Island Line Railway - current state and the future

[Bletchleyite]

The pier is very old so that is not necessarily true. I am suggesting a much smaller type of ship/boat could get much closer to the coast so a jetty rather than a pier could be used. Less capacity would mean more boats and a higher service frequency would be needed but that would encourage use.

It's barely any bigger than a Thames Clipper as it is. How small do you want it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unless something from abroad is in the offing, my money is on the existing trains continuing, perhaps with another unit withdrawn for spares. Time will tell...

Spares probably aren't hard to get, on an old-fashioned no-electronics unit like that you just get a machine shop to make them for you. Might cost a few quid, but there's nowt you wouldn't be able to have made - very similar to a classic car, really.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can they be made compliant for use after 31/12/2019? A derogation could be granted for a short period but not for several years.

I don't see why not. Fitting PIS, painting handrails and the likes wouldn't be hard, and there are no toilets to convert.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Has the cost of a rebuild been considered? Would it be possible to design a simple unit using the shell and cab equipment of the 483s and avoid the complexity of modern tube trains? Something like a diesel or battery powered D train in the body of 1938 stock? Removing most of the third rail could potentially make a major contribution reducing the subsidy.

I did wonder if, as I said upthread, Boston Lodge or somewhere could build, say, three one-off units using old-style technology that would last another 50 years or so. A third rail Parry People Mover minus the flywheel, that kind of thing.

 

[Chris M]

Yes they could. Tornado proves that things like this can be done.
The question is whether that would be cheaper and/or better value than nearly off-the-shelf modern stock.

 

[Chris125]

I have addressed the points about bus speed, prams and luggage before. A properly designed bus layout, busway and priority system would solve them.

No interior layout can address the real (and perceived) issues - a relatively long train with lots of large, wide doorways will always be easier for people carrying luggage, prams and bikes too.

A 'priority scheme' without any details of what, where and how much quicker is meaningless - they *can* reduce journey times but I struggle to see how they'd make much difference on the Island especially between Ryde and Shanklin; a bus will always take considerably longer especially in summer with so much traffic.

It is subsidising a piece of infrastructure which is soley used to connect to one company's service and that is a liability not an asset.

It is subsidising a piece of infrastructure that provides the quickest, cheapest, most reliable connection between mainland railway services and a sizeable proportion of the Island's population and two of it's principal tourist destinations - a significant asset to the railway and the local economy.

Can they be made compliant for use after 31/12/2019? A derogation could be granted for a short period but not for several years.

Can't recall it ever being cited as an issue, not sure it even applies.

Has the cost of a rebuild been considered? Would it be possible to design a simple unit using the shell and cab equipment of the 483s and avoid the complexity of modern tube trains? Something like a diesel or battery powered D train in the body of 1938 stock? Removing most of the third rail could potentially make a major contribution reducing the subsidy.

How would removing all, let alone 'most', of the third rail reduce the subsidy?

The cost of adapting the railway, it's depot and workforce for diesel or battery operation would surely far outstrip anything the 3rd rail infrastructure requires - all to run trains which are more expensive to buy, more expensive to run, probably less reliable, and whose extra weight will increase maintenance costs and may make the current timetable and a future half-hourly service impossible.

No-one seriously suggests de-electrifying mainland branches so it's bizarre this crops up so often.

 

[birchesgreen]

It would seem, as road transport converts to electric, to de-electrify a line that has been so for decades would be rather odd. But then again we do live in strange times...

 

[Chester1]

It crops up because at some point the electrical equipment will be life expired and need replacing. For most railways this is not an issue but it will be another multi million pound bill to keep the Island line running. Diesel would be a step backwards but battery power would not be and maybe cheaper over the life time of the stock.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Apart from the track gauge being different, would stock like what's used on the Glasgow subway fit in the tunnels? According to the Wikipedia page for the Glasgow Subway, their stock is due for replacement soon, so if it would fit, apart from the track gauge, could they team up and put together a joint order with just the track gauge being different to suit each one?

 

[Monty]

Apart from the track gauge being different, would stock like what's used on the Glasgow subway fit in the tunnels? According to the Wikipedia page for the Glasgow Subway, their stock is due for replacement soon, so if it would fit, apart from the track gauge, could they team up and put together a joint order with just the track gauge being different to suit each one?

The new Glasgow subway trains are bespoke and will be driverless. Not really an option for the island with current infrastructure.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think there are some 67 cars at Acton that are due for scrapping soon? Probably not enough though.

They could have used 67s any time if suitable, but SWT have stated publicly that they were considered and found not to be suitable. I have already posted this a couple of times in this thread.

 

[swt_passenger]

Is there a practical reason why the hovercraft runs from Southsea and not closer to the centre of Portsmouth

It is run from Southsea beach for two main reasons.
One is they can run up a sloped beach onto a concrete hardstanding at any state of the tide. I doubt the facility can be easily replicated within the harbour, at least anywhere near the entrance.
Secondly, they are not constrained by the speed restrictions and traffic separation systems within the harbour entrance. I also suspect that running at slow speed through the harbour entrance they'd be affected badly by strong winds, making navigation difficult. Running a direct straight line route from Ryde to Southsea with almost all the journey at high speed is their main selling point, entering the harbour would slow them down considerably.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It is subsidising a piece of infrastructure that provides the quickest, cheapest, most reliable connection between mainland railway services and a sizeable proportion of the Island's population and two of it's principal tourist destinations - a significant asset to the railway and the local economy.

Is it not the ferries themselves that provide a connection between mainland railway services and the Isle of Wight. Or is the pier itself a hidden mode of transport unknown to mere mortals.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The new Glasgow subway trains are bespoke and will be driverless. Not really an option for the island with current infrastructure.

Though presumably the bodyshells could be a basis for new stock, with a few adjustments made? After all, the original DLR units had cabs fitted when they were sold to Essen...

 

[birchesgreen]

They could have used 67s any time if suitable, but SWT have stated publicly that they were considered and found not to be suitable. I have already posted this a couple of times in this thread.

Yes apologies for missing it in a 600+ post thread.

Though presumably the bodyshells could be a basis for new stock, with a few adjustments made? After all, the original DLR units had cabs fitted when they were sold to Essen...

I was under the impression the new stock will be delivered with cabs for ATO and will switch to full driverless later. This not right then?

 

[Chris125]

It crops up because at some point the electrical equipment will be life expired and need replacing. For most railways this is not an issue but it will be another multi million pound bill to keep the Island line running. Diesel would be a step backwards but battery power would not be and maybe cheaper over the life time of the stock.

Battery powered trains still need electricity and the infrastructure to supply it - the only thing you really avoid is the 3rd rail itself for the sake of heavier, slower trains that require regular replacement batteries and whose charging may well make a reliable two train/half hourly service impossible.

All this does is replace one multi-million pound bill with another, while increasing operating costs for a worse service. Not sensible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If (and it's unlikely) there was going to be a custom build by Stadler (based on the cheaper GTW rather than the FLIRT), it could be built with modular power units as a DEMU, which could later have engines removed and batteries added as technology improved. But the cost of that is likely to be prohibitive even though Stadler are well geared-up to produce small builds of custom units.

But if the third rail isn't life expired or wouldn't be too costly to fix, it might as well be kept, there's no great problem with having it.

 

[Dstock7080]

I think there are some 67 cars at Acton that are due for scrapping soon? Probably not enough though.

Just 2 ‘67 DM cars remain at Acton for ERU use, all other ‘67/‘72s recently sent for scrapping.

 

[HSTEd]

It crops up because at some point the electrical equipment will be life expired and need replacing. For most railways this is not an issue but it will be another multi million pound bill to keep the Island line running. Diesel would be a step backwards but battery power would not be and maybe cheaper over the life time of the stock.

Doubtful, the line's electrical demands likely place it is firmly in the region where tram supply gear would be easily sufficient.
And probably not very high power tram gear at that.

This is off the shelf commodity stuff that can be had at remarkably low cost.
It is also likely that the route does not require sophisticated sectioning arrangements.

 

[bramling]

Just 2 ‘67 DM cars remain at Acton for ERU use, all other ‘67/‘72s recently sent for scrapping.

Are there any cars still remaining stored at Eastleigh? Having been keeping a loose track, I'm given to believe most or all such cars have now been scrapped, but there may still be a very small number hanging on?

Apart from that, there are two cars at Hainault which are basically derelict - although one of these was actually seriously considered for use in making up two extra trains for the Bakerloo Line, an idea which has since been dropped.

I think there may still be a 4-car 67 stock at London Road Depot, gradually rusting itself to the rails one suspects?

This all gives scope for 3x 4-car trains in theory, albeit with a lot of issues to overcome along the way. I'm still struggling to see benefit over the current 38 stock, except as a last resort if push comes to shove.

 

[bramling]

Great response - a policy of keeping those 38's going for a bit more time ,(maybe with a bit less mileage on them? ) - reduced operations in Winter - might just be a compromise ....I assume the stores at Acton / Golders Green etc have long been stripped of any useful spares ...! ?

Definitely no spares still kept on the Northern Line! There must be some supply of spares for the LT Museum's 38 stock, but following the withdrawal of the weed killing and tunnel cleaning trains this is now the only operational 38 stock on LU, with the exception of the Cravens Heritage Trains unit trailer car, if one can call that really operational.

I think a reduction in mileage for the IOW's 38 stock has already been happening, based on what appears to be a very considerable reduction in the amount of 4-car working. A decade ago 4-cars was standard practice on summer Saturdays, and normally there would be at least one 4-car running about in the week too in the summer.

With less and less 4-car working, it should be quite possible to reduce to four units - 50% availability most of the time, but still giving the ability to run 4-car trains on the very busiest days albeit at the risk of requiring 100% availability. It does put the railway at risk of being unable to cope with demand spikes though, but it does keep the day job ticking over, so to speak.

I can't see what else can realistically happen. Imported stock aside, the next good option for second-hand LU stock will probably be the 73 stock, and that could well be five to ten years away yet.

I don't see why the electrification system is a make-or-break issue. We're talking about a high tension feed which IIRC comes into Ryde St. John's Road, three pretty small substations the cost of which can't be massive, a cable route from Ryde to Sandown, and a control system which IIRC works to Eastleigh. Like with the 38 stock, can anyone give a definitive answer as to how much of this infrastructure is or is approaching being "life expired"?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Apologies if this repeats something 'up thread' but I have always been struck by the fact that the erstwhile Ryde Pier tramway (parallel to the railway) used many forms of traction.

Horses were supplanted by steam, then Siemens electrics. When these were life expired that decisive Southern Railway manager, Herbert Walker, no less, took the bold decision to de-electrify and go for petrol. The petrol engines were subsequently swapped for diesels.

So 'retro' traction changes on the island are nothing new.

 

[hooverboy]

Battery powered trains still need electricity and the infrastructure to supply it - the only thing you really avoid is the 3rd rail itself for the sake of heavier, slower trains that require regular replacement batteries and whose charging may well make a reliable two train/half hourly service impossible.

All this does is replace one multi-million pound bill with another, while increasing operating costs for a worse service. Not sensible.

not necessarily.in the case of IOW line, it's only about 9 miles from end to end, with something like 10 minute dwell time at each terminus.
with new lithium tantanite battery technology the range is potentially very good and the recharge time also equally respectable.you could feasibly just use a stretch of third rail at ryde and shanklin to recharge and nothing else in between.if they want to play really safe then an onboard 2L diesel powering a flywheel/alternator to keep the power up.even a rolls royce LNG micro-turbine would wor!..they weigh about 300kg and can produce 500BHP(as compared to 3-5 tonnes per car for similar powered diesel), more than enough for a 2 car fully loaded passenger setup for 60MPH.
..should not be too hard to source enough fuel from milford haven.

primary objectives being keep the weight down,mechanical parts to a minimum,electronics basic but functional, and bodywork/externals resistant to salt/seawater corrosion.

maybe IOW can earn it's keep as a test track for new technology.TBH i am very excited about some of the new VLR projects coming on stream.this sort of stuff would be absolutely ideal for the island line as a proving ground.

think parry people mover on steroids.2 car unit, weight 50T,length 15-18m per car,height 10-11",capacity 100,rated speed 100kmh(60mph),acceleration 1m/s*2.can be configured to disability compliant....flip-up seats in bay where toilets/cycles/wheelchairs can be used.
maybe 4 wheel front/rear driving bogies with central articulated set.

lots of rural branch lines could work this with a lot less rail wear than pacers presently do.

I think 153 are basically dead now,but a cut down pacer might sill have some use.as long as it gets 1/3 ,2/3 doors,and a foot chopped off the roof.that's why I think 313 is actually quite a good frame to start with...will be able to pick them up for pennies once they go of lease.just mill the wheels down from standard 3'9" bogie to 3"..you lose 10mph but would be totally adequate

 

[bramling]

not necessarily.in the case of IOW line, it's only about 9 miles from end to end, with something like 10 minute dwell time at each terminus.
with new lithium tantanite battery technology the range is potentially very good and the recharge time also equally respectable.you could feasibly just use a stretch of third rail at ryde and shanklin to recharge and nothing else in between.if they want to play really safe then an onboard 2L diesel powering a flywheel/alternator to keep the power up.even a rolls royce LNG micro-turbine would wor!..they weigh about 300kg and can produce 500BHP(as compared to 3-5 tonnes per car for similar powered diesel), more than enough for a 2 car fully loaded passenger setup for 60MPH.
..should not be too hard to source enough fuel from milford haven.

primary objectives being keep the weight down,mechanical parts to a minimum,electronics basic but functional, and bodywork/externals resistant to salt/seawater corrosion.

maybe IOW can earn it's keep as a test track for new technology

Still need the cost of some substations though, that's the expensive part of a 3rd-rail electrification. If it would be possible to get it down to just one substation then this may help the case. Slight issue with positioning it though - the obvious place is at a terminus, but that's not where the depot is. The existing traction supply comes in at Ryde St. John's Road.

 

[Chester1]

Still need the cost of some substations though, that's the expensive part of a 3rd-rail electrification. If it would be possible to get it down to just one substation then this may help the case. Slight issue with positioning it though - the obvious place is at a terminus, but that's not where the depot is. The existing traction supply comes in at Ryde St. John's Road.

Ryde St Johns to the Esplanade (or the pier if the government decides to pay to keep it usable for another 30+ years) would probably be need to be third rail anyway to provide enough time to recharge. A cable from St Johns Road to Lake and third rail to Shanklin might work potentially??? We need to do a proper test of battery trains somewhere and the investment could be justified through the national benefit. Sheffield tram train project would not have gained intial funding let alone keep it after numerous overspends if it was not a test project for potential schemes across the UK.

 

[Chris M]

It is subsidising a piece of infrastructure which is soley used to connect to one company's service and that is a liability not an asset.

You mean in the same way that public roads used only to connect to one company's place of business are "subsidised" or bus lanes that are used only by one bus company are "subsidised"?
Or perhaps you were thinking of the way that Network Rail "subsidises" the infrastructure leading to only only one company's place of business at Stanstead Airport, etc.

 

[Chester1]

Public roads connect millions of people to millions of locations. Stansted is 2/3rds owned by the Greater Manchester councils (along with Manchester Airport, East Midlands and Bournemouth) so thats a bad example. Airports have a range of opperators so one company is not the sole beneficiary. Bus lanes used by one company would be a subsidy. That is one reason why I support local control of bus services. If a busway system was built for IoW then Vectis should be charged for use along with any other bus or coach opperator. Any system that was worth government funding to build would improve services and revanue that the opperator(s) would be prepared to pay. If Wightlink was prepared to make a financial contribution to retaining the train service to its terminal then I wouldn't object to it.

Side stepping the issue of whether the government should fund the cost of maintaining the current service for another 30+ years, do you think they will?

 

[DT611]

If a busway system was built for IoW then Vectis should be charged for use along with any other bus or coach opperator. Any system that was worth government funding to build would improve services and revanue that the opperator(s) would be prepared to pay.

we cannot simply say that revenue would or wouldn't increase over all with a busway system on the IOW. It may and it may not, and unless the government look into it (probably unlikely) and some figures are released, it's a guessing game. we also can't say without some actual information that the operators would be willing to pay to use the system when already existing roads can be used. Unless you are going to force them to use it (good luck with that one)

If Wightlink was prepared to make a financial contribution to retaining the train service to its terminal then I wouldn't object to it.

Your objections may not really be valid though. Unless it's the case wightlink own the railway part of the pier as well as the road part. If they don't own it then it's not their infrastructure to pay for.

 

[Chris125]

Ryde St Johns to the Esplanade (or the pier if the government decides to pay to keep it usable for another 30+ years) would probably be need to be third rail anyway to provide enough time to recharge. A cable from St Johns Road to Lake and third rail to Shanklin might work potentially???

If your going to retain the third rail at either end you might as well keep the rest, avoiding the need for batteries altogether - if someone wants to test them they can do so but that doesn't require removing the third rail.

 

[Chester1]

Ok, I give up! The government will definately pay for a like for like replacement of everything to maintain the current service indefinately and that is without question absoutely the best solution for both the IoW and the UK taxpayer...