Island Line Railway - current state and the future

[hwl]

But 73 stock availability keeps being pushed right...

Indeed currently 2023 which does fit any of the IoW plans...

 

[swt_passenger]

Indeed currently 2023 which does fit any of the IoW plans...

... and Bakerloo even later, but to the best of my knowledge it was never actually under as formal consideration as Piccadilly.

 

[hooverboy]

Much of this thread is already about whether or not D78s will fit, links to various information sources have already been made suggesting they will fit.

Likewise Piccadilly stock has been routinely mentioned as the likely solution for quite a few years, not least in this thread, but also a few times by SWT, it came up in their web chats a couple of times. But 73 stock availability keeps being pushed right...

as has been mentioned on here before...it's not just about static dimensions, but about throw as well, so you need to add a good 6-9 inches each side for clearance once the suspension starts bouncing around.

SWR saying replacements within 2 years almost eliminates 72/73 deep tube stock from the equation.

 

[Rick1984]

- The Committee raised concerns regarding the pier and the height of the newer trains as there had been issues previously with them fitting under some of the tunnel and bridges.

Slightly odd statement. I can only guess they mean the height of the pierhead roof. Which is easily solved by chopping it off

 

[Flinn Reed]

Would Class 313s fit? As these were designed to be lower to fit through the Moorgate tunnel.

 

[SteveOfTheStow]

SWR saying replacements within 2 years almost eliminates 72/73 deep tube stock from the equation.

72 stock is falling apart as it is and LU are having to spend a lot of money just to keep them going for another 10 years until they can be replaced. They won't be capable of turning a wheel once they leave the Bakerloo.

73 stock is in a better state, but indeed won't be available for at least 5 years, and what with being long cars, may not be appropriate indeed.

 

[Journeyman]

72 stock is falling apart as it is and LU are having to spend a lot of money just to keep them going for another 10 years until they can be replaced. They won't be capable of turning a wheel once they leave the Bakerloo.

73 stock is in a better state, but indeed won't be available for at least 5 years, and what with being long cars, may not be appropriate indeed.

The 67/72 stock was never actively considered due to its lack of cab-side doors, and the difficulty of running them in 2-car sets - it needs a lot of relocation of kit to be able to do this.

 

[moley]

With D stock at 3.62m height, Class 313 is 3.58m so not much more clearance. Class 455 units are only 3.77m, I'm surprised that these have not been mentioned as the first ones should be available in about 18 months or less.

 

[Chris125]

Slightly odd statement. I can only guess they mean the height of the pierhead roof. Which is easily solved by chopping it off

I think that's just a slightly odd way of saying that they raised their concerns about the pier, and also about the height of the newer trains.

Would Class 313s fit? As these were designed to be lower to fit through the Moorgate tunnel.

It seems the D78s do (more or less) but 313s are longer so would, at best, be a tighter fit through the tunnel, bridges on curves and the depot at Ryde while increasing the platform gap at Esplanade. Aside from gauging they are also heavier, more complex and in worse condition than the D78s.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I think that's just a slightly odd way of saying that they raised their concerns about the pier, and also about the height of the newer trains.



It seems the D78s do (more or less) but 313s are longer so would, at best, be a tighter fit through the tunnel, bridges on curves and the depot at Ryde while increasing the platform gap at Esplanade. Aside from gauging they are also heavier, more complex and in worse condition than the D78s.

The ex GN 313's are pretty shot I suspect (+ they have spent a huge amount of their life on AC !)

 

[birchesgreen]

73 stock is in a better state, but indeed won't be available for at least 5 years, and what with being long cars, may not be appropriate indeed.

Actually 73 stock was what the line was waiting for but the stock was supposed to have been replaced by LU long before now.

The Island Line will use 230s (battery versions presumably) if they are going to use anything else.

 

[A0]

With D stock at 3.62m height, Class 313 is 3.58m so not much more clearance. Class 455 units are only 3.77m, I'm surprised that these have not been mentioned as the first ones should be available in about 18 months or less.

455s are in worse condition than D78s and they are heavier - which may also be a consideration with the pier head.

 

[The_Engineer]

The Island Line will use 230s (battery versions presumably) if they are going to use anything else.

Agree 230s, but not battery. There is a third rail to use!!

 

[A0]

Agree 230s, but not battery. There is a third rail to use!!

But with equipment which is nearing life expiry. Battery is by far the most likely as it will allow the 3rd rail equipment to be decommissioned which will also make any future trackwork changes simpler and cheaper.

 

[Rick1984]

The D Stock seems perfect for the Island line. Not sure why people are touting all these other units.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agree 230s, but not battery. There is a third rail to use!!

It's knackered and needs replacing. Or, you could *not* replace it and save the money by using batteries?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The D Stock seems perfect for the Island line. Not sure why people are touting all these other units.

Agreed. 3 x 3-car 230s would be ideal - two in service with a new Brading loop for a half hourly service, one spare.

 

[hwl]

It's knackered and needs replacing. Or, you could *not* replace it and save the money by using batteries?

No where near as bad a alleged and plenty of easy fixes to some issues.

 

[swt_passenger]

No where near as bad a alleged and plenty of easy fixes to some issues.

I think the state and future of the DC power is regularly exaggerated. The actual conductor rail should last forever in railway terms given its light usage; except possibly for the bit along the pier. As we’ve discussed before DC substation equipment is still being routinely renewed or enhanced on the mainland, and I can’t see there’s anything special about the IOW that would prevent an order being tacked on.

 

[Dougal2345]

It's knackered and needs replacing. Or, you could *not* replace it and save the money by using batteries?

I'm no engineer, but batteries aren't free are they? You have to pay to charge them up, pay to drag them around, and pay to replace them every few years, AIUI...

 

[A0]

I'm no engineer, but batteries aren't free are they? You have to pay to charge them up, pay to drag them around, and pay to replace them every few years, AIUI...

But is easier to maintain than 10 or so miles of isolated 3rd rail. It allows for much easier track works in future i.e. reinstating the loop at Brading etc.

And with the regen type approach the batteries get some charge as the train brakes etc. And charging batteries is more energy efficient than having a 750v exposed rail permanently live for 10 miles.

 

[Carlisle]

No where near as bad a alleged and plenty of easy fixes to some issues.

I agree,, decommissioning it sounds as daft as the similar idea Chris Garnett once advocated for the OHLE north of Newcastle in his early GNER days.

 

[jon0844]

I'm no engineer, but batteries aren't free are they? You have to pay to charge them up, pay to drag them around, and pay to replace them every few years, AIUI...

Doubt they'd need changing every few years. Tesla batteries have a very long lifespan these days, with a pretty minimal range drop.

 

[bramling]

But is easier to maintain than 10 or so miles of isolated 3rd rail. It allows for much easier track works in future i.e. reinstating the loop at Brading etc.

And with the regen type approach the batteries get some charge as the train brakes etc. And charging batteries is more energy efficient than having a 750v exposed rail permanently live for 10 miles.

I don’t see why maintaining the electrification is such an issue. Three tiny substations, a high-tension cable network from Ryde to Sandown, a tiny grid connection and a few miles of lightly used third rail. Surely thats got to be better than messing around with batteries or diesels.

 

[jon0844]

I don’t see why maintaining the electrification is such an issue. Three tiny substations, a high-tension cable network from Ryde to Sandown, a tiny grid connection and a few miles of lightly used third rail. Surely thats got to be better than messing around with batteries or diesels.

I wouldn't imagine anyone could justify switching from electricity to diesel, so it's keep with the third rail and press on - or look at how batteries could be used, with suitable charging points.

 

[Rick1984]

The one part that would make sense to use batteries would be the pier

 

[trebor79]

I agree,, decommissioning it sounds as daft as the similar idea Chris Garnett once advocated for the OHLE north of Newcastle in his early GNER days.

Thread drift: what was that idea?

 

[CeeJ]

Agreed. 3 x 3-car 230s would be ideal - two in service with a new Brading loop for a half hourly service, one spare.

Surely you'd want 4 3-car units with a long-term view of reinstating 20-minute service during summer? Failing that, you then have an extra unit to cannibalise when the line continues to use the stock for 40 years.

 

[DenmarkRail]

I'd earmark 5 units of 3 carriage length:

-2x in regular current service
-3x spare

and then for the future, if any extension is granted, then there will be sufficient stock to allow for a half hourly service to continue.

 

[Rick1984]

5x3 seems sensible.
Just thinking if space tight you could stable a couple in Sandown sidings with a bit of work to bring them up to scratch.