Isle of Wight class 483's

[BritishRail83]

Bit of fun here! How much longer do you think these units will be in service for and what do you think will replace them?

It will be interesting to read peoples ideas.

Thanks

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I think the newest stock that might replace them eventually would be 92 stock (current central line) but whatever it is it'll probably have to wait until LU withdraw stock. Is the geography of the tunnel near Ryde suitable for the tunnel to be made deeper and could the pier head section handle the weight of full sized mainline stock?

 

[Kite159]

Would the 1972 stock (currently on the Bakerloo) work on the isle of wight line (being modified to run on 3rd rail rather than 4th rail)?>

 

[BritishRail83]

I think the newest stock that might replace them eventually would be 92 stock (current central line) but whatever it is it'll probably have to wait until LU withdraw stock. Is the geography of the tunnel near Ryde suitable for the tunnel to be made deeper and could the pier head section handle the weight of full sized mainline stock?

well it did in the 60's but the pier would probably need upgrade work first.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would the 1972 stock (currently on the Bakerloo) work on the isle of wight line (being modified to run on 3rd rail rather than 4th rail)?>

They may need to have side doors fitted to the driving cabs? but i suppose they could.

 

[dosxuk]

well it did in the 60's but the pier would probably need upgrade work first.

IIRC the tunnel was raised due to regular flooding. I reckon it's more likely the route would be abandoned north of St Johns Road than the tunnel being rebuilt.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

They may need to have side doors fitted to the driving cabs? but i suppose they could.

I thought they were waiting for 1973 Stock to become available for this very reason; 73s have such doors in them already.

 

[trentside]

Bit of fun here! How much longer do you think these units will be in service for and what do you think will replace them?

I honestly hope they make it to a century of service - but I think that may be pushing it a little.

I think the most likely candidates are the 1972 or 1973 stock - most likely the latter, as its due for replacement first. The 73TS used to be one of the most reliable trains on LU (don't know whether that's still the case?) and would certainly be far more robust than the 92TS.

 

[Mikey C]

Would the 1972 stock (currently on the Bakerloo) work on the isle of wight line (being modified to run on 3rd rail rather than 4th rail)?>

The 1972 stock will be needed to keep running on the Heritage, sorry Bakerloo line for a long time to come!

 

[Train wasp]

IIRC the tunnel was raised due to regular flooding. I reckon it's more likely the route would be abandoned north of St Johns Road than the tunnel being rebuilt.

If you abandoned the line north of St Johns Road. I can't see the point in keeping the line open.

 

[ExRes]

Wire the IoW and cascade some 319s their way

 

[Chris125]

How much longer do you think these units will be in service for and what do you think will replace them?

If replacement can be justified they'll probably last until the Piccadilly fleet is replaced, before the Picc upgrade was put back SWT confirmed that they were looking at the 73TS.

Is the geography of the tunnel near Ryde suitable for the tunnel to be made deeper and could the pier head section handle the weight of full sized mainline stock?

The real issue with Ryde Tunnel is the severe reverse curve which restricts vehicle length and cant rail height - hence the use of Underground stock and the serious consideration of ex-Merseyrail 503s, both of which have 16-17m long vehicles.

As 503s were believed to fit the tunnel when considered as replacements for the Standard Stock I doubt deepening would help; according to ex-staff the bridges carrying Rink Road and Smallbrook Lane remain the greatest constraint on vehicle height.

Chris

 

[BestWestern]

Are there any current significant issues with the 483s? Or are they able, in theory, to keep going pretty much indefinitely?! One would tend to assume that after 75 years or so they must be pretty immortal! Would switching to later (albeit still very elderly) stock bring any tangible advantages? What work if any would be required in the infrastructure?

 

[Class 170101]

I'm surprised they didn't take the 1983 Stock when that was displaced off the Jubilee Line in the late 1990s.

 

[BestWestern]

Were the 483s not fairly recent still at that stage?

 

[Bedpan]

I thought that the idea has always been to run heritage stock on the island. I seem to remember that the original plan was to ship some 84XXX tanks over there and continue to run a steam hauled service after steam has finished everywhere else on BR. In fact some of them found their way as far as Eastleigh shed on 1965 or thereabouts, but the plan was shelved, presumably because of the problems with the tunnel but also on cost grounds (the two may nave been intertwined, and also the existing carriages were as life expired as the 02s that were hauling them.

 

[Chris125]

In fact some of them found their way as far as Eastleigh shed on 1965 or thereabouts, but the plan was shelved, presumably because of the problems with the tunnel but also on cost grounds (the two may nave been intertwined, and also the existing carriages were as life expired as the 02s that were hauling them.

I believe 2MTs were looked at a couple of times but realistically they'd have been a stop-gap measure pending a longer term solution - some minor modifications would've been necessary, it's not clear to what extent, but in the end they weren't required and it's questionable how realistic such ideas really were given both their condition and that of the rolling stock.

Chris

 

[davetheguard]

IIRC the tunnel was raised due to regular flooding. I reckon it's more likely the route would be abandoned north of St Johns Road than the tunnel being rebuilt.

Well, if money was no object, conversion to a tramway would make the route much more useful and accessible; you could divert through the streets of Ryde itself and close the tunnel.

Now I don't know these two towns well, but I would imagine that, by doing the same and diverting off the railway line into Sandown & Shanklin town centres, you could have much more conveniently located stops than those offered by the present station sites.

All pie in the sky of course: this is the U.K.; not continental Europe.

 

[cav1975]

The pacers might be available soon.

 

[BestWestern]

Well, if money was no object, conversion to a tramway would make the route much more useful and accessible; you could divert through the streets of Ryde itself and close the tunnel.

Now I don't know these two towns well, but I would imagine that, by doing the same and diverting off the railway line into Sandown & Shanklin town centres, you could have much more conveniently located stops than those offered by the present station sites.

All pie in the sky of course: this is the U.K.; not continental Europe.

Well, sending a tram through Ryde town centre would require some funicular action!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

If you abandoned the line north of St Johns Road. I can't see the point in keeping the line open.

Wouldn't you lose most of the passengers if you cvan't connect with the ferry at Pierhead and the hovercraft at Esplanade?

Wire the IoW and cascade some 319s their way

No need to wire - the 319s can use the 3rd rail.

 

[paul1609]

If replacement can be justified they'll probably last until the Piccadilly fleet is replaced, before the Picc upgrade was put back SWT confirmed that they were looking at the 73TS.



The real issue with Ryde Tunnel is the severe reverse curve which restricts vehicle length and cant rail height - hence the use of Underground stock and the serious consideration of ex-Merseyrail 503s, both of which have 16-17m long vehicles.

As 503s were believed to fit the tunnel when considered as replacements for the Standard Stock I doubt deepening would help; according to ex-staff the bridges carrying Rink Road and Smallbrook Lane remain the greatest constraint on vehicle height.

Chris

The real issue with Ryde tunnel I would suggest is its proximity to the sea and the fact that it still floods (closed for 3 weeks this winter). Deepening the tunnel would obviously not be an option. The section under the esplanade is really only a covered way which actually already forms a hump in the esplanade and was extensively rebuilt in 2006 after the failure of the original cast iron beams. This photo in rail engineer from last winter illustrates the problems well:
http://www.therailengineer.com/2014/02/21/island-floods/

 

[davetheguard]

Well, sending a tram through Ryde town centre would require some funicular action!

Is not quite that steep is it!?

Don't the trams in central Nottingham, and on the Manchester Metrolink Rochdale line also manage some pretty steep hills? And Sheffield; well that's all hills......

 

[Chris125]

The real issue with Ryde tunnel I would suggest is its proximity to the sea and the fact that it still floods (closed for 3 weeks this winter).

Any water ingress from the sea is dealt with by the permanent pumping equipment, flooding is usually the result of of Monktonmead Brook bursting it's banks and turning the trackbed through Ryde into a river, often causing damage which puts the railway out of operation anyway.

As for deepening the trackbed, I'm not sure there's any need if a 503 could fit and other structures remain greater restrictions on vehicle height - for example, it was the bridge at Smallbrook Lane that needed the 03s to have their cabs cut down by a few inches.

Chris

 

[AM9]

Wire the IoW and cascade some 319s their way

Why bother, it's already got 3rd rail?

 

[Monty]

If they do/can be made to fit exMerseyRail 503s would be ideal. The current stock while it has a charm of its own but the 2 car units don't half get cosy during the summer months when people start loading items such as bikes and buggies!

That said the line itself needs some major investment, there have been calls to reinstate a passing loop at Brading in order to enable a clock face timetable which could improve patronage. But the stations themselves need a thorough refurbishment. Ryde Pier Head, Esplanade and Sandown are in dire need of some TLC.

 

[Chris125]

If they do/can be made to fit exMerseyRail 503s would be ideal. The current stock while it has a charm of its own but the 2 car units don't half get cosy during the summer months when people start loading items such as bikes and buggies!

The 503s were withdrawn back in 1985 I'm afraid, and there's no comparable mainline stock around with 58ft/17m carriages.

Chris

 

[Monty]

Crap I got confused with the 508s! Haha

 

[contrex]

One would tend to assume that after 75 years or so they must be pretty immortal!

I seem to remember a thread some years ago in the uk.railway Usenet group on this topic, and a well respected Network Rail traction engineer said that a problem in the future with stock of this vintage would be that series-commutator DC motors were vanishing from the industrial scene, along with the skills and supply infrastructure necessary to maintain them. The motors on 1938 stock were LT100s which were smaller versions of the C200 motors built by Crompton for the 1936 tube stock.

 

[BestWestern]

Well, sending a tram through Ryde town centre would require some funicular action!

Is not quite that steep is it!?

Don't the trams in central Nottingham, and on the Manchester Metrolink Rochdale line also manage some pretty steep hills? And Sheffield; well that's all hills......

Ryde high st is 'very' steep indeed! I would think it is well beyond any normal tram.

 

[Monty]

Ryde high st is 'very' steep indeed! I would think it is well beyond any normal tram.

Sandown isn't much better, not as bad as Ventnor or some of the Streets in Ryde but would still make a tramway a difficult undertaking.