That tweet says "Difficulties of working under Covid restrictions is blamed, both for infrastructure and train building." It implies Covid restrictions are causing an issue with working on the infrastructure, not that the infrastructure is causing any problems.Covid: Isle of Wight rail overhaul delayed by pandemic
The track and platform upgrades began in January and were expected to take three months.www.bbc.co.uk- this is the most improtant linkDelay to Island Line reopening announced - Covid cited
‘Unforeseen challenges’ and Covid are cited as reasons for delaying the reopening of the Isle of Wight’s train line. While they’re waiting, they’ll take the opportunity to repaint the stationsonthewight.com
The word 'may' in that sentence and the fact that I wouldn't expect a general enquiries Twitter feed to be 100% clued up on infrastructure works means that I'm still waiting for substantive proof they won't fit. I would be very surprised if they don't.Hi, there were no initial plans to do this but after further investigation there may be a necessity to lower the track to give enough room for the new units to get through the tunnel. ^RC
They managed to run the line (sort of) using just one serviceable 483 at the end of last year, so I suppose they could use the one 484 that's already on the island.
Given that until recently, the line was lucky to have two serviceable units, if they can get at least two, or three operational on the island by May, then they should be ok.
The word 'may' in that sentence and the fact that I wouldn't expect a general enquiries Twitter feed to be 100% clued up on infrastructure works means that I'm still waiting for substantive proof they won't fit. I would be very surprised if they don't.
Road-rail infrastructure vehicles have ventured through the tunnel several times, and the long-disused and often flooded subway at Esplanade has been filled in and the track relaid over the top. Also at Esplanade TPWS grids have been installed to replace the LT trainstop system used with the tube stock. There are photos of the road rail vehicle pulling a trailer along the track on the pier, with the trailer apparently full of the platform raising prefabricated sections already used at the other stations on the line.This leaves St Johns to Ryde Esplanade and the Pier Head as the last sections for infrastructure work.
Could it be a case of...That tweet says "Difficulties of working under Covid restrictions is blamed, both for infrastructure and train building." It implies Covid restrictions are causing an issue with working on the infrastructure, not that the infrastructure is causing any problems.
The tweet in post 973 (https://twitter.com/SW_Help/status/1348850200434135041) says
The word 'may' in that sentence and the fact that I wouldn't expect a general enquiries Twitter feed to be 100% clued up on infrastructure works means that I'm still waiting for substantive proof they won't fit. I would be very surprised if they don't.
I don't know the date of this picture but it is obviously not a 483 train. It actually links to a March 2018 article which states that the D stock trains would not fit through the tunnel. Whether or not that statement is true I cannot say and I am just posting this for information.
View attachment 92190
That was part of a mid-eighties plan to use class 503s retired from Merseyrail.
Yes, and that photo was attached in post #71, on page 3. It’s pretty much irrelevant really, because the infrastructure has been changed since then anyway...IIRC this has been discussed multiple times in this thread.
Yeah, all that proves is that a 503 would have fitted nearly 40 years ago! Much water has passed under the bridge (and through the tunnel) since then...Yes, and that photo was attached in post #71, on page 3. It’s pretty much irrelevant really, because the infrastructure has been changed since then anyway...
Yeah, all that proves is that a 503 would have fitted nearly 40 years ago! Much water has passed under the bridge (and through the tunnel) since then...
Do you know whether the problematic area (if indeed there is one) is within a single-span twin-track tunnel section, or a twin single-track tunnel section? If it's in a single-span tunnel, singling it and slewing the track might gain some space, although of course that would mean moving the points to south of the tunnel.I'd be very surprised if much has changed, back then 03079 - slightly taller than a 484 at the time - was successfully squeezed through before it's cab was cut down. The track hasn't been relaid since AFAIK and the arched sections which cause such problems remain unchanged.
An 03 is a lot shorter than a 73 stock car - important with sharply curved (and reverse curves) tunnels.I'd be very surprised if much has changed, back then 03079 - slightly taller than a 484 at the time - was successfully squeezed through before it's cab was cut down. The track hasn't been relaid since AFAIK and the arched sections which cause such problems remain unchanged.
That's why I posed the question as to where the tight section is!Ryde tunnel is part side by side single tunnels and part wide double. There’s a few different construction techniques, I did find a YouTube “walk through” a while back but can’t find it now, it certainly isn’t as simple as just “singling” it throughout...
Apologies, I misread your post as asking if the whole tunnel was single or double... probs didn’t notice the word “section”...That's why I posed the question as to where the tight section is!
Ryde tunnel is part side by side single tunnels and part wide double. There’s a few different construction techniques, I did find a YouTube “walk through” a while back but can’t find it now, it certainly isn’t as simple as just “singling” it throughout...
Search for 'Ryde Tunnel' on Youtube and you'll find a decidedly unofficial walk through.That's why I posed the question as to where the tight section is!
No problem. I've edited my post to try to avoid confusion between single-span (twin track) and twin tunnel (single track in each)Apologies, I misread your post as asking if the whole tunnel was single or double... probs didn’t notice the word “section”...
An 03 is a lot shorter than a 73 stock car - important with sharply curved (and reverse curves) tunnels.
My point was that on a very sharp curve a long train will have a problem that won't be shown up with the method shown in the Photo. The 03, with it's very short Cab, will probably be fine as long as it physically can enter the tunnel. Whereas the 73 stock might be able to get into the tunnel on the straight but then when it's shifting on the corners find itself scraping on the corners and middle.Of course, but the issues constraining that should be more or less unchanged since the photo - especially the tunnel's combination of reverse-curves and single/double track arched bores.
...
I've never really understood why the tunnel section hadn't ever been singled anyway - I don't think trains have passed each other there on the normal timetable for many years. AFAIK both with the 20/20/20 timetable, and the more recent 20/40 version, trains normally crossed each other between St John's and Smallbrook (and usually nearer Smallbrook in my experience). With the new 30/30 timetable they'll only be crossing at Brading and there's surely no need for the double track between Smallbrook and Esplanade at all, other than to provide flexibility during disruption. I really can't see Wightlink buying an extra Wight Ryder any time soon, to need a 20 minute intervals service.
...
I'm not sure 3-set trains ever did operate. In any case, it would have caused problems at Lake, where the platform is only 5 cars long (most 485/486 trains operated in 5 car sets in their last few years).I've thought that too. Back to 1967 at peak times six 7-car 485/486 sets were used so logical to leave the track alone and just add third rail.
However by the time the 483's arrived the peak frequency had already been reduced. Now I can not envisage an increase from 30/30 or any short workings. Esplanade will only be one platform and will two be made useable at the Pier Head? Even if 20/20/20 was ever introduced the crossings would be beyond St Johns. Only if 30/30 then a Pier Head - St Johns shuttle in between would the crossings be between Esplanade and St Johns. Otherwise the only benefit is redundancy, I have seen a video where a train ran ' wrong line ' from Esplanade to St Johns.
The facts that in 1967 six 7-car sets were in use and that even if the sets had available eventually the electric supply only allowed a single 483's to run highlights the deterioration of the supply over ~ 50 years.
With initially nine 483 sets were trains of three sets ever run ?
The facts that in 1967 six 7-car sets were in use and that even if the sets had available eventually the electric supply only allowed a single 483's to run highlights the deterioration of the supply over ~ 50 years.
With initially nine 483 sets were trains of three sets ever run ?
I saw it the other day, It could be that first curve inside the tunnel.Search for 'Ryde Tunnel' on Youtube and you'll find a decidedly unofficial walk through.
The tightest sections look to be the single-bore portion nearest esplanade.
Why would trains work from St Johns to the end of the pier at any other times than those needed to meet the FastCats? The small number of anglers is not going to justify another train and few are going to travel from St Johns only as far as Esplanade. The chances of Wightlink increasing the FastCat service to every twenty minutes, even just on peak days, are minuscule.
Height Comparison | ||
Height | Length | |
Class 03 | 3.72m (12' 3") | 7.92m (26' 0") |
Class 483 | 2.88m (9' 6") | 15.95m (52' 4") |
Class 484 | 3.62m (11' 11") | 18.37m (60' 3") |
Class 503 | 3.48m (11' 5") | 17.68m (58' 0") |
Class 507, 508 | 3.58m (11' 9") | 19.8m (65' 0") |