hooverboy
On Moderation
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 1,372
that would make quite a lot of sense using part of the extra car as a carriage space for bikes etc, even for mobility scooters.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Island Line Railway - current state and the future
- Thread starter Stroud Valleys
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Not quite, 15 and 40 from the harbour, and 10 and 47 from the pier if I recall correctly. Really odd timings.
Journeyman
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2014
- Messages
- 6,295
Yeah, in all honesty, I'd go sooner rather than later. There's about to only be one operational unit, and it's anyone's guess as to whether they'll get any others up and running again quickly.
4-SUB 4732
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 2,150
Hopefully the ferries are standardised into a 30 minute timetable and the trains can follow suit. That said, the times will be slightly tight between Brading and Pier Head unless they use both platforms at Pier Head for ~30 minutes so they have reliability (e.g. a 3 train service).
4-SUB 4732
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 2,150
That would be helpful - and would potentially therefore make turnarounds less tight. There are also some quite lengthy station dwells - 90 seconds at Esplanade for example.
4-SUB 4732
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 2,150
Well they have mentioned millions of pounds to be spent on the Pier, so one assumes they are proposing to bring things back into play. Potentially looking at a junction near Rink Road and then both lines being Bi-Di between there and Ryde Pier Head, thus both platforms and lines being available all the time? I know Esplanade is due some improvements so perhaps a bridge with lifts will mean very easy access to the Hoverport.
Another option of course is to be a 'single line' between Ryde St Johns Road and Rink Road where it becomes bi-di two lines; with the Steam Railway coming into St Johns Road. Between Rowborough Lane and Brading station you could form a 'dynamic loop' so trains coming down can arrive a minute or so later than the trains depart going towards Ryde, with the relevant signalling to permit it.
I would have thought spending millions on the pier was an ideal time to rationalise it all and use the space better - getting rid of the unused platform and creating an overall roof with facilities there would make things a lot warmer!
Are they ever going to demolish the tramway pier?!
Are they ever going to demolish the tramway pier?!
Rick1984
Member
- Joined
- 23 Aug 2012
- Messages
- 1,037
If you were going to bring second platform into use you could just put some points at Pier station mouth. Though exposure may be a problem
Rick1984
Member
- Joined
- 23 Aug 2012
- Messages
- 1,037
Hopefully get rid of that hideous dilapidated concrete wind sheeting at the station too
Chris125
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Nov 2009
- Messages
- 3,076
No surprises tbh - D78s have been the obvious, indeed only real choice since it was clear no deep tube stock would be available, and I could never see a rational case for replacing conventional electrification with batteries.
Will any of these improvements trigger reappraisal and possible expensive mitigation on the footpath and occupation crossings? I count six of them.
I guess my biggest question would be whether there are plans to set half hourly in stone?
Presumably quite a cost saving if they rationalised it down to one passing loop at/near Brading, with second Platforms abandoned at Sandown (sell off for housing), St Johns and Esplanade (sold off/used for accessible bridge/subway to Hovercraft)
I guess my biggest question would be whether there are plans to set half hourly in stone?
Presumably quite a cost saving if they rationalised it down to one passing loop at/near Brading, with second Platforms abandoned at Sandown (sell off for housing), St Johns and Esplanade (sold off/used for accessible bridge/subway to Hovercraft)
MotorcycleAlan
Member
- Joined
- 4 May 2012
- Messages
- 309
Worth mentioning it is £26 million and not £260 million, which does not actually go very far on today's railway. It is possible that some of it will go on repairs and strengthening of the pier below rail level, which would today be dressed up as "improvement" whereas most would regard that as repairs and maintenance. There seems much optimism in speculation about track and point work alterations, not withstanding the announced work at Brading, which will cost a fair chunk of the £26 million alone.
Chris125
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Nov 2009
- Messages
- 3,076
Network Rail is spending £25m on the pier, as confirmed by the minister in the video below, so the overall investment should be around £50m. Expect a lengthy closure or two...
Standing room only at the busiest times during the summer.
Minister said that the £26m includes the cost of the trains.
I note he said he came over on Wightlink, so presumably in a ministerial car rather than using rail-ferry-Rail......
Shooter doesn’t do himself any favours. I know it shouldn’t matter but when there are people accusing him of being an elderly Hobbyist knocking up stuff in his shed he could make a bit of an effort not to look like one!
Ps he mentioned a plan to put a cycle/foot route up the middle pier. Wouldn’t it be better to build a new vehicle pier and let the pedestrians walk on the wooden one overlooking the water?
I note he said he came over on Wightlink, so presumably in a ministerial car rather than using rail-ferry-Rail......
Shooter doesn’t do himself any favours. I know it shouldn’t matter but when there are people accusing him of being an elderly Hobbyist knocking up stuff in his shed he could make a bit of an effort not to look like one!
Ps he mentioned a plan to put a cycle/foot route up the middle pier. Wouldn’t it be better to build a new vehicle pier and let the pedestrians walk on the wooden one overlooking the water?
Sprinter153
Member
Are we to expect these to operate as DCO given I believe this is an option on the D Stock conversions? It would match the aspirations with the new Aventra stock on the mainline.
hooverboy
On Moderation
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 1,372
millions on the pier is just to make it structurally sound for the next 20 years or so.
in all honesty they should probably spend a bit on making the pier end a bit more entertaining than just a ferry point and a costa coffee.
aside from that, it's very welcome news.
I did hear mention of the D stock having some modifications to remove some padding/suspension to make them about 3 inches lower.
depending on what's done with the track you might still end up with trampolines!
however I think they probably should have gone for 5* 3 car.(or more depending on overall cost). 3 car with PRM really is the minimum the line should be running in summer.
at least with D78's running on third rail there's not much tinkering to do, and the doors will still be faster to operate than the 38TS!
2*2 car + 1 spare seems to be cutting it fine though.
I get that it's notoriously seasonal, but a bit of creativity from the council vis a vis out of season events could help pad that out somewhat.
If the D78's went cheap enough then it's an opportunity to future proof it for a couple of decades- plus it fills vivarail's order book quite considerably for both stock and spares/support.
at only 20% take up of rolling stock(that's just 2 car end units, much less for intermediate carriges) at present there is certainly scope to get such a scheme in place.
The fit-out of the marston units is pretty decent..not brand new obviously,but I thought they were a reasonable step up from the sprinters too,and with the addition of aircon I am sure will be a very nice improvement for IoW passengers anyway.
Last edited:
centraltrains
Member
Is there no scope to run 2 units coupled?
ChiefPlanner
Established Member
Well the 38 TS would be well used to that after a lifetime on the Northern line - especially in the war years and through the 1950's.
hooverboy
On Moderation
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 1,372
are you talking about 483's or 484's?
with 483's it's generally 1*2 car + 2*2 car formation in summer. Both are full to bursting (ie properly crush loaded standing room only 130-150%)and in the case of the 2 car,unable to take all awaiting passengers on numerous occasions.
Absolutely no chance of bikes+buggies in the short set most of the time.
oct-apr it's probably running about as it should,somewhere around 70-80% capacity- with a 2 car set. each way.
I guess SWR are gambling on 484's having a few extra seats(I think it works out at 10 per car, but with PRM and a bog would be about 10 per set) in the extra 2.5m per carriage being sufficient to cope with demand but keep costs minimal. I don't think it's enough.
the problem here is winter uptake. If that could be improved then there is justification for running a longer formation permanently.
from a ToC perspective
Last edited:
Rick1984
Member
- Joined
- 23 Aug 2012
- Messages
- 1,037
This graphic from other thread confirms doubling up.
hooverboy
On Moderation
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 1,372
see my previous post re:modifications.
vivarail have said that there is some bits of suspension that can be removed to lower them.
I think they'll be ok, but it's just the tunnel reverse curve and esplanade platform being the issue( vivarail will probably seal the middle doors and put a bay of seats in there.)
Never underestimate the power of myth perpetuation, people will still be saying it until 1 minute before the first one goes through!
Chris125
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Nov 2009
- Messages
- 3,076
SWR's investment timetable - unsurprisingly it looks like a couple of blockades next winter with the last 483 retired in March 2021. Despite talk of no announcement till Brexit, the rolling stock and 20-year infrastructure lease actually were agreed last month.
They won't have toilets, they are over two metres longer per carriage, and they can run in 4-car sets - something the current fleet hasn't done for a few years now.
Going from a pair of 2-car trains during peak periods to 4-car trains with longer carriages and more room inside is a very healthy capacity increase.
They won't have toilets, they are over two metres longer per carriage, and they can run in 4-car sets - something the current fleet hasn't done for a few years now.
Going from a pair of 2-car trains during peak periods to 4-car trains with longer carriages and more room inside is a very healthy capacity increase.
2 bridges on the Northbound line are the biggest height problem but also easily soluble (track lower) which will also solve the platform issues too.
Last edited:
- Status