hooverboy
On Moderation
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 1,372
I believe there are rail ferries that cold do the job, pretty sure they had something like that at weymouth. just push on/pull off with a shunter.
-
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
hooverboy
On Moderation
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 1,372
I thought it was more to do with the curvature not being ideal for 1/3,2/3 doors on vehicles of a certain length.too much gap between carriage and platform.
end doors not an issue as they are directly over the bogies.
bridge height shouldn't be a problematic in any event.easy enough to raise.
track lowereing is more serious because you get into drainage/flooding issues.
hooverboy
On Moderation
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 1,372
the 483's do run as 4 car sets(in one direction) in summer...they used to run 6 car sets back in the 1980's.
as for toilets etc, I think they will use this opportunity to ensure stock is fully PRM compliant,including toliet.
so it's not just a very healthy upgrade, it's a very,very healthy upgrade.problem is with 2 car units this will come at the expense of capacity.fine in winter, but you really do need the extra space in peak season.
operational 4* 2 car leaves you very short on backup options in ways that 2*3 car (or even 2*4 car)would not.yes it's 2 cars less, but if 2 sets break down the 2*2 car set-up means you are just as screwed as you presently are.
easier to run 3 car ops as it's still only 1 driver+1 guard, with plenty of slack for unknown eventualities.
The track can be lowered under those 2 bridges without drainage issues which you would want to avoid touching if possible (will be the council's problem in few years/decades when they need replacing.
Platform issue is partially height and the track several platforms needs lowering any way (where it was raised for the 483s)
Fully PRM compliant doesn't require a toilet. Building a disabled toilet at every station would be cheaper given the 20 odd minute journey time.
hooverboy
On Moderation
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 1,372
how much would it costs to lower the track there,versus the cost of a couple of extra spans of metalwork on the bridge?
lets say lower track by 30cm, at 1:100 gradient that is 30m of earth you're going to shift.quite a bit of tonnage.
i'm being generous here, I would reckon more like 50m earthworks.
That is the plan at busy times.
For those asking, almost certainly they’ll go over on either Wightlink or red funnel, probably with a convoy exceptional or police. The idea of using a train ferry is ludicrous, as you’d have to build and install a temporary linkspan.
They’ve not run as 4s for years, even during the summer.
They’ve not run as 4s for years, even during the summer.
The 483s arrived 1 car per trip on a low loader (from Eastleigh after some TLC) on the car ferry.
0.3m * 100 * 7 m * 0.5 gives you about the right amount of earthworks for one side, which is 105m3, so double that plus a bit for under the bridge and it's circa 250m3.
Yes it's not going to be cheap, but probably less than £100/m3 for the disposal.
However if you raise a bridge up you're also going to need to do earthworks to build the approaches up, as well as probably rebuilding a lot of the bridge supports and the span.
Chris125
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Nov 2009
- Messages
- 3,076
I'm afraid not - 4-car trains haven't run for a number of years, last seen in Summer 2014 I think?
No official explanation I'm aware of but various factors are likely involved - power supply, fewer units (only three normally operational now), and the need for two guards when interconnecting doors could no longer be used on the move.
IIRC 5-car sets of the shorter bodied Standard Stock were the norm in the 80s.
484s won't have toilets - they are not required by PRM and have not been fitted to new fleets like SWR 707s, Crossrail 345s and the new Overground 710s.
3-car sets would be excessive in Winter and wouldn't fit inside Ryde Works or some of the sidings outside without splitting. They also couldn't be doubled up due to platform length constraints (todays stopping positions means 4-cars only just fit at Pier Head and Shanklin, and Lake/Smallbrook are too short).
The 230s were raised to improve clearances, the 484s will presumably remain at their original height.
Last edited:
I’m confused....
The 484s will only have intra unit gangways so if units can’t be doubled up now because they would need two guards why won’t this be a problem in future?
The idea that the current trains are running 70-80% capacity between Oc-Apr is very very hard to believe. I have been on half season weekends and peak periods and they have only been busy but never packed full, even though the ferries were very busy.
The 484s will only have intra unit gangways so if units can’t be doubled up now because they would need two guards why won’t this be a problem in future?
The idea that the current trains are running 70-80% capacity between Oc-Apr is very very hard to believe. I have been on half season weekends and peak periods and they have only been busy but never packed full, even though the ferries were very busy.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I'd be surprised. Driver release would be a time-saver, though.
Train Maniac
Member
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2018
- Messages
- 380
Bloody finally! Hahaha
Brissle Girl
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Jul 2018
- Messages
- 2,658
In terms of summer peak capacity, the 30/30 rather than 20/40 interval split will even out demand, particularly as both services will then offer good connections with the ferry. In addition the larger car dimensions of the D train give an additional floor area of 27%. (The passenger area % increase will be slightly more than that, assuming the depth of the cabs is broadly the same as the 483.) And finally, the greater height will also reduce the perception of it being very cramped when heavily loaded. So, even though they will still be 2 car sets, it would appear to be a reasonable increase in capacity, as well as a step change in passenger environment.
Chris125
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Nov 2009
- Messages
- 3,076
The busiest 4-car services may still justify a second guard, but being able to move freely in each unit (presumably with door controls in each carriage) will make their operation much more straightforward for guards than being limited to one carriage between each station.
Rick1984
Member
- Joined
- 23 Aug 2012
- Messages
- 1,038
Red Funnel's new freight ferry MV Kestrel would be ideal to transport them across.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Red_Kestrel
Regarding the bridges and tunnel could that section be singled to move the track accordingly?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Red_Kestrel
Regarding the bridges and tunnel could that section be singled to move the track accordingly?
There is no issues with bridges and tunnels!!
MV Kestrel would be no better or worse than the rest of the Falcon class, or the St Claire or the Victoria of Wight.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,437
The previous two fleets went over on lorries on the normal car ferries of the day. The 38 stock bodies and bogies went separately and were craned back together on the island. If anything the present RORO ferries are all bigger than back then.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Does that mean the tunnel section at Ryde will never be subjected to the same amount of recent-time flooding ever again?
Almost certainly big enough, possibly big enough to do a whole unit across 2 separate flatbeds at one time. The Cenred type ships from the early 80s are tiny compared to the current giants that run on the routes (expect the Lymington route).
There’s no guarantee that anything will ever not flood. If enough water comes down in a short space of time it’ll create issues, especially being below sea level.
To correct my previous post, to appease any pedants, there is no gauging issues with the D78 stock through the various bridges and tunnels. Hope that clears things up.
greaterwest
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2014
- Messages
- 1,431
I haven't seen platform lengths mentioned anywhere here, with all this talk of doubling up during the summer. What are the current restrictions, if any, with the Class 483 units?
Chris125
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Nov 2009
- Messages
- 3,076
There's enough room for 4-car 483s, but little more - trains stop some way short of the buffers at each termini and Lake/Smallbrook were built with relatively short (5-car?) platforms.
I believe a scheme to reduce the risk of Monktonmead Brook flooding is more or less complete - that's what fills the tunnel, when it flows along the trackbed into Ryde and down into the tunnel overwhelming the pumps.
However the tunnel remains what must be the lowest point in Ryde and will still need decent drainage to cope with runoff, ingress from high tides etc.
Last edited:
On the flooding issue, of there's been any recent developments nearby or upstream then they will have been limited in the amount of water they can discharge and so that will reduce the risk of flooding.
Such rules are imposed UK wide, and so actually new developments (contrary to popular belief) will actually reduce flooding risk compared to green fields.
The reason for this is that the discharge rate will be limited to greenfield runoff (i.e. the amount of water which would have been discharged had it just been fields) but to ensure that this is the case for 1:100 year storms this means that under other conditions the discharge rate is lower. That's before you consider the 20-40% of extra storage which is required to be provided to accommodate for climate change, which reduces the discharge rate further.
It also means that during a wet winter when the ground would have likely been waterlogged and would have acted like concrete, due to not being able to absorb any more water, the discharge rates will be much lower.
Why would 2 units need 2 guards? They don't on the rest of SWR...
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Because fare collection is mostly onboard, so if there aren't two then half the fares won't get collected.
ElectroSoldier
Member
Half the fares dont get collected as it is
DarloRich
Veteran Member
This is fantastical. There is no such ferry and even if there were there is no linkspan for it!
The vehicles will go over ine car at a time on a low loader trailer ( without cab perhaps) on the usual standard ferry!
- Status