Suggestions for alternative traction provision on the IOW Island Line

[Peter Sarf]

[

If conventional 20m carriage designs were a practical option they'd have arrived on the island decades ago, back in the steam era probably - D78s were really the only practical heavy-rail option.



The infrastructure is weeks late - not great - but the trains are months behind. I think they were aiming to have 3 units ready before the line closed...



An attractive idea now, but I can't imagine the extra costs of operating a part-modified interim fleet for a relatively short period would be hard to justify even today.

It does occur to me that a new off the shelf design would have been trams. Possibly even second hand trams - I mean built this century. Surely tram vehicles would be short enough to wind their way through the tunnel at Ryde ?. I doubt the line needs trains that are suitable for heavy rail ?.

 

[fgwrich]

It does occur to me that a new off the shelf design would have been trams. Possibly even second hand trams - I mean built this century. Surely tram vehicles would be short enough to wind their way through the tunnel at Ryde ?. I doubt the line needs trains that are suitable for heavy rail ?.

Well, there is a fleet of B2007 units that will soon be looking for new ones once they’re freed from the DLR...

 

[Mike Machin]

I’m not a ‘tekky’ person, but could a few 3rd rail-powered derivatives of the new Tyne & Wear Metro stock have been tacked on to that order?

It possibly may have alleviated the necessity to raise platform heights too?

Just a thought

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’m not a ‘tekky’ person, but could a few 3rd rail-powered derivatives of the new Tyne & Wear Metro stock have been tacked on to that order?

It possibly may have alleviated the necessity to raise platform heights too?

Pretty sure they are high-floor (Tube stock is quite low-floor).

 

[4SubAsociation]

I’m not a ‘tekky’ person, but could a few 3rd rail-powered derivatives of the new Tyne & Wear Metro stock have been tacked on to that order?

It possibly may have alleviated the necessity to raise platform heights too?

Just a thought

(Slight OT) If that was to happen. It would be history repeating as the some epb's where made for tyneside area. One is still around.

The Suburban Electric Railway Association - South Tyneside EPB Unit

 

[TRAX]

Well, there is a fleet of B2007 units that will soon be looking for new ones once they’re freed from the DLR...

Huh ?

 

[Chris125]

Well, there is a fleet of B2007 units that will soon be looking for new ones once they’re freed from the DLR...

The ride quality would be 'interesting' to say the least...

I’m not a ‘tekky’ person, but could a few 3rd rail-powered derivatives of the new Tyne & Wear Metro stock have been tacked on to that order?

It possibly may have alleviated the necessity to raise platform heights too?

Sadly not - the new T&W trains are 60m long and articulated, too long for the depot and can't be shortened for off-peak services.

Floor height is lower at 940mm but would still need plenty of platform changes to get level boarding.

 

[MotCO]

Sadly not - the new T&W trains are 60m long and articulated, too long for the depot and can't be shortened for off-peak services.

And we don't yet know if those work

 

[fgwrich]

Huh ?

B07 / B2007 Stock EMUs - Currently working on the DLR, but soon to be replaced by the new CAF built units - Effectively an enlarged German Tram. Had these been considered it could have bought the potential for a full scale conversion of the Island Line to a Light Rail system. Not that any proposal existed as far as I'm aware.

DLR no 125 Canary Wharf

Class B2007 number 125 enters Canary Wharf with a Lewisham to Bank service.

www.flickr.com

 

[bluegoblin7]

B07 units aren’t due to be replaced; only the older B90, B92 and B2K trains.

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

There was a proposal to convert the line to light rail with OHLE and use surplus Midland Metro T-69 trams.

There have also been proposals to rebuild the line as a light rail route at several points, which would potentially allow for extension into Shanklin and other town centres,[38] the most recent being after a 2016 review of the route by transport expert Christopher Garnett commissioned by the Isle of Wight Council. It suggested converting the route with the third rail replaced with overhead lines and the remaining double-track singled with just passing loops provided. It was reported that ten T-69 trams which were built in 1999, and had previously operated on the Midland Metro, could be re-used for this scheme.[39]

 

[Non Multi]

There was a proposal to convert the line to light rail with OHLE and use surplus Midland Metro T-69 trams.

That certainly would have been a "very brave" choice, 2nd hand Ansaldo-Breda trams...

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[TRAX]

B07 units aren’t due to be replaced; only the older B90, B92 and B2K trains.

Yes that’s where I was getting at @fgwrich

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

That certainly would have been a "very brave" choice, 2nd hand Ansaldo-Breda trams...

What could possibly go wrong?

Especially as, IIRC, the idea to convert the Island Line to light rail was entirely built around the availability of the T-69s.

 

[A0]

I think the first thing is the Island Line is a financial basket case, so any thoughts of brand new stock are an absolute non starter.

If you were going with trams then the logical thing would have been to re-electrify at either 750V or 1500V DC overhead, rather than leaving the conductor rail in place - and before anyone queries that, there is only one LR system in the UK which does use 3rd rail, which is the DLR. Most have gone for OHL because it enables future network expansion using on road running.

I still think battery D trains would have been the best solution here - battery tech is developing at leaps and bounds, Vivarail reckon its good for 100 miles (on a line which is 16 miles as a round trip) with a 10 minute recharge time. At a stroke it would have reduced the ongoing maintenance costs of the 3rd rail infrastructure.

Failing that sending a couple of Pacers over to the Island Line would have been good for a laugh.

 

[trebor79]

I still think battery D trains would have been the best solution here - battery tech is developing at leaps and bounds, Vivarail reckon its good for 100 miles (on a line which is 16 miles as a round trip) with a 10 minute recharge time. At a stroke it would have reduced the ongoing maintenance costs of the 3rd rail infrastructure.

There would have been a huge capital cost to supply the charging infrastructure though. That sort of charge time implies a several MW connection. That's some heavy cable to lay. Then some beefy power electronics and the final connection to the train would be a bit heavier and more involved than a plug and socket.
I think people have in their minds something like you charge a car with. For a train and these sorts of very rapid charge times you're talking about a cable as thick as your arm.

 

[A0]

There would have been a huge capital cost to supply the charging infrastructure though. That sort of charge time implies a several MW connection. That's some heavy cable to lay. Then some beefy power electronics and the final connection to the train would be a bit heavier and more involved than a plug and socket.
I think people have in their minds something like you charge a car with. For a train and these sorts of very rapid charge times you're talking about a cable as thick as your arm.

Not what Vivarail are saying - a few metres of 3rd / 4th rail is sufficient - so a length could have been left at a couple of points, logically Shanklin and Ryde St Johns.

60 mile range and patented fast charge system ... - Vivarail

Emission-free trains today … Battery trains are nothing new – the first one came into service over 100 years ago! But making them suitable for today’s demanding railways has been a major challenge – until now. A 60 mile range and patented fast charge systems Clever design and engineering were...

vivarail.co.uk

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not what Vivarail are saying - a few metres of 3rd / 4th rail is sufficient - so a length could have been left at a couple of points, logically Shanklin and Ryde St Johns.

60 mile range and patented fast charge system ... - Vivarail

Emission-free trains today … Battery trains are nothing new – the first one came into service over 100 years ago! But making them suitable for today’s demanding railways has been a major challenge – until now. A 60 mile range and patented fast charge systems Clever design and engineering were...

vivarail.co.uk

I think that's because you aren't, with a 100 mile range and a 16 mile line, looking to do a full recharge each time, just a top-up. Getting to the end of the day with say 10-15% left is fine, then you can fully charge overnight.

As for alternatives I'd have been looking to light rail for the potential for later extensions. No, not used AnsaldoBreda junk, new. Invest now for many years of low maintenance requirements.

 

[trebor79]

Not what Vivarail are saying - a few metres of 3rd / 4th rail is sufficient - so a length could have been left at a couple of points, logically Shanklin and Ryde St Johns.

60 mile range and patented fast charge system ... - Vivarail

Emission-free trains today … Battery trains are nothing new – the first one came into service over 100 years ago! But making them suitable for today’s demanding railways has been a major challenge – until now. A 60 mile range and patented fast charge systems Clever design and engineering were...

vivarail.co.uk

Ah yes, of course a bit of third rail would be perfect for the final connection!
Still, you have to get a multi-MW supply to it, no trivial task when it's currently fed at other locations (and probably not the sort of supply power you'd need for that kind of charge rate.
Still a lot of cost for little real benefit. The batteries would be very expensive too, and of questionable longevity. The reality is that cables, third rails and power electronics last many many year and there's just no pressing reason to change to a battery solution. Solution looking for a problem in this case I think.

 

[43096]

Ah yes, of course a bit of third rail would be perfect for the final connection!
Still, you have to get a multi-MW supply to it, no trivial task when it's currently fed at other locations (and probably not the sort of supply power you'd need for that kind of charge rate.
Still a lot of cost for little real benefit. The batteries would be very expensive too, and of questionable longevity. The reality is that cables, third rails and power electronics last many many year and there's just no pressing reason to change to a battery solution. Solution looking for a problem in this case I think.

Then add in the negative PR for de-electrifying a railway. You would go for batteries if it wasn't already electrified - but you most certainly should not be going the other way.

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

Still, you have to get a multi-MW supply to it, no trivial task when it's currently fed at other locations (and probably not the sort of supply power you'd need for that kind of charge rate.

Vivarail claim to have a solution for that.

The concept is simple – at the terminus 4 short sections of 3rd and 4th rail are installed and connected to the electronic control unit and the battery bank. Whilst the train is in service the battery bank trickle charges itself from the national grid – the benefit of this is that there is a continuous low-level draw such as an EMU would use rather than a one-off huge demand for power.

The train pulls into the station as normal and the shoegear connects with the sections of charging rail. The driver need do nothing other than stop in the correct place as per normal and the rail is not live until the train is in place.

 

[trebor79]

Yes, the challenge is having a beefy enough power supply to that short section of third rail. Recharging a 100 mile range in 10 minutes implies something of the order of 10MW.
Then there are things to consider like:
Usually a third rail shoe won't be drawing very high currents for many minutes at a time whilst remaining stationary. If the contact isn't perfect it's possible that localised heating will occur, causing either failure of the show or it becoming welded to the third rail.

The concept is simple, but it's fraught with practical an economic problems. And it is of no benefit whatsoever when the railway is already electrified.

 

[Wyrleybart]

The concept is simple, but it's fraught with practical an economic problems. And it is of no benefit whatsoever when the railway is already electrified.

So are you suggesting that railway electrification is "fit and forget" and you don't need any ongoing maintenance, repair and renewal ?

 

[bramling]

It does occur to me that a new off the shelf design would have been trams. Possibly even second hand trams - I mean built this century. Surely tram vehicles would be short enough to wind their way through the tunnel at Ryde ?. I doubt the line needs trains that are suitable for heavy rail ?.

I must admit, as this thread is speculative, it has crossed my mind wondering to what extent a further heavy overhaul and refurbishment of the 38 stock might have been viable.

Not saying that would have been the best option, just wondering how much it might have cost to get them to a state where they could have lasted, say, another decade.

 

[trebor79]

So are you suggesting that railway electrification is "fit and forget" and you don't need any ongoing maintenance, repair and renewal ?

Third rail is pretty robust really. Of course it needs regular inspection, repair and very occasional renewal. But that's a relatively small Opex cost vs a very significant Capex for a battery + charging station. And lets not forget the charging station is going to need pretty much the same inspection and renewal as the DC power supply to traditional third rail - probably rather more specialist and expensive due to the very high current demand. And the batteries will need periodic renewal (£££s).
Really, all you'd save would be the maintenance of about 10 miles of the third rail. And I imagine that's fettled during periodic track maintenance and replaced even less frequently than the actual running rails.
So yes, it need maintenance, but the differential isn't as much as battery enthusiasts think (and may not even be in the direction they think).

 

[A0]

I must admit, as this thread is speculative, it has crossed my mind wondering to what extent a further heavy overhaul and refurbishment of the 38 stock might have been viable.

Not saying that would have been the best option, just wondering how much it might have cost to get them to a state where they could have lasted, say, another decade.

I think 30 years of living near the coast means corrosion was a bit of an issue - I suspect any such heavy overhaul would have been akin to Trigger's Broom with most of the metal work needing to be replaced with new.

Also wouldn't address the issues around access etc.