Island Line Railway - current state and the future

K.o.R · 25 Apr 2019

One problem I can see if they did want to do the 20-minute timetable is it would be rather incompatible with also letting the steam railway run to St John's Road. Both lines would need two tracks meaning they'd have to share. Probably a better option would be to have the engine detach and a second one waiting in a siding haul the train back to Havenstreet, then the detached engine moves to the siding to collect the next train.

Would need an extra engine in steam, but if it let the steamers get to St John's Road and a better timetable for the normal line, it's definitely workable.

Wonder if there were any Southern region autocoaches?

RailUK Forums

A0wen · 25 Apr 2019

yorksrob said:
Sounds like a good solution then. Hopefully though, they would be converted to third rail, rather than diesel.

Been here before - Battery is the most likely solution, with Vivarail quoting a 40 mile battery life on a line which is a 15 mile round trip and an 8 minute charging time. That way charging facilities could be limited to Shanklin, Ryde Depot and possibly one further location, which would be both cheaper and simpler than bringing the life-expired 3rd rail equipment up to date. It would also make changing the track layout e.g. reinstate the loop at Brading, easier if there isn't the concern about relaying the 3rd rail.

The current timetable has an 8 minute turnaround at Shanklin by happy coincidence.

jon0844 · 25 Apr 2019

It would be a good PR exercise to introduce battery powered trains somewhere in the UK and this sounds like a perfect start. It will hopefully, assuming no major hiccups, encourage the advancement of such trains elsewhere.

Chris125 · 25 Apr 2019

K.o.R said:
One problem I can see if they did want to do the 20-minute timetable is it would be rather incompatible with also letting the steam railway run to St John's Road.

Not necessarily - trains normally pass in the platforms at St John's so they might get away without a second track to the south. The Steam Railway's proposals apparently include a new platform south of the signalbox (with or without a run-round loop) which suggests Island Line will probably retain the current three.

A0wen said:
Been here before - Battery is the most likely solution, with Vivarail quoting a 40 mile battery life on a line which is a 15 mile round trip and an 8 minute charging time.

We will see, but from what's emerged so far it seems SWR have ultimately plumped for simple and low risk - I've not seen batteries mentioned by anyone aware of the 'costed option' submitted by SWR and at least one magazine (Heritage Railway) supposedly reported that they were sticking with the 3rd rail.

Jozhua · 25 Apr 2019

25kv is quite efficient, however I've heard 3rd rail encounters a fair amount of transmission losses.

Would using battery power incur similar losses to those already found with 3rd rail?

yorksrob · 25 Apr 2019

A0wen said:
Been here before - Battery is the most likely solution, with Vivarail quoting a 40 mile battery life on a line which is a 15 mile round trip and an 8 minute charging time. That way charging facilities could be limited to Shanklin, Ryde Depot and possibly one further location, which would be both cheaper and simpler than bringing the life-expired 3rd rail equipment up to date. It would also make changing the track layout e.g. reinstate the loop at Brading, easier if there isn't the concern about relaying the 3rd rail.

The current timetable has an 8 minute turnaround at Shanklin by happy coincidence.

Dstock7080 said:
Suggested that maybe 3rd rail charging at termini (small generators) and possibly Brading, as the existing electrical infrastructure is in need of desperate renewal.

Well, its battery supplemented third rail, so if it works, fine.

K.o.R · 25 Apr 2019

Chris125 said:
Not necessarily - trains normally pass in the platforms at St John's so they might get away without a second track to the south. The Steam Railway's proposals apparently include a new platform south of the signalbox (with or without a run-round loop) which suggests Island Line will probably retain the current three.

Ah, I see what you mean. They could have a sort of staggered station layout so from the Smallbrook end it would go 1 electric, 1 steam, then 1 electric 2 steam, then as it arrives at RYR it becomes 2 electric 1 steam (and the steam wouldn't need to go very far past this point; if the station was completely separate and far enough away it could keep all 3 platforms electric).

I was thinking the steam railway would just take the current pier-bound platform, and the electrics would pass on opposite sides of the island platform. From a "looks cool" point of view that would definitely have been my wish.

Mikey C · 25 Apr 2019

jon0844 said:
It would be a good PR exercise to introduce battery powered trains somewhere in the UK and this sounds like a perfect start. It will hopefully, assuming no major hiccups, encourage the advancement of such trains elsewhere.

A good PR exercise if battery trains replace diesel ones, I'm not sure the same applies if they're replacing electric trains on an existing electrified line!

Roast Veg · 25 Apr 2019

If it means the 3rd rail can be removed at high risk locations, such as the pier/tunnel, then there's definitely some PR to be had.

Chris125 · 25 Apr 2019

K.o.R said:
I was thinking the steam railway would just take the current pier-bound platform, and the electrics would pass on opposite sides of the island platform. From a "looks cool" point of view that would definitely have been my wish.

It's an appealing thought but the track has been raised through the two main platforms and the third has limited clearance under the overbridge thanks to later strengthening, which probably makes it unworkable.

I suspect it will be easier for everyone if the Steam Railway platform and run-round are, as far as possible, separated from Island Line infrastructure especially if the 3rd rail is retained - with little use being made of the land alongside the railway on the approach to St Johns that looks the best bet.

Doomotron · 25 Apr 2019

K.o.R said:
One problem I can see if they did want to do the 20-minute timetable is it would be rather incompatible with also letting the steam railway run to St John's Road. Both lines would need two tracks meaning they'd have to share. Probably a better option would be to have the engine detach and a second one waiting in a siding haul the train back to Havenstreet, then the detached engine moves to the siding to collect the next train.

Would need an extra engine in steam, but if it let the steamers get to St John's Road and a better timetable for the normal line, it's definitely workable.

Wonder if there were any Southern region autocoaches?

What about Platform 3? If the line is extended to connect to the line on the Pier end of the station, IL can use Platforms 1 and 2 and the Steam Railway uses Platform 3 with locos running around with Platform 1 or 2.

Chris125 · 25 Apr 2019

Doomotron said:
What about Platform 3? If the line is extended to connect to the line on the Pier end of the station, IL can use Platforms 1 and 2 and the Steam Railway uses Platform 3 with locos running around with Platform 1 or 2.

Platform 3 is the one that's had strengthening added under the deck of the overbridge, compromising the headroom:

MarkyT · 25 Apr 2019

Discontinuous electrification retained would be the best option in my judgement. Smaller batteries would be required, which would be lighter, cheaper to purchase and replace, and could allow 3rd rail to be removed from the troublesome tunnel and pier. The trains would still retain some 'get home' capability, perhaps at reduced speed, in event of power system failure or engineering isolation, and could shunt in the depot without extensive exposed traction supply rail representing a risk to maintenance staff. Having some Some battery storage would also allow braking energy to be recaptured without complex substation technology, and could supplement the 3rd rail supply as required so short spurts of high acceleration need not drag down supply voltage so much through potential drop across the resistance of the traction power circuit loop.

Platform #3 at Ryde St Johns forms part of the depot stabling currently; a long siding capable of some 160m standage. Relinquishing that alignment to a running line so both #1 and #2 could be handed over to the steam railway could run into depot space constraints, especially for an expanded fleet. Placing a new independent IOWSR station facility slightly to the south and west, in the old steam depot yard site, is a much better solution, and better segregates operations so shunting and inspection of the heritage stock in the run-round can be better isolated from Island Line. There might also be space for an additional siding or two which the steam railway could definitely make some use of.

Cowley · 25 Apr 2019

Without going back over the entire thread, and purely out of curiosity. What if anything is used for engineering trains since the 03 finished?
Is it just road/rail plant nowadays, or do they have a departmental unit of sorts?

Doomotron · 25 Apr 2019

Chris125 said:
Platform 3 is the one that's had strengthening added under the deck of the overbridge, compromising the headroom:

Ahhh OK, I didn't know that.

Mikey C · 25 Apr 2019

Roast Veg said:
If it means the 3rd rail can be removed at high risk locations, such as the pier/tunnel, then there's definitely some PR to be had.

As one of the end points of the line, isn't the pier exactly where you'd want to have the 3rd rails so that the batteries can be recharged while the train is waiting to return?

trebor79 · 25 Apr 2019

When are the "new" trains meant to arrive? I really want to get over there and ride the 1938 stock before its too late!

MarkyT · 25 Apr 2019

Mikey C said:
As one of the end points of the line, isn't the pier exactly where you'd want to have the 3rd rails so that the batteries can be recharged while the train is waiting to return?

I'm not saying they couldn't have a short length for recharging at the terminus while stationary, as already envisaged by Vivarail for their fast chargers, but they could remove most of the 3rd rail on the pier and in the tunnels, but leave the remainder along the rest of the line in place.

Peter Mugridge · 26 Apr 2019

trebor79 said:
When are the "new" trains meant to arrive? I really want to get over there and ride the 1938 stock before its too late!

They haven't been officially ordered yet, so you've got at least a year to get the 483s in.

CeeJ · 26 Apr 2019

MarkyT said:
I'm not saying they couldn't have a short length for recharging at the terminus while stationary, as already envisaged by Vivarail for their fast chargers, but they could remove most of the 3rd rail on the pier and in the tunnels, but leave the remainder along the rest of the line in place.

The battery/fast charging method would be sufficient at just one end + at the depot. A 7 minute charge gives 60 miles capacity, according to Vivarail. Naturally the batteries won’t need to be as big as that...

trebor79 said:
When are the "new" trains meant to arrive? I really want to get over there and ride the 1938 stock before its too late!

Unless there are critical infrastructure/rolling stock issues that render the line unusable, I expect they’ll be some time between a formal announcement by SWR/DfT (I’m sure some other posters are more aware of when this is expected) and the 1938s being withdrawn.

MarkyT · 26 Apr 2019

CeeJ said:
The battery/fast charging method would be sufficient at just one end + at the depot. A 7 minute charge gives 60 miles capacity, according to Vivarail. Naturally the batteries won’t need to be as big as that...

in my discontinuous configuration you wouldn't necessarily need the complexity of a fast charger at the terminus, just something of moderate capacity to opportunistically top the train up while waiting and avoid draining the battery on lighting and heating etc if there was an unexpectedly long wait. I'm advocating an even smaller battery, with most of the 3rd rail retained.

Chris125 · 26 Apr 2019

MarkyT said:
in my discontinuous configuration you wouldn't necessarily need the complexity of a fast charger at the terminus, just something of moderate capacity to opportunistically top the train up while waiting and avoid draining the battery on lighting and heating etc if there was an unexpectedly long wait. I'm advocating an even smaller battery, with most of the 3rd rail retained.

That's the one way I could see SWR adopting batteries - a conservative approach that minimises their weight, cost and changes to the line's power supply and maximises flexibility when the service is disrupted.

Rick1984 · 26 Apr 2019

fgwrich said:
Has any improvement's been made to the track work of late? On a visit to the island last year, it was becoming quite apparent that the track work south of Ryde St Johns was in dire need of some attention. It's considerably bouncy along that stretch!

it's probably over 6 months since I've beeen on but I was actually nearly bounced out my seat on the rougher section between Smallbrook and Sandown

Rick1984 · 26 Apr 2019

Chris125 said:
We will see, but from what's emerged so far it seems SWR have ultimately plumped for simple and low risk - I've not seen batteries mentioned by anyone aware of the 'costed option' submitted by SWR and at least one magazine (Heritage Railway) supposedly reported that they were sticking with the 3rd rail.

not even for the problem sections?

A0wen · 26 Apr 2019

MarkyT said:
in my discontinuous configuration you wouldn't necessarily need the complexity of a fast charger at the terminus, just something of moderate capacity to opportunistically top the train up while waiting and avoid draining the battery on lighting and heating etc if there was an unexpectedly long wait. I'm advocating an even smaller battery, with most of the 3rd rail retained.

What "complexity" ?

If you look at Vivarail's website you'll see it's a simple short length of 3rd and 4th rail in a station and the rails are not live unless there is a train on them. It's then simply a case of connecting that to the relevant fast charger - which again their website shows and looks like it's an equipment cabinet of the kind you see all over the railway network currently.

http://vivarail.co.uk/vivarail-laun...ain-with-a-range-of-60-miles-between-charges/

There's little to be gained by having "smaller batteries" when the electronic D train as developed has a 60 mile range on a line which is 15 miles as a round trip. The only question is where do you put the charging facilities to ensure they are at the best locations for operation - the obvious ones would be Shanklin, Ryde St John's depot and possibly Esplanade. You really don't need anything more than that.

takno · 26 Apr 2019

A0wen said:
What "complexity" ?

If you look at Vivarail's website you'll see it's a simple short length of 3rd and 4th rail in a station and the rails are not live unless there is a train on them. It's then simply a case of connecting that to the relevant fast charger - which again their website shows and looks like it's an equipment cabinet of the kind you see all over the railway network currently.

http://vivarail.co.uk/vivarail-laun...ain-with-a-range-of-60-miles-between-charges/

There's little to be gained by having "smaller batteries" when the electronic D train as developed has a 60 mile range on a line which is 15 miles as a round trip. The only question is where do you put the charging facilities to ensure they are at the best locations for operation - the obvious ones would be Shanklin, Ryde St John's depot and possibly Esplanade. You really don't need anything more than that.

I would imagine the complexity lies in needing a ten minute-ish turnaround even if the train has arrived late, and in the fact that the grid needs to present a lot of power in a short space of time, when we are told that grid capacity is one of the issues with electrification as it stands.

Given that the electrification is in place on the line, and probably couldnt be put back if it was removed, and given that most of the issues with it are only in the first mile or so, it is probably smarter to not to start with a big bang untested scheme. The vivarail setup is modular anyway, so presumably you could add more batteries later if they proved to be desirable or required

A0wen · 26 Apr 2019

takno said:
I would imagine the complexity lies in needing a ten minute-ish turnaround even if the train has arrived late, and in the fact that the grid needs to present a lot of power in a short space of time, when we are told that grid capacity is one of the issues with electrification as it stands.

Given that the electrification is in place on the line, and probably couldnt be put back if it was removed, and given that most of the issues with it are only in the first mile or so, it is probably smarter to not to start with a big bang untested scheme. The vivarail setup is modular anyway, so presumably you could add more batteries later if they proved to be desirable or required

<sigh> can I suggest you read Vivarail's website on the link I provided?

They've already mitigated the issue of needing a large amount of power in a short space of time and the impact on the grid by having a set of batteries (in effect large capacitors) in the fast charger which trickle feeds continuously so when the train docks there is that 'pool' of power already available without impacting the grid.

Chris125 · 26 Apr 2019

A0wen said:
<sigh> can I suggest you read Vivarail's website on the link I provided?

They've already mitigated the issue of needing a large amount of power in a short space of time and the impact on the grid by having a set of batteries (in effect large capacitors) in the fast charger which trickle feeds continuously so when the train docks there is that 'pool' of power already available without impacting the grid.

Is trickle charging really going to make much difference if the charger was specified for a possible 20min service, perhaps with 3 or 4-car trains? Realistically it will surely involve expensive changes to the power supply.

While their battery trains may have promise in the future, there hasn't even been a proper trial yet - Vivarail have only just built a prototype charger, their battery unit has carried out no mainline testing and may not even have the latest batteries fitted yet.

Perhaps one unit could have batteries as a trial, but are SWR and the DfT really going to commit now to junking the third rail without real world experience of the reliability and upfront/ongoing costs of Vivarail's battery units and chargers? I just can't see it.

A0wen · 26 Apr 2019

Chris125 said:
Is trickle charging really going to make much difference if the charger was specified for a possible 20min service, perhaps with 3 or 4-car trains? Realistically it will surely involve expensive changes to the power supply.

While their battery trains may have promise in the future, there hasn't even been a proper trial yet - Vivarail have only just built a prototype charger, their battery unit has carried out no mainline testing and may not even have the latest batteries fitted yet.

Perhaps one unit could have batteries as a trial, but are SWR and the DfT really going to commit now to junking the third rail without real world experience of the reliability and upfront/ongoing costs of Vivarail's battery units and chargers? I just can't see it.

It's entirely practical - trickle charging to a capacitor will be taking place 24 x 7 until the capacitor is full. Over the course of a day the units would only need charging a handful of times - bearing in mind the 60 mile range allows for 4 round trips.

The charger won't be wired into the consumer 240 v supply in any case - instead it's almost certainly using one of the high voltage supplies which are routinely in use around railway stations.

And it won't be 3 or 4 car trains - there's no need for that. A class 483 has a seating capacity of 84 a 2 car D train can do 114. And there's no need to add toilets to them in part because the journey is as short as it is and also because then you'd need to add the depot infrastructure to service them - which defeats the object of keeping costs down, which is an imperative on the Island Line.

hooverboy · 26 Apr 2019

A0wen said:
It's entirely practical - trickle charging to a capacitor will be taking place 24 x 7 until the capacitor is full. Over the course of a day the units would only need charging a handful of times - bearing in mind the 60 mile range allows for 4 round trips.

The charger won't be wired into the consumer 240 v supply in any case - instead it's almost certainly using one of the high voltage supplies which are routinely in use around railway stations.

for sure.
It will use either 33kv or 110kv ac as normal trackside transformer/rectifiers do.The only difference is it will drop the dc to 750v instead of 630v supplied to about 30m of conductor rails at each charge point.

no real expensive changes to power supply at all.the present one is utterly knackered!
an upgrade just has to be factored in as normal wear and tear for gear that is probably 40-50 years old by now.

besides, think of the money that will be saved not having to replace fuses that go pop on the rails each time the solent gets a high tide!..it will pay for itself after 4 or 5 years.

Island Line Railway - current state and the future

Member

RailUK Forums

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Attachments

Established Member

Forum Staff

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation