Island Line Railway - current state and the future

[Rick1984]

Much more susceptible to antisocial behaviour, vandalism and (as a result) ending up closed.

Would that be the case tough if they were only open during operating hours?
Only the disabled toilet at Esplanade is open and requires asking at ticket desk. Everyone else needs to use the grim public toilet round the corner.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would that be the case tough if they were only open during operating hours?
Only the disabled toilet at Esplanade is open and requires asking at ticket desk. Everyone else needs to use the grim public toilet round the corner.

Probably not, but a train toilet can be used (subject to being maintained properly) at any time the train is in service.

 

[Rick1984]

Just had a look and most stations do have toilets. But whether they're readily available is another matter. For instance Shanklin ticket office isn't always open and Brading says summer only.

 

[Taylor Perry]

I like the idea of a tram system for the island

 

[Warwick]

The railway doesn't do anything else apart from transport people. Tarmac it all over and run frequent bendy buses. The displaced staff can ride and sell tickets.

 

[yorksrob]

The railway doesn't do anything else apart from transport people. Tarmac it all over and run frequent bendy buses. The displaced staff can ride and sell tickets.

No thanks. It can transport people as a railway.

 

[Rick1984]

Having traveled to Sandown by bus couple days ago it's definitely better by train. Bus stopped at virtually EVERY stop

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Having traveled to Sandown by bus couple days ago it's definitely better by train. Bus stopped at virtually EVERY stop

Just to play devil's advocate, would this still be a problem if there were a couple more buses an hour, replacing the two trains? Or even 4 extra buses to replace the number of seats on the trains?

 

[Mikey C]

Having traveled to Sandown by bus couple days ago it's definitely better by train. Bus stopped at virtually EVERY stop

That suggests it was well used

 

[birchesgreen]

The railway doesn't do anything else apart from transport people. Tarmac it all over and run frequent bendy buses. The displaced staff can ride and sell tickets.

Er you know thats what the railway is supposed to do yeah?

 

[Rick1984]

How did Ryde depot cope with 3 & 4 car trains. Was it an operational nightmare?

 

[A0]

How did Ryde depot cope with 3 & 4 car trains. Was it an operational nightmare?

Not sure - but don't forget the reason why they went for 2 cars on the '38 stock is all the electrical gear is under the floor, whereas on the old VEC/TIS stock it took out about 1/3rd of a carriage.

So the seating capacity of a 483 2 car unit is 84, compared to 106 (3 TIS) or 132 (4VEC) - so 2 x 483 = 168 which is far more than a 4 VEC offered.

I suspect the 483 cars are slightly longer than the VEC/TIS ones were as well.

 

[Journeyman]

How did Ryde depot cope with 3 & 4 car trains. Was it an operational nightmare?

The old Standard Stock could be coupled and uncoupled easily and broken down into individual cars for maintenance. The 38 Stock can't be split into individual cars as it has semi-permanent couplers with wiring and brake pipes running through them at non-driving ends. Separating them is a very big job, hence the decision to go for 2-car units.

 

[Harbornite]

The railway doesn't do anything else apart from transport people. Tarmac it all over and run frequent bendy buses. The displaced staff can ride and sell tickets.

Buses don't do anything else apart from transport people. What's your point?

 

[Rick1984]

The old Standard Stock could be coupled and uncoupled easily and broken down into individual cars for maintenance. The 38 Stock can't be split into individual cars as it has semi-permanent couplers with wiring and brake pipes running through them at non-driving ends.

Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense now.
So 3 car D-trains might not be as much of a problem as thought. Depending on how they're attached.

 

[hooverboy]

Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense now.
So 3 car D-trains might not be as much of a problem as thought. Depending on how they're attached.

well if they get their skates on I just came across this:a bit old, but good.
Looks like TFL want to offload the docklands B90's/B92's.
they will fit!
worst case profile is bridge 4 which gives about 6" clearance for a 313/508 at 11' 9"

B90/92 are 11'6", and 3" skinnier than 508
docklands stock has a pivot in the middle of each car,so sharp bends no problem(in essence it's 4* 14m vehicles, not 2*28m)

do you want to go full docklands automatic, or essen U-bahn driver controlled?.
..just add top contact shoegear and upgrade the substations to 750v.

 

[Lockwood]

Doesn't that report say in a few places "These break down too often for us to want them?" in reportese?

 

[swt_passenger]

Looks like TFL want to offload the docklands B90's/B92's.
they will fit!

Your linked drawing also appeared in post #37 of this very thread. As threads get longer everything that has been posted comes round again...

 

[hooverboy]

Doesn't that report say in a few places "These break down too often for us to want them?" in reportese?

it does, and it also says B90/92 stock comprises 2/3 the entire DLR fleet and they still have 99% reliability.On IOW they will be nowhere nearly as intensively worked as they presently are.
Tfl version of MTBF might mean one set of doors not operational as well.Does not necessarily mean the whole train is a complete failure....the old 38's already have doors that barely function.


if you are getting them at scrap value then it would still be a bargain, plus think about the spares. There will be so many extra sets to cannibalise you won't have a problem with bits for the next 20 years either!
Also, as it's a bombardier design they should be quite able to retrofit anything like shoegear and control systems fairly easily.I don't think it would cost that much to modify them

if I was Isle of wight MP/SWR I'd be tweaking mr Khan's earlugs right now and make him a "reasonable" offer for the stock, as long as he'll throw in the cost of any upgrade or mods to signalling/platform/rolling stock on IOW line in the price.

it's a win-win..he wants a shiny new train set to play with and some brownie points with the voters.....IOW NEEDS half useable gear just to keep on the move.

get IOW council to fund by a £1 a guest per day municipal charge for hotels etc,get the finance and job done.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Get IOW council to fund by a £1 a guest per day municipal charge for hotels etc,get the finance and job done.

Is that similar to what the hotels in Las Vegas started doing a few years ago to add to their coffers?

 

[urpert]

it does, and it also says B90/92 stock comprises 2/3 the entire DLR fleet and they still have 99% reliability.On IOW they will be nowhere nearly as intensively worked as they presently are.
Tfl version of MTBF might mean one set of doors not operational as well.Does not necessarily mean the whole train is a complete failure....the old 38's already have doors that barely function.


if you are getting them at scrap value then it would still be a bargain, plus think about the spares. There will be so many extra sets to cannibalise you won't have a problem with bits for the next 20 years either!
Also, as it's a bombardier design they should be quite able to retrofit anything like shoegear and control systems fairly easily.I don't think it would cost that much to modify them

if I was Isle of wight MP/SWR I'd be tweaking mr Khan's earlugs right now and make him a "reasonable" offer for the stock, as long as he'll throw in the cost of any upgrade or mods to signalling/platform/rolling stock on IOW line in the price.

it's a win-win..he wants a shiny new train set to play with and some brownie points with the voters.....IOW NEEDS half useable gear just to keep on the move.

get IOW council to fund by a £1 a guest per day municipal charge for hotels etc,get the finance and job done.

I suppose if they can fit a pantograph for Essen then changing the shoe gear would be a piece of cake...

 

[skyhigh]

if I was Isle of wight MP/SWR I'd be tweaking mr Khan's earlugs right now and make him a "reasonable" offer for the stock, as long as he'll throw in the cost of any upgrade or mods to signalling/platform/rolling stock on IOW line in the price.

"We'll buy these a bit above scrap value, if you pay us the money to use them elsewhere"?

I think you might find those costs are more than the value of the stock...

 

[MarkyT]

I suspect the aftermarket for the DLR trains might be healthy if high floor German street railways show an interest as with Essen before. IOW might be feasible as a tag on to such a large conversion to manual street spec if the Stadtbahns don't want all the old trains, but IOW as a standalone project to rebuild a tiny fleet seems unlikely.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I just can't see it being anything other than some variety of D-train, be that diesel, battery or third rail.

At a *push* it might be some other form of 2-car heavy rail third rail EMU (e.g. PEP derived or whatever class those 2-car third rail 321-a-likes are) but I doubt it.

 

[lord rathmore]

Is that similar to what the hotels in Las Vegas started doing a few years ago to add to their coffers?

This surcharge is added as a matter of course in Switzerland & Austria. Both countries with excellent public transport systems.....

 

[Chris125]

Some of the minutes from May's meeting between SWR and the local council committee for regeneration - it sounds like D78s do indeed fit through the tunnel, with only minor issues elsewhere.

https://www.iow.gov.uk/Meetings/committees/Policy Scrutiny for Regeneration/3-5-18/minutes.pdf

- Improvements to the timetable had been considered. If a new passing point was created at Brading then it would be possible to run three trains which would be sustainable [? They must mean two trains/half hourly]. However the current fleet was not sustainable and it was becoming increasingly difficult and costly to maintain them.​

- Newer trains would be purchased which would better the passenger experience. An expert engineer had advised on the current track and how to improve the ride for passengers. A series of maintenance works in the winter of 2019/20 was proposed

- 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. They were advised that Network Rail had a detailed report made of the pier and a favourite option had been put forward. It was envisaged that Island line would only require one of the two lines that currently available on the pier. Discussions with the Department for Transport looked encouraging.

- Technical studies had been completed and it was discovered that the tunnel was high enough for the new fleet although there were one or two places where there may be minor issues. Provision for work to ensure the new fleet fitted was being included in the costings of the purchase.

- It was acknowledged that a large number of new housing had been approved in the Ryde area and this had been considered when discussing future proposals for the location of a new station facility possibly linking in with the steam railway. Too many stations would slow the journey down.​

 

[Class 170101]

I find it unlikely that the D78s fit.

I thought I read somewhere recently that the 1972 Stock on the Bakerloo or 1973 Stock on the Piccadilly Line was being looked at.

 

[MarkyT]

I find it unlikely that the D78s fit.

Engineering studies have been carried out and they definitely will, as would certain other main line gauge stock subject to some minor adjustments of the infrastructure outside the tunnels. The main problem was where some later 1970s road bridge support beams intruded into the tunnel space, limiting the height generally available within the brick arch structure. These have since been replaced by the local authority clear of main line loading gauge.

I thought I read somewhere recently that the 1972 Stock on the Bakerloo or 1973 Stock on the Piccadilly Line was being looked at.

Timescale for release of these has always been a major problem, with TfL constantly chopping and changing when they would be replaced.

 

[hwl]

I find it unlikely that the D78s fit.

I thought I read somewhere recently that the 1972 Stock on the Bakerloo or 1973 Stock on the Piccadilly Line was being looked at.

Not that myth AGAIN...
As Marky T says they will fit as this had been pointed out again and again in this very thread, the point about the beams under the roundabout is very poorly understood as they used to be the biggest limiting feature by far but aren't now.
The drawing repeated in post 1186 (on this page) shows the dimensions of critical structures along with some UK rolling stock dimensions albeit not the D Stock. If you take the D Stock Kinematic envelope you'll find that only 1 structure in the drawing where there isn't clearance, which can be addressed via a track lower of the Northbound track under Rink Road Bridge (the closest bridge south of the tunnel)

Which aligns with "although there were one or two places where there may be minor issues. Provision for work to ensure the new fleet fitted was being included in the costings of the purchase." from the IoW council meeting minutes

 

[swt_passenger]

I find it unlikely that the D78s fit.

I thought I read somewhere recently that the 1972 Stock on the Bakerloo or 1973 Stock on the Piccadilly Line was being looked at.

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...