Island Line Railway - current state and the future

40129 · 20 Oct 2017

If the problem with 67TS was the lack of a driver's door then surely the 72TS won't be suitable either for the same reason

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite · 20 Oct 2017

A lot of stock hasn't got a driver's door, most notably Pacers and many 15x. Is the issue that these don't get grandfather rights because they are nominally new (to NR)?

ainsworth74 · 20 Oct 2017

Chester1 said:
I could be wrong but I am sure I have read on this site multiple times that the Bakerloo 1972 stock are the only ones that can be used.

My impression was that 72/73 Stock was preferred as it was relatively mechanically and electrically simple and similar to the existing 38 Stock. Modern stuff like 09 Stock or 92/95/96 Stock would all work but are significantly more complex beasts than the 38/72/73 Stock which adds ongoing running costs and would mean significant training requirements for depot staff and possibly also significant changes to the depot itself.

A0wen · 20 Oct 2017

Walace58 said:
The problem with height on the Island line, is the tunnel at Ryde Esplanade. There was always an issue, the O2’s were lower, and when the line was being modified for electrification an imported diesel shutter had to have the cab cut down to be used to help the modifications. Since then the tunnel has been further lowered as the floor was raised to mitigate the effects of flooding which used to regularly close the tunnel.

From what I've read on these boards, whilst the height of the tunnel is reduced, that's not the primary issue - it's the fact it's got a curve in the middle which means the length of the stock is equally significant.

I though the 03 and 05's which had their cabs cut down were due to one of the other bridges on the route not the tunnels?

Bletchleyite · 20 Oct 2017

A0wen said:
From what I've read on these boards, whilst the height of the tunnel is reduced, that's not the primary issue - it's the fact it's got a curve in the middle which means the length of the stock is equally significant.

AIUI it is mostly a double track tunnel despite the twin portals. This being the case, would it be viable to single it to avoid that problem?

I think singling the whole line except a passing loop at Brading would be sensible.

ChiefPlanner · 20 Oct 2017

ainsworth74 said:
My impression was that 72/73 Stock was preferred as it was relatively mechanically and electrically simple and similar to the existing 38 Stock. Modern stuff like 09 Stock or 92/95/96 Stock would all work but are significantly more complex beasts than the 38/72/73 Stock which adds ongoing running costs and would mean significant training requirements for depot staff and possibly also significant changes to the depot itself.

Long gone now - but some 1959 stock (aluminium bodied 38's) would have been ideal - they went around 1999 when Guards disappeared off the Northern

Chris125 · 20 Oct 2017

Walace58 said:
The problem with height on the Island line, is the tunnel at Ryde Esplanade. There was always an issue, the O2’s were lower, and when the line was being modified for electrification an imported diesel shutter had to have the cab cut down to be used to help the modifications. Since then the tunnel has been further lowered as the floor was raised to mitigate the effects of flooding which used to regularly close the tunnel.

I'm afraid that's not quite right, a lot of myths surround the tunnel.

- The first diesel, D2554/05001 retained it's original cab.
- It continued working through to Pier Head after electrification (rare photo!)
- Though the 03s did have their roofs slightly reduced at Ryde Works, this was as much down to clearances throughout the line.
- According to former staff the unmodified 03 delivered to Sandown couldn't reach Ryde Works until the Up line under Smallbrook Lane was lowered, yet they managed to squeeze one through the tunnel with it's original cab.
- There remained enough room to justify a serious proposal for ex-Merseyrail 503s

As detailed in my post on NatPres, archive drawings show the portals were built 14ft high (and wide).

Using Mark Brinton's to-scale structure/loading gauge diagram (pg28) for the Down Line, the maximum height today is only a few inches less at approx 13ft 6in.

(I've made it a little clearer above)

The constraint is that arched roof - the vertical side walls are only 9 1⁄2-10ft high which a video of the interior shows is consistent throughout.

Above the height of the vertical wall the arch and the 'throw' of the vehicle comes into play through the reverse curve - though single tracking and slewing through the central double track section could ease this a relatively short body, narrow at the roofline, is important - hence why D78s look much more practical than 20m long PEP/mk3 designs.

Chester1 · 20 Oct 2017

If the D78s can fit then why haven't they been introduced? They have been available for three years and singling the tunnel wouldn't cost much money. I am a bit skeptical that correct sized rolling stock can be obtained prior to the mid or late 2020s based on the government and ToCs position.

Chris125 · 20 Oct 2017

Chester1 said:
If the D78s can fit then why haven't they been introduced? They have been available for three years and singling the tunnel wouldn't cost much money. I am a bit skeptical that correct sized rolling stock can be obtained prior to the mid or late 2020s based on the government and ToCs position.

They *may* fit without too much work - however even if those infrastructure changes are affordable, that kind of investment wasn't going to happen at the end of a franchise without clarity about the line's future.

Bletchleyite · 20 Oct 2017

The above diagram seems to suggest a PEP EMU would fit, potentially if the line in the tunnel was singled to avoid the curves being an issue. Given how many of these are about to be available (and the Merseyrail ones are in excellent nick), this wouldn't seem a bad idea. Aluminium, too.

Chris125 · 20 Oct 2017

Bletchleyite said:
The above diagram seems to suggest a PEP EMU would fit, potentially if the line in the tunnel was singled to avoid the curves being an issue. Given how many of these are about to be available (and the Merseyrail ones are in excellent nick), this wouldn't seem a bad idea. Aluminium, too.

Singling may ease the impact of the reverse curve, but body length will still be an issue through the single track bores and the platform at Esplanade - a shorter vehicle will always be easier to accommodate. I really can't see a good reason to use 20m PEPs when so many 18m D78s are available, which are also of aluminium construction with bodies in good condition and modern bogies. Less weight too I presume?

yorksrob · 20 Oct 2017

Chester1 said:
I could be wrong but I am sure I have read on this site multiple times that the Bakerloo 1972 stock are the only ones that can be used.

As Bletchleyite has said if the tunnel was a normal size there would be nearly infinite and very cheap rolling stock options but its not and the options for new stock are either too far into the future or very expensive. The argument for closure is also helped by the steam railway. Its entirely plausible the electrics could be removed and the line from St Johns Road to Shanklin gifted to the steam railway. IoW needs a fast public transport network serving the whole Island, that can avoid traffic jams and can handle seasonal demand. A bus network with busway and priority sections with joint bus-ferry ticketing is better and cheaper.

As I mentioned, there is a reluctance to use modern electronics on the line, but this is nothing to do with fitting tube trains through the tunnel.

People deserve to retain the choice of train travel, rather than being forced onto a cheap and nasty busway of buses which are notoriously difficult to get luggage on.

Hopefully this episode will have put paid once and for all to the disastrous idea of hiving off secondary routes to all and sundry, as suggested by McNulty and the like. Such ideas have nothing positive to offer to anyone except the railway conversion league and their modern day equivalents, the busway brigade.

Had the line remained managed as part of the National network, this frankly depressing conversation would never have taken place.

hooverboy · 20 Oct 2017

Chris125 said:
I'm afraid that's not quite right, a lot of myths surround the tunnel.

- The first diesel, D2554/05001 retained it's original cab.
- It continued working through to Pier Head after electrification (rare photo!)
- Though the 03s did have their roofs slightly reduced at Ryde Works, this was as much down to clearances throughout the line.
- According to former staff the unmodified 03 delivered to Sandown couldn't reach Ryde Works until the Up line under Smallbrook Lane was lowered, yet they managed to squeeze one through the tunnel with it's original cab.
- There remained enough room to justify a serious proposal for ex-Merseyrail 503s

As detailed in my post on NatPres, archive drawings show the portals were built 14ft high (and wide).

Using Mark Brinton's to-scale structure/loading gauge diagram (pg28) for the Down Line, the maximum height today is only a few inches less at approx 13ft 6in.

View attachment 35881

View attachment 35883

(I've made it a little clearer above)

The constraint is that arched roof - the vertical side walls are only 9 1⁄2-10ft high which a video of the interior shows is consistent throughout.

Above the height of the vertical wall the arch and the 'throw' of the vehicle comes into play through the reverse curve - though single tracking and slewing through the central double track section could ease this a relatively short body, narrow at the roofline, is important - hence why D78s look much more practical than 20m long PEP/mk3 designs.

ok serious proposal.
what is the wheel radius of a 313?
could they be re-machined to be 4-6 inches less and still have sufficient ground clearance for bogie apparatus?

rough calculation says that would reduce top speed to around 60mph from 75, and presumably would need lowering anyway as the platform heights wold be different...it would still be sufficient to run on the line...and you would then have height of 11 or so on the train......which would still give about a foot clearance on top...you would need to raise shoegear by the same amount, I think 313's can also run 660v but if not upping the voltage would not be that big a deal.

you have tons of these coming off lease -destined for the scrapyard by the look of it,so should be able to pick some up dirt cheap with spares no problem.

Chester1 · 20 Oct 2017

yorksrob said:
As I mentioned, there is a reluctance to use modern electronics on the line, but this is nothing to do with fitting tube trains through the tunnel.

People deserve to retain the choice of train travel, rather than being forced onto a cheap and nasty busway of buses which are notoriously difficult to get luggage on.

Hopefully this episode will have put paid once and for all to the disastrous idea of hiving off secondary routes to all and sundry, as suggested by McNulty and the like. Such ideas have nothing positive to offer to anyone except the railway conversion league and their modern day equivalents, the busway brigade.

Had the line remained managed as part of the National network, this frankly depressing conversation would never have taken place.

"Cheap and nasty" and "notoriously hard to get luggage on" are very subjective statements. A bus layout and seating type can be chosen that are comfortable, have good disabled access and plenty of luggage space. Beating the comfort level of 1930s tube trains should not be a challenge for bus designers. It is very possible to be a railway enthusiast and not think every mile of track is sacred and that trains are the solution to every transport problem.

yorksrob · 20 Oct 2017

Chester1 said:
"Cheap and nasty" and "notoriously hard to get luggage on" are very subjective statements. A bus layout and seating type can be chosen that are comfortable, have good disabled access and plenty of luggage space. Beating the comfort level of 1930s tube trains should not be a challenge for bus designers. It is very possible to be a railway enthusiast and not think every mile of track is sacred and that trains are the solution to every transport problem.

A bus with somewhere to dump your luggage at the front if there's room, is no substitute for a train with four wide doors.

Correct - trains aren't the solution to every problem. That's why we have a choice of modes, including train, bus and private motoring between Ryde and Shanklin. The old "trains aren't the solution to every problem" line is trotted out by everyone who wants to reduce that choice.

fairliered · 20 Oct 2017

If the line through Esplanade was singled as well as the tunnel, would a PEP be suitable?
(P.S. Amazed that there have been over 400 posts and nobody has suggested transferring 442s to the Isle of Wight!

)

Chris125 · 20 Oct 2017

fairliered said:
If the line through Esplanade was singled as well as the tunnel, would a PEP be suitable?
(P.S. Amazed that there have been over 400 posts and nobody has suggested transferring 442s to the Isle of Wight! )

I can't see how that would help, straightening the platform looks pretty impractical given the gradient at one end with the other extending out onto the pier structure.

Dougal2345 · 20 Oct 2017

Chester1 said:
"Cheap and nasty" and "notoriously hard to get luggage on" are very subjective statements. A bus layout and seating type can be chosen that are comfortable, have good disabled access and plenty of luggage space. Beating the comfort level of 1930s tube trains should not be a challenge for bus designers. It is very possible to be a railway enthusiast and not think every mile of track is sacred and that trains are the solution to every transport problem.

I can't imagine any bus on the Isle of Wight will ever have decent legroom that can match what a train can offer... But beyond that there are the g-forces as buses jam their brakes on or hurl themselves around corners ... To me, a bus is always a third-class way to travel...

SpacePhoenix · 20 Oct 2017

Is there a known breakdown of users of the Island Line (eg holiday makers, commuters, kids going to school, etc)?

hooverboy · 20 Oct 2017

SpacePhoenix said:
Is there a known breakdown of users of the Island Line (eg holiday makers, commuters, kids going to school, etc)?

don't know, but footfall for ryde pierhead and esplanade is about 350k,same with shanklin, and the rest in between vary from 10k to 70k per annum.

i would wager that the majority of ryde+shanklin is seasonal holidaymakers,and the inbetween stations are regular day to day users

Chester1 · 20 Oct 2017

Dougal2345 said:
I can't imagine any bus on the Isle of Wight will ever have decent legroom that can match what a train can offer... But beyond that there are the g-forces as buses jam their brakes on or hurl themselves around corners ... To me, a bus is always a third-class way to travel...

That is the crux of the issue. Buses are fine and are used by a large number of people regularly but rail travel has more comfort and history. However, buses are still comfortable and can have good legroom, usb charging wifi, even tables. The line may be given sufficient funding to continue due to political pressure but if practicalities and finances determine its future then it will be a short one. As I and others have posted its probably the least viable branch line in the UK. The pier, the tunnel, the 80 year old rolling stock and a worn out track combined with huge seasonal variation in demand, a road running to the ferry terminal and enough old trackbed to build a good busway network.

Don't get me wrong, I like the line but it will require an enormous waste of taxpayers money to keep it running long term. Its basically a heritage line being run by the government that uses trains that are older than some of its steam train neighbours. Perhaps there would be sufficient demand to keep part of the line open long term as an actual heritage line running part of the year and using one of the three trains each day. I am sure the government would be happy to stop its losses by gifting part of the line and trains to a charitable trust.

ainsworth74 · 20 Oct 2017

Chris125 said:
The constraint is that arched roof - the vertical side walls are only 9 1⁄2-10ft high which a video of the interior shows is consistent throughout.

I must admit having watched that video I suddenly think that boring out the tunnel wouldn't be such a crackpot idea as I originally thought as thought seeing as it's only the portals that would have to be done! Still almost certainly unfeasibly expensive mind you and I assume that there must have been a reason way back when for building it like that?

DynamicSpirit · 20 Oct 2017

As a pure thought experiment (I realise it would be expensive even if it was possible)... how practical would it be to undo the 1960s alterations to the tunnel, and restore the track to its original height, thus allowing the line to use some of the standard-sized rolling stock that's likely to become available? Are there any technological solutions today to prevent the problem of flooding that perhaps weren't available 50 years ago?

Xenophon PCDGS · 20 Oct 2017

Dougal2345 said:
I can't imagine any bus on the Isle of Wight will ever have decent legroom that can match what a train can offer... But beyond that there are the g-forces as buses jam their brakes on or hurl themselves around corners ... To me, a bus is always a third-class way to travel...

Better a "third-class" bus mode of travel, that serves many settlements, than a rail service that does not even serve a town such as Newport. If you regard buses as a "third-class" mode of transport on the island, how would you describe the class of travel offered by the Island Line?

JohnRegular · 20 Oct 2017

Is there much operational convenience from the tunnel being double-tracked? A glance at RTT suggests trains aren't timetabled to pass eachother there, and the tunnel is short with double track either end, so am I right in thinking nobody would especially miss it if singled?

MarkyT · 21 Oct 2017

JohnRegular said:
Is there much operational convenience from the tunnel being double-tracked? A glance at RTT suggests trains aren't timetabled to pass eachother there, and the tunnel is short with double track either end, so am I right in thinking nobody would especially miss it if singled?

Also in the longer term, if the Brading loop ever happens to support a regular 30 minute interval service, the remainder of the line could be simplified to a single track either side of the loop throughout to each extremity apart from a depot turnout at Ryde and perhaps a PW siding turnout retained at Sandown. Single track through the tunnel would be no problem, now or in the future. With current signalling, the crossover points at Esplanade would need to be renewed as a single turnout between St Johns and the tunnel mouth.

Chris125 · 21 Oct 2017

DynamicSpirit said:
As a pure thought experiment (I realise it would be expensive even if it was possible)... how practical would it be to undo the 1960s alterations to the tunnel, and restore the track to its original height, thus allowing the line to use some of the standard-sized rolling stock that's likely to become available? Are there any technological solutions today to prevent the problem of flooding that perhaps weren't available 50 years ago?

As I've tried to explain in the last few days it's not that simple, clearances on the Island effectively limited the choice to short bodied/low roofed pre-grouping designs to the end of steam.

While putting in proper drainage reduced the headroom in the tunnel by a few inches, which could to some extent be mitigated, there are many other issues including clearances which make the use of 'standard sized' rolling stock unlikely.

JohnRegular said:
Is there much operational convenience from the tunnel being double-tracked? A glance at RTT suggests trains aren't timetabled to pass eachother there, and the tunnel is short with double track either end, so am I right in thinking nobody would especially miss it if singled?

Should trains pass at Brading - which seems inevitable with any resignalling, and almost certain to form part of SWR's proposals - it's safe to assume the rest will be rationalised and the line through Ryde, tunnel included, singled.

Dougal2345 · 21 Oct 2017

Paul Sidorczuk said:
... If you regard buses as a "third-class" mode of transport on the island, how would you describe the class of travel offered by the Island Line?

It's been a few years since I rode it to be honest, but at least you can stand up and move about whilst you're travelling, you're not continually jerked forward in your seat every time the driver nips at the brakes, you don't have to hold on for dear life if you're in an aisle seat and are taking a sharp corner, and the chance of ending up part of a twisted mass of wreckage when you turn over after taking a corner too fast, hit a wall at speed or are pranged by a lorry are statistically lower....

Xenophon PCDGS · 21 Oct 2017

Dougal2345 said:
It's been a few years since I rode it to be honest, but at least you can stand up and move about whilst you're travelling, you're not continually jerked forward in your seat every time the driver nips at the brakes, you don't have to hold on for dear life if you're in an aisle seat and are taking a sharp corner, and the chance of ending up part of a twisted mass of wreckage when you turn over after taking a corner too fast, hit a wall at speed or are pranged by a lorry are statistically lower....

Two questions....
1)...You did not answer my query of askance of how you would describe the class of travel offered by the Island Line.
2)...Where on earth is your experience of the bus travel that you so graphically describe above.

SpacePhoenix · 21 Oct 2017

I don't know if what was done to the Connaught Tunnel in London dealt with any drainage problems but if it did, could the same or similar works be done to the Ryde tunnel?

Island Line Railway - current state and the future

Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member