Island Line Railway - current state and the future

[Wivenswold]

I seem to recall some of the 67TS were stored, possibly as back-up in case any of the 72TS were in bad structural shape when they had their life-extending refurb.

If they are no longer viable the next newer tube stock to come available will be the Piccadilly units which date from 1975-1978. But they aren't due for replacement for at least another 5 years. They could also tag on a few brand new units to the order for additional stock for the Northern/Jubilee lines.

 

[bramling]

I seem to recall some of the 67TS were stored, possibly as back-up in case any of the 72TS were in bad structural shape when they had their life-extending refurb.

If they are no longer viable the next newer tube stock to come available will be the Piccadilly units which date from 1975-1978. But they aren't due for replacement for at least another 5 years. They could also tag on a few brand new units to the order for additional stock for the Northern/Jubilee lines.

The best recent hope was utilising some of the converted 72 stock which had been used to expand the Victoria Line fleet. There would have been a good supply of spares too. The only snag may have been making up 2-car units, as the trailer cars carry the MAs as well as compressors, so quite a lot off work would be required, and the reason the MAs went on the trailers in the first place was due to lack of space so it may not even be possible. Not sure whether Ryde Depot could easily work with permanent 4-car sets?

But it's all academic, as I'm pretty sure most of the stored Victoria Line cars are now scrapped, and any that remain are presumably being held by LU as spare body shells in case of any write-offs on the Bakerloo. There was once a plan to make up two extra Bakerloo trains, cleverly using the hybrid UNDM 3399 as well as very-long-stored spare UNDM 3411 combined with Victoria Line cars so as to make up a fully standard fleet. Not surprisingly this plan has fallen by the wayside.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

South Western Railway have referred to 'more modern' rolling stock replacing the current fleet - we should find out more in the next few weeks when they launch a consultation on their plans.

http://www.islandecho.co.uk/first-mtr-south-western-to-take-over-island-line/

If they need to get some newer stock, I know the perfect solution...

picture here

(Might need to cut that chimney down a bit to fit in the tunnel, but I'm sure a modern chainsaw could do the trick).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

With Ryde Tunnel, it's not just the height of vehicles that's an issue but the length too. AIUI there's an awkward 'S-bend' within the tunnel which means longer vehicles would hit the sides.

 

[Chris M]

AIUI the 1967 and 1972 stock have been deemed unsuitable for the Island due to the lack of cab doors.

Here's a curved ball - DLR units when the new ones arrive?

If a D stock wont fit through the tunnel, I would be very surprised if a DLR unit would. Values from Wikipedia:

			Height	Length	Width	Floor height
1938 stock DM		2.883 m	15.94 m	2.597 m	0.6 m
D stock DM		3.740 m	14.94 m	3.740 m	0.975 m
DLR B90/B92/B2K stock	3.51 m	28.8 m*	2.65 m	1.03 m

Note the DLR stock is articulated, so it its length is circa 14.4 metres for some purposes, but it's not fully flexible there. Note also the different widths and particularly floor height (43cm is a *big* step). Furthermore the profile is a lot squarer than than that of most (all?) other passenger rolling stock in the UK.
Finally, they would need work to convert them to use standard third rail (currently they use bottom-contact) and to give them driving cabs with controls suitable for normal use (the existing ones are not the most ergonomic for starters).

 

[bb21]

I will be very surprised if B92, etc, stock will fit the tunnel.

As someone mentioned upthread, for cascaded stock, the 73TS will be the closest to realism.

 

[Chris125]

I wonder if D Trains would fit the tunnel...?

The diesel conversions have been increased in height, but D78s? Possibly.

The single track portals at either end are somewhat misleading - as an original drawing and, thanks to Mark Brinton, a recent loading gauge diagram (pg28) show they aren't massively restrictive: built 14ftx14ft, it seems they are now around 14ftx13ft 6in.

However inside that arched roof combines with a severe reverse curve, making vehicle length, height and width a big issue especially at the roofline/cantrail.

Fortunately D78s notably taper towards the roof, helping offset their greater length and height - most of the tunnel, and part of the reverse curve, is also a double-bore so the track could be singled and slewed towards the centre as proposed in the 80s to allow Class 503s.

That may not be enough, but I wouldn't rule them out - it's hard to see what else SWR have in mind.

 

[theageofthetra]

Are there any trams that would fit that are on their way out of a system?

 

[A0wen]

Nobody's suggested 442s or HSTs yet..... whatever is happening to these forums?!

Slightly more seriously, Parry People Movers?

 

[The Ham]

Nobody's suggested 442s or HSTs yet..... whatever is happening to these forums?!

Slightly more seriously, Parry People Movers?

442's are slightly out of favour at the moment on here, as someone had spoiled our fun by actually finding a use for them and are bringing them back into service!!!!

I feel that even a 2+4 HST (probably max length needed) might be just a little over powered for the island line and so people are a little nervous about making such a suggestion and having to answer a few logical questions about their thinking to make that suggestion without thinking through some answers first.

 

[swt_passenger]

What about current Bakerloo stock? Up for replacement soon?

Any 'tube gauge' stock would fit. AIUI the 83s were never considered, because at that time they had only just converted the current stock. Other 'possibilities' have been ruled out because of being mainly aluminium construction, or for not having drivers cab doors.

The long term stated aim of SWT was to take 73 stock when it became available, I guess at any particular time the plans depend wholly on what LUL intends doing next, and that keeps changing.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If they ever were to go for full sized stock (with the track through the tunnel singled and centred), what about a small build of Aventras (but with adjusted specs to suit)?

 

[700007]

I would probably say the 1972 or 1973 stock are most likely to fit in the tunnels. The 1992 stock is coming off soon enough as well but something tells me they are too wide for the tunnels...

 

[A0wen]

I would probably say the 1972 or 1973 stock are most likely to fit in the tunnels. The 1992 stock is coming off soon enough as well but something tells me they are too wide for the tunnels...

Problem is though the 72/73 stock may not be available for another 5 or so years, by which time it will be (i) knackered and (ii) 50 years old.

It's perhaps time to bite the bullet where the Island Line is concerned and work out what is the best medium - long term solution.

If Ryde Tunnel can be made accessible, then I think D trains wouldn't be a bad idea. The 750v DC equipment may also be reaching end of life - and I know there's a general unhappiness around here on removing electrification, but for operational purposes on the Island Line there *may* be a case for doing so.

Let's be honest, running high-voltage electrical equipment close to and over water isn't the best of ideas in many ways. Losing the 750v DC might also make some tidying up of the track layout a bit easier and less costly - I'm thinking 2 track Pier Head > Esplanade, 1 track Esplanade to Shanklin but with passing loops at St Johns, Brading and Sandown. That *ought* to offer enough flexibility for any timetable in future (every 20 mins, every 30 mins, 20/40 as now).

The D trains would offer much younger rolling stock with a fairly good passenger environment. The overall running costs might actually be lower than trying to maintain the dozen or so miles of 750v 3rd rail infrastructure.

 

[Emblematic]

1992 stock is probably the narrowest of all the current tube stocks. However, no tube stock is likely to become available until near the end of the current SW franchise, so if there's a commitment for improvement, cascaded tube stock isn't it.
I do wonder whether enhancing the gauge to suit mainline stock isn't the best answer, particularly over the long term. TfL stock is becoming increasingly unsuitable, and life-expired when it is released, meanwhile there looks to be a steady supply of off-lease EMUs with plenty of remaining life.

 

[swt_passenger]

If they ever were to go for full sized stock (with the track through the tunnel singled and centred), what about a small build of Aventras (but with adjusted specs to suit)?

The tunnel cannot be 'singled and centred' as the section in question has two separate bores.

If it were that easy, don't you think it would have been done already?

 

[Emblematic]

The tunnel cannot be 'singled and centred' as the section in question has two separate bores.

If it were that easy, don't you think it would have been done already?

The separate bores are at each end, the central section is a single brick arch which could be singled and centred. This would help cantrail clearance. You can probably clear the tunnel for any stock you choose, but in most cases you will have to lower the trackbed to some extent (possibly little or no lowering needed for D stock or PEP-derived classes.) The more you lower, the greater the likelihood and impact of flooding, which is why the trackbed was raised when it was electrified.

 

[swt_passenger]

The separate bores are at each end, the central section is a single brick arch which could be singled and centred. This would help cantrail clearance. You can probably clear the tunnel for any stock you choose, but in most cases you will have to lower the trackbed to some extent (possibly little or no lowering needed for D stock or PEP-derived classes.) The more you lower, the greater the likelihood and impact of flooding, which is why the trackbed was raised when it was electrified.

It's still the lowest common denominator, the portals and end sections, that defines the problem. From earlier threads they don't consider infrastructure changes, either track lowering or tunnel alterations, as being cost effective.

Therefore we are yet again discussing the unlikeliest solutions.

 

[bramling]

It's still the lowest common denominator, the portals and end sections, that defines the problem. From earlier threads they don't consider infrastructure changes, either track lowering or tunnel alterations, as being cost effective.

Therefore we are yet again discussing the unlikeliest solutions.

Presumably whether it's cost effective depends on the availability of suitable rolling stock. At a time when Tube stock was readily available, increasing the clearance would clearly not be the best solution. But at present there's no Tube stock likely to be available for some time, so perhaps this *could* tip the scales back the other way - but to what extent is the unknown.

I still think status quo will prevail though, as it has always done to date. Apart from that, some kind of custom-sized Stadler unit, if someone feels like spending the money.

 

[Emblematic]

It's still the lowest common denominator, the portals and end sections, that defines the problem. From earlier threads they don't consider infrastructure changes, either track lowering or tunnel alterations, as being cost effective.

Therefore we are yet again discussing the unlikeliest solutions.

So, as we know there's no available tube stock until - just possibly - the end of the SWR franchise, and there's no infrastructure changes planned either, we're pretty much left with refurbishment as the only option. At some point, they will need to come up with an alternative, but SWR can kick the can down the road a bit longer.

 

[BestWestern]

So, as we know there's no available tube stock until - just possibly - the end of the SWR franchise, and there's no infrastructure changes planned either, we're pretty much left with refurbishment as the only option. At some point, they will need to come up with an alternative, but SWR can kick the can down the road a bit longer.

Throwing out a wildcard, if the '38 stock was structurally sound, could retractioning and a heavy refurbishment be a potential consideration? The Island Line has managed to use it's heritage rolling stock as something of a selling point, so retaining it presumably isn't completely unpalatable in the absence of massive investment in anything else. The SWT/SWR franchise is becoming rather adept at putting new oily bits into old trains after all!

 

[Fiyero]

Is there the possibility of rolling stock from another country or would that be too complicated?

 

[Chris125]

If they ever were to go for full sized stock (with the track through the tunnel singled and centred), what about a small build of Aventras (but with adjusted specs to suit)?

Bear in mind that Ryde Tunnel is far from the only constraint - all of the overbridges in Ryde have limited headroom, there's the curvature of the platform at Esplanade (which may be an issue for 18m vehicles let alone 20m), the limited length and facilities of the depot at Ryde, weight limits over structures like the pier, track quality, voltage drop...

It's perhaps time to bite the bullet where the Island Line is concerned and work out what is the best medium - long term solution.

I agree, which is why electrification makes sense - any short term saving (given the extra cost of buying DMUs and adapting the depot) will be more than outweighed by decades of increased maintenance to the trains and also the infrastructure given the extra weight.

As for loops, I really can't see anything beyond a half-hourly service being required.

 

[dgl]

Would some sort of follow on order for the Glasgow subway stock be possible, expensive route to go and would need to be a different gauge naturally but they should fit through the tunnel at least.

Sent from my Lumia 625 using Tapatalk

 

[jon0844]

If the third rail is soon in need of major works, wouldn't the route be ideal for electric (power cell) trains as trialled recently by Bombardier? Or would that make the trains too heavy for the pier?

You could have fast charging facilities at each station and that would mean not going from electric to diesel operation, which would almost certainly be frowned upon by just about everyone.

 

[bramling]

If the third rail is soon in need of major works, wouldn't the route be ideal for electric (power cell) trains as trialled recently by Bombardier? Or would that make the trains too heavy for the pier?

You could have fast charging facilities at each station and that would mean not going from electric to diesel operation, which would almost certainly be frowned upon by just about everyone.

I can't see renewal of the electrification being that much of an issue. The line only has three small substations, and two short or at most slightly-less-short trains doing no more than 45 mph doesn't draw that much current.

 

[Chris125]

It's still the lowest common denominator, the portals and end sections, that defines the problem. From earlier threads they don't consider infrastructure changes, either track lowering or tunnel alterations, as being cost effective.

Therefore we are yet again discussing the unlikeliest solutions.

Who are 'they'? Clearly there's no case for infrastructure changes when deep tube stock is available, but that won't now be an option for many years.

If the third rail is soon in need of major works, wouldn't the route be ideal for electric (power cell) trains as trialled recently by Bombardier? Or would that make the trains too heavy for the pier?

You could have fast charging facilities at each station and that would mean not going from electric to diesel operation, which would almost certainly be frowned upon by just about everyone.

I can't imagine that would be any cheaper or easier than simply maintaining the current electrical infrastructure.

 

[pompeyfan]

I can't see renewal of the electrification being that much of an issue. The line only has three small substations, and two short or at most slightly-less-short trains doing no more than 45 mph doesn't draw that much current.

Out of interest, has anyone seen a 4 car running around recently? I’ve not seen one in a very long time, would there even be enough units to run 2 4 cars?

 

[Clip]

So, as we know there's no available tube stock until - just possibly - the end of the SWR franchise, and there's no infrastructure changes planned either, we're pretty much left with refurbishment as the only option. At some point, they will need to come up with an alternative, but SWR can kick the can down the road a bit longer.

I don't think that is the only option - what is needed is a rosco to get govt approval for someone like neils favourite stadler to build some new units that will last for 40 odd years.

Bold idea I know but its surely worth it if there are no more options

 

[swt_passenger]

Who are 'they'? Clearly there's no case for infrastructure changes when deep tube stock is available, but that won't now be an option for many years.

The people who would ultimately pay for the infrastructure changes. I'm fairly sure it is still Network Rail for significant infrastructure works, although I believe the TOC does most day to day stuff on the IOW due to some sort of vertical integration.