Island Line Railway - current state and the future

[Monty]

So the floating inspector will be on one of the 2 trains running, but BTP will be hanging about to board at any station as required? This isn't going to reduce costs at all.

Not sure how you could do it anyway, there is no BTP presence on the island...

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you've only got 2 units out you might as well just have staff[1] on them flogging tickets. A revenue squad to issue PFs would require at least two members (due to the assault risk) so why not choose the option that provides better customer service?

[1] I hesitate to say "guards" as there are a few options there with regard to door operation that may be preferable to the traditional model.

 

[Rick1984]

Everyone saying 2 car units, but unless you plan to double up I would say 3 car would be better. Especially if your putting in a generous bike/disabled area.
They used to be 3 and 4 cars so shouldn't cause any problems.

 

[pompeyfan]

Everyone saying 2 car units, but unless you plan to double up I would say 3 car would be better. Especially if your putting in a generous bike/disabled area.
They used to be 3 and 4 cars so shouldn't cause any problems.

Apart from the initial cost, would there be large financial ongoing costs having permanent 4 car units? You’d assume they’d need more energy to move them, and you’ve also got more components to maintain, as well as additional track wear, but would that then make it financially unviable?

 

[A0]

Everyone saying 2 car units, but unless you plan to double up I would say 3 car would be better. Especially if your putting in a generous bike/disabled area.
They used to be 3 and 4 cars so shouldn't cause any problems.

If you mean the D78s - they operated as 3 / 6 car units, not 4.

It's certainly true that the original underground stock on the Island operated a 3 / 4 car units, but don't forget at least half a car was lost with the electrical equipment housing. It's one of the reason the '38 stock could be shorter - 48 seats / coach, compared to 30-35 on the original stock.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Totally unsuitable! The very tiny loading gauge of the Glasgow Underground makes them very cramped indeed.

That would at least bring down the cost of the tunnel to the mainland...

If you mean the D78s - they operated as 3 / 6 car units, not 4.

It's certainly true that the original underground stock on the Island operated a 3 / 4 car units, but don't forget at least half a car was lost with the electrical equipment housing. It's one of the reason the '38 stock could be shorter - 48 seats / coach, compared to 30-35 on the original stock.

The old 485/486s even used to run as 7-car sets in the high season: a 3-VEC and 4-TIS (may have those the wrong way round) becoming a 7-VECTIS (see what they did there?).

 

[ChiefPlanner]

That would at least bring down the cost of the tunnel to the mainland...


The old 485/486s even used to run as 7-car sets in the high season: a 3-VEC and 4-TIS (may have those the wrong way round) becoming a 7-VECTIS (see what they did there?).

This Glasgow Subway stock comes up in this debate rather too often. I suspect they are completely shot , and as the OP says , very cramped.

 

[Dr Hoo]

This Glasgow Subway stock comes up in this debate rather too often. I suspect they are completely shot , and as the OP says , very cramped.

Quite! Totally useless for luggage. They have never worked in the open air either. Given their 'Victoria Line original-style' automatic operation they have never been used to being 'driven' any distance in a conventional sense.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

This Glasgow Subway stock comes up in this debate rather too often. I suspect they are completely shot , and as the OP says , very cramped.

I know... It was a tongue-in-cheek comment, hence the winky!

 

[Chris125]

Apart from the initial cost, would there be large financial ongoing costs having permanent 4 car units? You’d assume they’d need more energy to move them, and you’ve also got more components to maintain, as well as additional track wear, but would that then make it financially unviable?

4-car trains would be awkward for the depot, and extravagant for 99% of services. 3 would be a good compromise IMO.

 

[Rick1984]

Yes was refering to the VEC,TIS units

It's certainly true that the original underground stock on the Island operated a 3 / 4 car units, but don't forget at least half a car was lost with the electrical equipment housing.

Good point about engine compartment

 

[A0]

4-car trains would be awkward for the depot, and extravagant for 99% of services. 3 would be a good compromise IMO.

Probably not necessary - they reckon seating of 114 on a 2 car set - that's 15% more than the 483s - and they're more spacious by design.

 

[MarkyT]

Probably not necessary - they reckon seating of 114 on a 2 car set - that's 15% more than the 483s - and they're more spacious by design.

With a more attractive service in many respects, it might be prudent to plan for some growth in patronage. A 3-car standard train would probably also mean no need to double up in the summer, while retaining the ability to walk through the entire train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With a more attractive service in many respects, it might be prudent to plan for some growth in patronage. A 3-car standard train would probably also mean no need to double up in the summer, while retaining the ability to walk through the entire train.

3-car would keep it simple - they would just need three units, same as the Marston Vale. The Tube style layout would allow a large standing load in summer if necessary.

 

[A0]

3-car would keep it simple - they would just need three units, same as the Marston Vale. The Tube style layout would allow a large standing load in summer if necessary.

But causes operational difficulties at the depot - which is why the 483s were configured as 2 car to be couple up to 4 or 6 car at busy times. Apparently it was considered making the 483s 3 car when they were being introduced back it the late 80s - but the depot contraints meant it wasn't pursued.

 

[A0]

With a more attractive service in many respects, it might be prudent to plan for some growth in patronage. A 3-car standard train would probably also mean no need to double up in the summer, while retaining the ability to walk through the entire train.

The only likely service change would be back to every half hour rather than the 20 / 40 split they currently have, but given the high point of usage back in 2006 was 1.6m journeys which the 483s coped with, it's difficult to see where additional use will come from that would justify adding over 50% capacity to every train - which is what going for 3 car units would do.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only likely service change would be back to every half hour rather than the 20 / 40 split they currently have, but given the high point of usage back in 2006 was 1.6m journeys which the 483s coped with, it's difficult to see where additional use will come from that would justify adding over 50% capacity to every train - which is what going for 3 car units would do.

I think there's a potential for huge growth when it looks vaguely modern instead of being a preserved line/graveyard for old Tube stock. (Yes, I know D78s are old Tube stock, but not, once they've had the D-train treatment, in anything like the same way).

The other thing they need to do is team up with Vectis to have one ticketing system for the island and stop pointlessly competing with each other - there just aren't enough passengers there for that competition to have any advantage. Through tickets from the mainland could be changed to being issued to a single destination for anywhere on the IoW (or even via PlusBus) rather than being separate for rail and bus.

 

[A0]

I think there's a potential for huge growth when it looks vaguely modern instead of being a preserved line/graveyard for old Tube stock. (Yes, I know D78s are old Tube stock, but not, once they've had the D-train treatment, in anything like the same way).

The other thing they need to do is team up with Vectis to have one ticketing system for the island and stop pointlessly competing with each other - there just aren't enough passengers there for that competition to have any advantage. Through tickets from the mainland could be changed to being issued to a single destination for anywhere on the IoW (or even via PlusBus) rather than being separate for rail and bus.

What do you mean by "huge" growth - and does that justify a 50% + increase in capacity?

Here's an example for you though - take Congleton in Cheshire - in the early / mid 00's it had a roughly 2 hourly service to Manchester and Stoke.

Post the WCML modernisation it now has an hourly service - bearing in mind it's got Manchester at one end and Stoke at the other end of the service - so significant destinations in their own right.

It's got a population of c 25,000 - and the growth it's seen between 2012 and 2017 is 25%.

Ryde has a similar population (24,000) , the train service has long been 2 tph (OK you can argue about the pattern, but still far more frequent) and it's usage has dropped by almost the same as Congleton's has increased.

Put simply - even if you got a 25% improvement in use it would only return you to circa 2012 figures and even then the trains weren't exactly overcrowded.

A 2 car D train has higher capacity than a 2 car 483 to begin with - about 10% more - so how can you justify a 50% + increase ?

 

[MarkyT]

The only likely service change would be back to every half hour rather than the 20 / 40 split they currently have, but given the high point of usage back in 2006 was 1.6m journeys which the 483s coped with, it's difficult to see where additional use will come from that would justify adding over 50% capacity to every train - which is what going for 3 car units would do.

On the other hand the additional centre car would be a comparatively cheap simple trailer vehicle, and the driver motors at each probably quite powerful with their new traction motors and control gear so able to handle the additional load. The main workshop shed looks long enough. There's another siding that might be extended and the siding alongside the platform and the headshunt look like they could both hold the entire fleet. Having a single 3-car walk through unit instead of two coupled units in the summer peak simplifies revenue control and allows passengers a better chance of finding a seat. As Bletchleyite says the clean, bright and more spacious carriages with modern facilities will be an attraction in their own right. For the casual observer these will appear brand new. The 30 minute interval service will also be more memorable and thus attractive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A 2 car D train has higher capacity than a 2 car 483 to begin with - about 10% more - so how can you justify a 50% + increase ?

Do it now or you probably won't be able to do it in future - once all the D-stock is either 230s (etc) or scrapped that's your lot.

And we have...
- A significant material increase in service quality ("new" stock, smoother ride, tarted-up stations, memorable and more useful frequency....)
- A load of publicity about same
- An increase in the willingness of young people not to own cars
- An increase in British holidaying, even more so with Brexit

Also, 3 cars will be operationally easier than 2x2 as the guard[1] will be able to move throughout the train to do revenue etc.

[1] For an isolated line like this there is really no case at all for DOO. Door operation methods have options (I favour, as in most other locations, driver open and guard close/dispatch), but if you had a revenue squad you'd need *more* staff than you'd need guards flogging tickets, and you'd probably have more fare dodging then too.

 

[pompeyfan]

Do it now or you probably won't be able to do it in future - once all the D-stock is either 230s (etc) or scrapped that's your lot.

And we have...
- A significant material increase in service quality ("new" stock, smoother ride, tarted-up stations, memorable and more useful frequency....)
- A load of publicity about same
- An increase in the willingness of young people not to own cars
- An increase in British holidaying, even more so with Brexit

Also, 3 cars will be operationally easier than 2x2 as the guard[1] will be able to move throughout the train to do revenue etc.

[1] For an isolated line like this there is really no case at all for DOO. Door operation methods have options (I favour, as in most other locations, driver open and guard close/dispatch), but if you had a revenue squad you'd need *more* staff than you'd need guards flogging tickets, and you'd probably have more fare dodging then too.

Completely agree. 3 car and job done, future proof as well.

 

[A0]

Do it now or you probably won't be able to do it in future - once all the D-stock is either 230s (etc) or scrapped that's your lot.

And we have...
- A significant material increase in service quality ("new" stock, smoother ride, tarted-up stations, memorable and more useful frequency....)
- A load of publicity about same
- An increase in the willingness of young people not to own cars
- An increase in British holidaying, even more so with Brexit

Also, 3 cars will be operationally easier than 2x2 as the guard[1] will be able to move throughout the train to do revenue etc.

[1] For an isolated line like this there is really no case at all for DOO. Door operation methods have options (I favour, as in most other locations, driver open and guard close/dispatch), but if you had a revenue squad you'd need *more* staff than you'd need guards flogging tickets, and you'd probably have more fare dodging then too.

All wibble.

Sorry - even IF you got a 25% increase in use you'd still be below 2012 where 2 car 483s were more than sufficient.

There's no evidence of British holiday habits being affected by Brexit - the tired old argument was that the devalued pound made it less attractive - except the pound has largely recovered its value and against the dollar is now higher than it was for the 2016 average

The young not driving is a misleading, one off stat, that was doing the rounds last year - "A more detailed look at the government stats explains this discrepancy with instructors’ experiences. The latest figures, for January to March this year, show a 20% rise in practical tests since the same period last year. A consistent 46% of candidates were aged 17-20 (80% were under 31). The 2008 recession put the brakes on demand – which explains why the 10-year trend looks grim. But numbers are now on an upwards trajectory and returned to pre-recession levels for the first time this year."

https://www.theguardian.com/money/s...e-british-teenagers-stopped-learning-to-drive

Part of the objective with the Island Line will be to reduce costs - which given its subsidy of over £ 4 / per passenger trip - means flights of fancy about adding carriages which aren't necessary and add to the running costs are misplaced.

 

[A0]

On the other hand the additional centre car would be a comparatively cheap simple trailer vehicle, and the driver motors at each probably quite powerful with their new traction motors and control gear so able to handle the additional load. The main workshop shed looks long enough. There's another siding that might be extended and the siding alongside the platform and the headshunt look like they could both hold the entire fleet. Having a single 3-car walk through unit instead of two coupled units in the summer peak simplifies revenue control and allows passengers a better chance of finding a seat. As Bletchleyite says the clean, bright and more spacious carriages with modern facilities will be an attraction in their own right. For the casual observer these will appear brand new. The 30 minute interval service will also be more memorable and thus attractive.

You evidently didn't read my earlier post:

"[3 cars] But causes operational difficulties at the depot - which is why the 483s were configured as 2 car to be couple up to 4 or 6 car at busy times. Apparently it was considered making the 483s 3 car when they were being introduced back it the late 80s - but the depot constraints meant it wasn't pursued."

And I believe the D78 car lengths are longer than the 483s are - so if 3 car 483s were problematic, 3 car D78s will be even more so.

 

[The Ham]

All wibble.

Sorry - even IF you got a 25% increase in use you'd still be below 2012 where 2 car 483s were more than sufficient.

There's no evidence of British holiday habits being affected by Brexit - the tired old argument was that the devalued pound made it less attractive - except the pound has largely recovered its value and against the dollar is now higher than it was for the 2016 average

The young not driving is a misleading, one off stat, that was doing the rounds last year - "A more detailed look at the government stats explains this discrepancy with instructors’ experiences. The latest figures, for January to March this year, show a 20% rise in practical tests since the same period last year. A consistent 46% of candidates were aged 17-20 (80% were under 31). The 2008 recession put the brakes on demand – which explains why the 10-year trend looks grim. But numbers are now on an upwards trajectory and returned to pre-recession levels for the first time this year."

https://www.theguardian.com/money/s...e-british-teenagers-stopped-learning-to-drive

Part of the objective with the Island Line will be to reduce costs - which given its subsidy of over £ 4 / per passenger trip - means flights of fancy about adding carriages which aren't necessary and add to the running costs are misplaced.

Having a driving license does not mean that people are car owners. For instance there's two people in my household with a driving licence.

I also have a family member who lives in a household of two people and although they share a car neither normally use it to drive to work (again two driving licenses).

 

[MarkyT]

You evidently didn't read my earlier post:

"[3 cars] But causes operational difficulties at the depot - which is why the 483s were configured as 2 car to be couple up to 4 or 6 car at busy times. Apparently it was considered making the 483s 3 car when they were being introduced back it the late 80s - but the depot constraints meant it wasn't pursued."

And I believe the D78 car lengths are longer than the 483s are - so if 3 car 483s were problematic, 3 car D78s will be even more so.

I did read your post. A 3-car D-train is just under 55m long. I was wrong. Such a unit would not fit, fully under cover, inside the current workshop building. As to future requirements, it depends on what work will be done there. I doubt they will need capacity for two sets being worked on simultaneously inside the shed while two more are stabled outside and another sits on the outer siding. One of the depot roads at least could be repurposed as a running shed /stabling siding and a short extension of the shed (say 10-15m) might be added if considered necessary. Another two units might be stabled on the long siding between the shed and the nearest platform, extending under the road bridge. The headshunt could hold two units at its extremity while still being able to shunt at the station end. The work required on the new stock is likely be less extensive than the comprehensive strip downs and refurbs that have been carried out there, and the total number of units will inevitably be smaller, especially with 3 car sets not needing to be doubled up in the summer. Vivarail maintenance and module exchange procedures are supposedly designed to not even require a pit, so the depot facilities might be simplified. I'm sure it could be adapted easily for a fleet of say three or four 3-car units. It may need some minor track layout reconfiguration clearly but it seems doable to me.

 

[A0]

I did read your post. A 3-car D-train is just under 55m long. I was wrong. Such a unit would not fit, fully under cover, inside the current workshop building. As to future requirements, it depends on what work will be done there. I doubt they will need capacity for two sets being worked on simultaneously inside the shed while two more are stabled outside and another sits on the outer siding. One of the depot roads at least could be repurposed as a running shed /stabling siding and a short extension of the shed (say 10-15m) might be added if considered necessary. Another two units might be stabled on the long siding between the shed and the nearest platform, extending under the road bridge. The headshunt could hold two units at its extremity while still being able to shunt at the station end. The work required on the new stock is likely be less extensive than the comprehensive strip downs and refurbs that have been carried out there, and the total number of units will inevitably be smaller, especially with 3 car sets not needing to be doubled up in the summer. Vivarail maintenance and module exchange procedures are supposedly designed to not even require a pit, so the depot facilities might be simplified. I'm sure it could be adapted easily for a fleet of say three or four 3-car units. It may need some minor track layout reconfiguration clearly but it seems doable to me.

Probably a better question is what's the plan for Ryde St John's in general.

If, as has been suggested before, the Island Line became a single track, with the second line between Smallbrook & St John's being used by the steam railway - then that will be the 'western' line and platform (which from Google Earth appears to be Platform 1). This would leave platforms 2 and 3 for the mainline railway. The steam railway will require some form of headshunt or ability to run around on the grounds they won't want to be top & tail working as that will be uneconomic. If you extend beyond the end of P1 there might be space to put something there, but then that would probably want to take the alignment of the headshunt into P3 as the running line, splitting to serve both P2 and 3.

 

[MarkyT]

Part of the objective with the Island Line will be to reduce costs - which given its subsidy of over £ 4 / per passenger trip - means flights of fancy about adding carriages which aren't necessary and add to the running costs are misplaced.

One way of reducing overall costs is to increase revenue by attracting more riders. An additional non powered, non driving trailer car in each unit is likely to require comparatively little maintenance and will represent a fairly small increment in both capital and running costs. It will certainly be cheaper than two additional complete units to strengthen summer services that lie idle most of the year.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One way of reducing overall costs is to increase revenue by attracting more riders. An additional non powered, non driving trailer car in each unit is likely to require comparatively little maintenance and will represent a fairly small increment in both capital and running costs. It will certainly be cheaper than two additional complete units to strengthen summer services that lie idle most of the year.

And compared to the price of the rest of the work, a new depot "shed" would be cheap.

3 x 3-car units is what is needed in my view. One spare, two running. Obviously rotate them round.

 

[MarkyT]

Probably a better question is what's the plan for Ryde St John's in general.

If, as has been suggested before, the Island Line became a single track, with the second line between Smallbrook & St John's being used by the steam railway - then that will be the 'western' line and platform (which from Google Earth appears to be Platform 1). This would leave platforms 2 and 3 for the mainline railway. The steam railway will require some form of headshunt or ability to run around on the grounds they won't want to be top & tail working as that will be uneconomic. If you extend beyond the end of P1 there might be space to put something there, but then that would probably want to take the alignment of the headshunt into P3 as the running line, splitting to serve both P2 and 3.

I agree an integrated plan is necessary, but it might be better perhaps if the steam railway built an entirely separate facility in the old yard to the south west, perhaps extending to a headshunt behind the signalbox near where the old steam depot was (but not impinging on any current parking spaces) :
https://maps.nls.uk/view/105990358#zoom=6&lat=1250&lon=3747&layers=BT
They would have space for a platform track, run-round, and perhaps a sidings or two alongside.

 

[DelW]

Probably a better question is what's the plan for Ryde St John's in general.

If, as has been suggested before, the Island Line became a single track, with the second line between Smallbrook & St John's being used by the steam railway - then that will be the 'western' line and platform (which from Google Earth appears to be Platform 1). This would leave platforms 2 and 3 for the mainline railway. The steam railway will require some form of headshunt or ability to run around on the grounds they won't want to be top & tail working as that will be uneconomic. If you extend beyond the end of P1 there might be space to put something there, but then that would probably want to take the alignment of the headshunt into P3 as the running line, splitting to serve both P2 and 3.

Why would the mainline railway need two platforms at St Johns, if the service becomes half hourly with all trains crossing at a reinstated Brading loop?