML fleet. Thus the ONLY justification for OLE was the ability to close a depot and ditch old rolling stock - absolutely nothing to do with a desire to provide longer trains or cleaner 'electric services'. Secondly the Gospal Oak - Barking DMU fleet was based at Bletchley with servicing undertaken at Willesden ever since the Midland mainline electrification went live in 1982 (and lost its own DMU fleet replaced) - so again the GOB route has no relevance to what a TOC can or cannot do as these decisions were made well before privatisation.

 

So in conclusion, while it may well be correct that TOCs are unable to procure different / additional train fleets as they wish under privatisation, that does not mean SWT (who first started running a 158 on the branch in place of a 450), nor their successors are doing anything wrong. Indeed they should be applauded for a bit of lateral thinking which has made additional seats available to London commuters while still maintaining a good passenger environment on the branch. Criticism of the franchising system needs to be directed to the inhabitants of Westminster and their minions in Whitehall / HM Treasury and NOT the TOCs in this case.

Edited May 6, 2018 by phil-b259

[locoholic]

Strange agglomeration of arguments to the same end, given that the BR Bournemouth electrification was an absolute cods of aspiration hugely compromised by both funds and then by total over-specification of the REP/TC combination, but that means franchising does not work? BR didn't fit their rolling stock to match their assets, they did the opposite (once they had decided what their preferred traction policy really was)! Or conversely, to use your Lymington analogy, how do you explain BR using 9 x very expensive HST's across the ECML electrified network, just to serve a few non-electrified extensions?

 

The GE TOC's had no option but to devote an expensive EMU to a one engine in steam branch - there was nothing else permissable. On t'other hand, TfL bought some very expensive DMU's (for their contract management TOC, not franchise, to utilise) for the GOB, only to find they were grossly insufficient, and now have to find another user with electrification of same.

 

Obviously the current franchise model doesn't work. Why else would SWR be buying 90 new Aventura units to replace the (non-life-expired) motley collection of EMU's they do not believe are adequate for their passengers. Catch BR doing that!!

 

TOCs are obviously completely able to vary their rolling stock to match demand and/or suitability (look at Greater Anglia, Trans-Pennine, ScotRail, even some parts of Northern lately). But they do it when it makes business sense (including whether the govt have allowed for it), not perfect harmony with NR's historic infrastructure. But don't look at Great Western or East Coast, where the trains have been picked by the DfT (as in shades of old BR), as that would spoil your argument.

Can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not. My original argument was that common sense says that running battery-powered trains on the electrified IoW line is stupid, just as running a diesel unit on the Lymington Branch is stupid. Are you trying to argue that SWR's plan to make recently-built EMUs redundant is evidence that the 21st century railway in the UK is sensibly run? If that kind of waste is OK, getting an electric unit for the Lymington line should be a doddle!

[caradoc]

Making equipment redundant after only a few years service is not solely the province of the privatised railway or the franchising system; Take the short lives of the 9Fs or Class 14s, for example. 

[Dava]

The IWSR strategy, revised in 2017, still has the aspiration of steam operation to Ryde St John's Rd station if this becomes possible.

 

http://www.iwsteamrailway.co.uk/strategic-vision.aspx

 

In a tourist economy as small as the Isle of Wight and with the proven success of the IWSR as one of the island's quality attractions, it would make sense to allow this at some point. Comparison with the NYMR running to Whitby comes to mind. Give those Ivatt locos a good run out. But would wooden bodied coaches be accepted for running on an electrified line? It seemed to work with the Metropolitan set on LUL.

[PhilJ W]

Making equipment redundant after only a few years service is not solely the province of the privatised railway or the franchising system; Take the short lives of the 9Fs or Class 14s, for example. 

Many reasons can be given for the short working lives of the 9F's, Beeching and the Clean Air Act for example. As for the class 14's, the work for which they were built evaporated as they were being built (also due to Beeching).

[Ncarter2]

Can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not. My original argument was that common sense says that running battery-powered trains on the electrified IoW line is stupid, just as running a diesel unit on the Lymington Branch is stupid. Are you trying to argue that SWR's plan to make recently-built EMUs redundant is evidence that the 21st century railway in the UK is sensibly run? If that kind of waste is OK, getting an electric unit for the Lymington line should be a doddle!

SWT and recently SWR are making use of assets available to them. Let not forget the lymington MK1’s would have been sent for scrap had SWT not decided to use them on the branch. Definitely more cost effective than ordering new units. They then got rid of the 170 turbos for replacement 158’s so they had a standard diesel fleet rather than mixed. The MK1’s being non standard on the fleet would alway eventually become a problem and I think it’s fair to say they paid their dues but needed to be replaced. So what to do? She’ll out for a brand new EMU on a very lightly used branch or with better utilisation of its fleet allocate one of the 2-cars already in the fleet, diesel or not.

 

As for getting rid of a new fleet, there has been published reasons on SWR reasons for doing so.

They are able to order a new fleet and lease them cheaper than keeping the 707’s. SWT wanted to retraction the 455’s SWR obviously don’t want to keep these units, and that is their choice.

As has been pointed out, the TOC’s are not here to please enthusiasts, or our views. They are running businesses with small margins so why shouldn’t they get the best deal available?