• 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!

Class 484 replacing class 483 on the island line: progress updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
9,932
It's interesting that the 483s are advertised as having 84 seats for a 2-car set yet the 484s should have around 114 seats (assuming from Wikipedia) even though each carriage is only around 2.3m longer, and I believe that's with a toilet added in as well. We'll see :D
The quoted seating capacity is correct based on an unchanged layout. Also, the trains are wider and standing capacity will be that much greater.

There's no suggestion that a toilet will be included.

Five units suggests that they will run in pairs during the Summer.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

simple simon

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
650
Location
Suburban London
My tweet... https://twitter.com/citytransportin/status/1173552108970422272

Great news - both for following in the footsteps of previous generations of London Transport rolling stock and their retention as 'pure electric' trains
I recall much online speculation in recent months hinting at the IOW's railways being checked to see if these trains would fit


being a pedant I avoided calling them 'tube trains' as of course they aren't - they are 'subsurface trains'!
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
The quoted seating capacity is correct based on an unchanged layout. Also, the trains are wider and standing capacity will be that much greater.

There's no suggestion that a toilet will be included.

Five units suggests that they will run in pairs during the Summer.

With a toilet comes all the stuff like CET, flushing aprons etc at the depot too. Takes cost and space and not really worth it for a short journey.
 

Lockwood

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2013
Messages
931
So SWR can buy these new units, then later have the DfT move the goalposts and say that toilets are required, even if the services didn't have them before, and they have to get another set of new units?
 

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
9,932
So SWR can buy these new units, then later have the DfT move the goalposts and say that toilets are required, even if the services didn't have them before, and they have to get another set of new units?
But unless the DfT strangely singles out a line with a 23min end-to-end time for toilet fitment there'll be a whole host of other more expensive trains impacted as well.
 

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
2,390
Although if it hadn't fit it would be a bit different to the normal news stories of bridge strikes, or their being a height restriction sign on the tunnel and the driver having to get out and check the trains height, realising he's too high, and trying to let some air out of tyres so that the train will fit, before realising steel wheels don't work like that.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
So SWR can buy these new units, then later have the DfT move the goalposts and say that toilets are required, even if the services didn't have them before, and they have to get another set of new units?
SWR won't have bought them, they will probably have leased them to the end of the current franchise. If the government changed the spec in the meantime to add toilets then SWR would want compensation. If they specified toilets in the next franchise then the new franchisee would have to provide them and would include the cost in the franchise finances, so ultimately the taxpayer pays in reduced premium or increased subsidy. The other option is that the lease is protected so that the future franchisee has to take them on, when again the government would be liable for the cost of adding toilets if they were to specify them.

Given the modular design, Vivarail could most likely add toilets later to units that didn't have them added during conversion.
Although if it hadn't fit it would be a bit different to the normal news stories of bridge strikes, or their being a height restriction sign on the tunnel and the driver having to get out and check the trains height, realising he's too high, and trying to let some air out of tyres so that the train will fit, before realising steel wheels don't work like that.
These trains don't even have air suspension that could be deflated. But the other Vivarail units have been shimmed to lift the bodies up a bit from the original D78, so they clear standard platforms. As the platforms on the IoW are low to suit the existing stock, there is no need to do that. I think they mentioned level boarding, so these units will probably have the bodies as low on the bogies as they can get them, with the platforms raised to match that height.
 

NorthernSpirit

Established Member
Joined
21 Jun 2013
Messages
2,184
Theoretically 2 to operate a 2car 30minute service interval but they are appearly getting 5 suggesting 2x2car at busy times on services.

If anything the new class 484's should be four car minimum as this would avoid the need to double up sets. Wasn't the line supoose to have a 20 minute frequency but instead has a bizzare 20/40 frequency because of a 483 being out of use?
 

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
9,932
SWR won't have bought them, they will probably have leased them to the end of the current franchise. If the government changed the spec in the meantime to add toilets then SWR would want compensation. If they specified toilets in the next franchise then the new franchisee would have to provide them and would include the cost in the franchise finances, so ultimately the taxpayer pays in reduced premium or increased subsidy. The other option is that the lease is protected so that the future franchisee has to take them on, when again the government would be liable for the cost of adding toilets if they were to specify them.

Given the modular design, Vivarail could most likely add toilets later to units that didn't have them added during conversion.

These trains don't even have air suspension that could be deflated. But the other Vivarail units have been shimmed to lift the bodies up a bit from the original D78, so they clear standard platforms. As the platforms on the IoW are low to suit the existing stock, there is no need to do that. I think they mentioned level boarding, so these units will probably have the bodies as low on the bogies as they can get them, with the platforms raised to match that height.
The Class 230s have been raised by 45mm. That indeed apparently won't be the case with the 484s.
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
So SWR can buy these new units, then later have the DfT move the goalposts and say that toilets are required, even if the services didn't have them before, and they have to get another set of new units?
Very unlikely to happen. There are other services on the National Rail network with trains that don't have on-board toilets - and most of those have end-to-end journey times that are a lot longer than 23 minutes.

  • Great Northern - Nothern City line services
  • London Overground
  • Merseyrail
  • Southeastern - Metro services
  • Southern - Coastway services
  • Tyne & Wear Metro
 

hermit

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2019
Messages
354
Location
Isle of Wight
Confirms doubling up. Not just holidays but at peaks too.
And rammed at school chuck-out time (possibly mornings too but I haven't had that pleasure).

They are certainly uncomfortably crowded both morning and afternoon, particularly to/from Sandown, where the school is very close to the station. Hence the restriction on carriage of bicycles on the affected trains.
Island Line were approached by the school to see whether they could double-up the trains for these journeys, but they responded that the coupling and uncoupling would be impractical. I suspect the same would apply to the new trains, and any doubling-up would have to be for the whole day.
 

hermit

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2019
Messages
354
Location
Isle of Wight
But unless the DfT strangely singles out a line with a 23min end-to-end time for toilet fitment there'll be a whole host of other more expensive trains impacted as well.

I agree - I can’t imagine why toilet provision is even being mentioned - certainly not while we have to cross our legs on longish mainland journeys. I often travel from Portsmouth to Brighton, and careful planning of fluid intake is needed there to avoid discomfort en route.
 

Rick1984

Member
Joined
23 Aug 2012
Messages
1,030
No it states in the graphic doubling up at holidays and busy times. Perhaps they'll have a modern coupling fitted
 

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
9,932
Very unlikely to happen. There are other services on the National Rail network with trains that don't have on-board toilets - and most of those have end-to-end journey times that are a lot longer than 23 minutes.

  • Great Northern - Nothern City line services
  • London Overground
  • Merseyrail
  • Southeastern - Metro services
  • Southern - Coastway services
  • Tyne & Wear Metro
Plus Manchester Metrolink, which replaced heavy rail over a number of lines.
 

Rick1984

Member
Joined
23 Aug 2012
Messages
1,030
Image of interior
islandlinenewtrainsinside-990x555.jpg

https://www.islandecho.co.uk/interior-of-new-island-line-trains-revealed/
Think it's just a standard Vivarail rendering so can't read anything into it.

Article also quotes MP Bob Seeley saying future aspiration is for trains every 20 minutes.
 

pdeaves

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
5,632
Location
Gateway to the South West
So I guess the other two loops will be retained.
They better be! In my opinion, I would rather see the line go straight to 3tph without 'wasting' money, time and effort on the mid-way loop. Such would simply retain 2tph, the changes being to make it a bit neater. The arrangements already allow for 3tph, only needing the stock to run it.

Edit: corrected typo
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,538
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
They better be! In my opinion, I would rather see the line go straight to 3tph without 'wasting' money, time and effort on the mid-way loop. Such would simply retain 2tph, the chances being to make it a bit neater. The arrangements already allow for 3tph, only needing the stock to run it.

It's not just the stock, it was 2tph for years when there was plenty of stock. There's simply not the demand for 3tph.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top