• 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 Class 484 Reliability

bramling

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,786
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Buzby said:
Does anyone know why the current stock ticked all the boxes to be used as replacement stock on the Island Line? I didn’t pay much attention to the tendering process but I am aware that earlier LT stock provided service until the refurbishment. Having had a few journeys on the ‘new’ stock, I began to wonder if at a possible ‘bargain basement’ price this economy has come at the expense of reliability?

Surely also more appropriate traction with a wheel set that matched the existing platform heights and save on panels to raise the platforms of every station would have been the pragmatic approach, than have to shoe-horn a replacement train and build infrastructure around that?

Since services are again disrupted it is starting to gain the exasperation of the older stock in record time, a Shanklin resident told me she’s given up on the IL and now uses buses exclusively (due to their reliability and frequency). VivaRail’s demise kinda points to a ‘heritage’ solution that didn’t work, and I don’t think IoW residents need another one - and there won’t be any money to start again.
Click to expand...

It’s doubtful any other stock could realistically have been procured. Perhaps something bespoke from Stadler, though there’s no guarantee that would have been plain sailing - look at Merseyrail for a comparison!

Otherwise wait for the 73 stock, but would this really have been any better than the D stock. Older, and had a harder life.

I have always wondered to what extent the 38 stock could have been overhauled for further service. A lot of money no doubt, but a known quantity.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

P

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
5,728
Location
Croydon
Buzby said:
Does anyone know why the current stock ticked all the boxes to be used as replacement stock on the Island Line? I didn’t pay much attention to the tendering process but I am aware that earlier LT stock provided service until the refurbishment. Having had a few journeys on the ‘new’ stock, I began to wonder if at a possible ‘bargain basement’ price this economy has come at the expense of reliability?

Surely also more appropriate traction with a wheel set that matched the existing platform heights and save on panels to raise the platforms of every station would have been the pragmatic approach, than have to shoe-horn a replacement train and build infrastructure around that?

Since services are again disrupted it is starting to gain the exasperation of the older stock in record time, a Shanklin resident told me she’s given up on the IL and now uses buses exclusively (due to their reliability and frequency). VivaRail’s demise kinda points to a ‘heritage’ solution that didn’t work, and I don’t think IoW residents need another one - and there won’t be any money to start again.
Click to expand...
The trains replaced were secondhand from London Underground / Transport (LU/LT now known as TfL) from 1938 and they had replaced even older LT trains from 1923. So it is normal practice on the Isle of Wight to use ex LU/LT/TfL trains !.
bramling said:
It’s doubtful any other stock could realistically have been procured. Perhaps something bespoke from Stadler, though there’s no guarantee that would have been plain sailing - look at Merseyrail for a comparison!

Otherwise wait for the 73 stock, but would this really have been any better than the D stock. Older, and had a harder life.

I have always wondered to what extent the 38 stock could have been overhauled for further service. A lot of money no doubt, but a known quantity.
Click to expand...
As you say, Standard BR stock will not fit so it was underground stock or new bespoke stock. The cost of new bespoke stock would have risked a review looking at permanent closure.

I would assume that the current problems are not due to the LU/LT heritage but maybe teething problems that could arise with new bespoke stock as well. Perhaps even a loss of experience since the 1938 stock was introduced. Perhaps a change in rail and/or wheel profile specification (as mentioned up thread). Perhaps the problem is that SWR are not doing very well at introducing ANY new or updated trains - in fact the Dstock to 484 conversion and introduction might be the one SWR are doing best at !.

You are right that the D-Stock is a lot newer and healthier than the 1938 stock so it would be logical to assume that newer trains from the same operator were an option not to be ignored.
 
TrainBoy98

TrainBoy98

Member
Joined
19 Mar 2012
Messages
446
Location
Worthing
Likely a silly question (possibly belonging in speculation, so apologies) and no doubt very expensive...

But couldn't they have ordered a few shortened S stock - or thinking ahead, a a shortened NTfL - sets to send over to the IoW instead of relying on rather old hand-me-downs?
 
B

Big Jumby 74

Member
Joined
12 Feb 2022
Messages
1,075
Location
UK
bramling said:
I have always wondered to what extent the 38 stock could have been overhauled for further service.
Click to expand...
Cough, splutter, shouldn't go there! Some cars, had 'issues' from day one on the Island, despite the refurb. You may remember there was a spare unit 010, and a number of cars were abandoned fairly soon after they arrived at Ryde. The need for spares, or Christmas tree cars as some might say. The 38 stock scheme was also done on a budget, and it is (err, was) only the skill of those at Ryde that kept them going so long, and also easy to forget in length of service terms they outlived that of the Standard stock, which I witnessed in its infancy in the summer of '67. Have a pic somewhere of a 7 VecTis running along the pier taken from the beach in it's new BR blue livery!
 
Chris125

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
3,076
TrainBoy98 said:
But couldn't they have ordered a few shortened S stock - or thinking ahead, a a shortened NTfL - sets to send over to the IoW instead of relying on rather old hand-me-downs?
Click to expand...

Crazy expensive and unnecessary - aluminium bodyshell aside, how much of the 484s is 'rather old' anyway? TfL gave them modern interiors and replacement bogies while Vivarail replaced the cabs, electrics, motors etc.
 
D

DaveS65

New Member
Joined
25 Mar 2024
Messages
1
Location
Highcliffe
RedPostJunc said:
The Isle of Wight County Press is reporting that the service is going to be reduced to one train per hour from tomorrow, because of the lack of serviceable units: https://www.countypress.co.uk/news/...il-service-cutting-service-train-maintenance/
Click to expand...
484 001 has apparently been out of use since sometime between April and July 2023, reportedly with flood damage but some sources are saying that it's
now being used for spares, hence reports of four trains. I wonder if anyone knows when 484 001 was last used.
 
P

pompeyfan

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2012
Messages
4,192
DaveS65 said:
484 001 has apparently been out of use since sometime between April and July 2023, reportedly with flood damage but some sources are saying that it's
now being used for spares, hence reports of four trains. I wonder if anyone knows when 484 001 was last used.
Click to expand...

It could be both, it was damaged due to flooding, and so parts have been borrowed off it.
 
RacsoMoquette

RacsoMoquette

Member
Joined
24 Nov 2023
Messages
106
Location
South Cambridgeshire
I am seeing an extremely similar story in this scenario to TFWs Class 230s, with four operating with woeful reliability and one cannibalized, with SWR following suit.
 
W

Woods

Member
Joined
3 Sep 2021
Messages
120
Location
Banbury
RacsoMoquette said:
I am seeing an extremely similar story in this scenario to TFWs Class 230s, with four operating with woeful reliability and one cannibalized, with SWR following suit.
Click to expand...
Peter Sarf said:
Not as bad. Theoretically it is just the wheel sets vs the track.
Click to expand...
And the one being cannibalised is damaged due to the flooding last year, so a bit different from the TfW situation. The 484s were achieving good reliability before the wheelset issues and hopefully that will eventually be re-established.
 
T

TomatoKetchup

Member
Joined
2 Apr 2024
Messages
6
Location
London
RacsoMoquette said:
After a highly splendid recent trip to the Isle of Wight, utilizing the Island Line frequently I have became quite knowledgeable about the Class 484s. On my trip during between the 22nd and 25th February 2024. Meanwhile apart from them being extremely charming and well designed (At least for the passenger that is) I spoke to three different guards who were rather happy to have a detailed chat, Though they all had one straightforward answer, which was (These units are a nightmare) or (Let’s not get in to this conversation). The consensus is clear that reliability is woeful. During my visit the only units operating were 484003 and 484004. While the latter three were out of service due to failures of some variety. I am interested to understand if anyone may relay any information to what variety of failures the units are experiencing, seeing as the main bane of the 230s was the engines and insufficient cooling systems, which is not present on the 484s. on a more positive note I found the units to be quick of the mark and internal arrangements to be ideal. Unfortunately though ( As with the 230s) the doors are painfully slow to open and slam violently when closing. It can not do the bodyshells any good!
Click to expand...
Also, who in the right mind of the timetable people, decided to stop half of the trains at Ryde Esplanade. It's just inconvenient, what's so expensive of making the train go 400m across the Pier. It's not the Class 484 trains, but whoever created this new timetable needs to have a rethink.
 
Buzby

Buzby

Member
Joined
14 Apr 2023
Messages
627
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
That extra 400m adds wear and to what end? If simply for completeness, then it’s pointless because there is no other reason to go there unless for the ferry, and if only 50% of the trains serve the ferry, why waste electricity, track wear and support infrastructure simply to look pretty for tourists. If it’s not howling a gale of heaving with rain, it’s a pleasant 8 minute walk from the Esplanade, but the only thing you can really do there is take the ferry, park your car of have a coffee whilst looking at the view/museum display. Their approach is pragmatic, but seems the right one.
 
G

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
8,473
Location
Up the creek
TomatoKetchup said:
Also, who in the right mind of the timetable people, decided to stop half of the trains at Ryde Esplanade. It's just inconvenient, what's so expensive of making the train go 400m across the Pier. It's not the Class 484 trains, but whoever created this new timetable needs to have a rethink.
Click to expand...

I believe that at least part of the reason was to give a bit of what used to be called pathing time: a slight buffer for late running when the non-boat connection meets the other train, particularly when it is heading for the boat. A minute or two lost by a train going south is no great problem, but a minute or two lost by the one heading for the boat can mean missing the boat. The three or four minutes saved by not going to the Pier Head puts just a little spare time into what is otherwise a fairly tightly timed timetable. Whether it has worked out like that is another matter.

One thing that would be welcome is for the second train to continue down to the Pier Head if the previous southbound one had left before the boat passengers are on it: this would reduce the wait for boat passengers at the Pier Head by half an hour. But I bet that it is just too difficult for the different players to coordinate something that is only in the passengers’ interest, not the operators’ financial ones.
 
Peter Mugridge

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
14,853
Location
Epsom
stuu said:
Why not? The cars are slightly (70mm) wider, but they are shorter so they should have less overhang around the curves.
Click to expand...
The S Stock probably isn't much different in overhang - there isn't a lot of difference on the bogie centres so that probably cancels out the width differences.

To compare the dimensions, in mm:

D Stock the cars are 18372 long compared to 17439 for the S Stock.

D Stock the bogie centres are 11885 compared to 10820 for the S Stock.

D Stock the cab end to the bogie centre is 3370 compared to 3862 on the S Stock - although the curved design of the S Stock may mitigate that somewhat.

If anyone can actually compare the kinematic envelopes for the two it might be interesting to see.
 
DelW

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,897
TomatoKetchup said:
Also, who in the right mind of the timetable people, decided to stop half of the trains at Ryde Esplanade. It's just inconvenient, what's so expensive of making the train go 400m across the Pier. It's not the Class 484 trains, but whoever created this new timetable needs to have a rethink.
Click to expand...
IIRC part of the problem is that Brading loop is not quite at the mid-point of the line, and the timetable is very tight to run Brading - Pier Head - Brading in 30 minutes. Turning one tph back at Esplanade allows any delays to be caught up rather than building up through the day. While Wightlink is only running a one-boat schedule it shouldn't be a problem.
CarrotPie said:
:D It's the reason they've used LU castoffs forever!
Click to expand...
There was much discussion about Ryde tunnel clearances when the 484s were being proposed, procured and converted. It emerged that a road bridge which forms part of the tunnel roof had been rebuilt with shallower deck beams since the 485s and 483s had been chosen, and that the critical dimension is now not coach height or width but length, because of reverse curves in the tunnel. The advantage of the D78s was not that they're lower or narrower than most mainline stock but that they're shorter. Being available second hand and having DC traction no doubt helped as well.
 
T

TomatoKetchup

Member
Joined
2 Apr 2024
Messages
6
Location
London
Buzby said:
That extra 400m adds wear and to what end? If simply for completeness, then it’s pointless because there is no other reason to go there unless for the ferry, and if only 50% of the trains serve the ferry, why waste electricity, track wear and support infrastructure simply to look pretty for tourists. If it’s not howling a gale of heaving with rain, it’s a pleasant 8 minute walk from the Esplanade, but the only thing you can really do there is take the ferry, park your car of have a coffee whilst looking at the view/museum display. Their approach is pragmatic, but seems the right one.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but when the Class 483s were running, they never did this silly business of stopping one stop early, even if no ferries were running, and before some gaps between the trains were 20mins. Plus not everyone use the ferries from pier head, there are so many tourists who I know, who just paid for a ticket from Esplanade to Pier Head just because it was a cool occurence, that you go across a pier using a tube train. I remember when I went back in 2019, I did this every evening on my stay, just because it was satisfying and some people just like to spend some time on the pier before hopping on their train. I think the connection is a tight 5 mins, you barely get any time to look out onto the pier. It might make sense for the timetable creators that they should just run the trains according to the ferry frequency, but they have to understand that it is a railway that not just locals use for commuting, but tourists, locals who just want to use the railway as leisure as well. In my opinion, SWR or whatever company runs it, are going to their profit-thirsty mode now. Trains sit at Esplanade for quite some time, in that time they might as well run the train to the pier, turn it round and go back, not hard in my opinion. I don't know the details of how they run the Island Line, but just from my eyes of the timetable when using the service, it is quite silly in my opinion
DelW said:
IIRC part of the problem is that Brading loop is not quite at the mid-point of the line, and the timetable is very tight to run Brading - Pier Head - Brading in 30 minutes. Turning one tph back at Esplanade allows any delays to be caught up rather than building up through the day. While Wightlink is only running a one-boat schedule it shouldn't be a problem.
Click to expand...
I mean that is why before the service was every 20/40 mins because that is what worked. Not sure on other days, but when I went recently, the train sat at Esplanade for around 7 mins. In that time, they can run it to the pier, have a 5 min break and turn the train around. It should be easy, but I don't know how the Island Line normally operate. if they turn around at Esplanade in sub-4 minutes, then fair enough. If they sit there for ages, then it's silly to not go 400m down the pier.
 
G

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
8,473
Location
Up the creek
TomatoKetchup said:
Fair enough, but when the Class 483s were running, they never did this silly business of stopping one stop early, even if no ferries were running, and before some gaps between the trains were 20mins. Plus not everyone use the ferries from pier head, there are so many tourists who I know, who just paid for a ticket from Esplanade to Pier Head just because it was a cool occurence, that you go across a pier using a tube train. I remember when I went back in 2019, I did this every evening on my stay, just because it was satisfying and some people just like to spend some time on the pier before hopping on their train. I think the connection is a tight 5 mins, you barely get any time to look out onto the pier. It might make sense for the timetable creators that they should just run the trains according to the ferry frequency, but they have to understand that it is a railway that not just locals use for commuting, but tourists, locals who just want to use the railway as leisure as well. In my opinion, SWR or whatever company runs it, are going to their profit-thirsty mode now. Trains sit at Esplanade for quite some time, in that time they might as well run the train to the pier, turn it round and go back, not hard in my opinion. I don't know the details of how they run the Island Line, but just from my eyes of the timetable when using the service, it is quite silly in my opinion

I mean that is why before the service was every 20/40 mins because that is what worked. Not sure on other days, but when I went recently, the train sat at Esplanade for around 7 mins. In that time, they can run it to the pier, have a 5 min break and turn the train around. It should be easy, but I don't know how the Island Line normally operate. if they turn around at Esplanade in sub-4 minutes, then fair enough. If they sit there for ages, then it's silly to not go 400m down the pier.
Click to expand...

Various comments. The tourists who travelled along the pier because it was a novelty in a tube travelled in what was recognisably a tube train. The current trains are much closer to normal trains, and only enthusiasts and the occasional former District line user will know that they are ex-LT. There is, frankly, very little for non-enthusiasts to do at the Pier Head except fishing: most locals have no interest in the Pier Head unless they are going to the mainland.

The trip along the pier is nearly two minutes: this leaves you about one minute more than the time to change ends at the Pier Head. The trip is tightly timed enough, but terminating at Esplanade gives a tiny bit of recovery time in order to avoid knocking the second train, which is the boat connection. It is not perfect, but it is probably better than a late-running non-connector carrying one man and his rod, which then delays the boat connection on the way back.

The connection to the FastCat service is what keeps the line going and you have to make that the number one priority when planning. If you ignore that, then goodbye Islandline: it can be a miserable walk along the pier, so I would rather keep the train.
 
DelW

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,897
TomatoKetchup said:
In my opinion, SWR or whatever company runs it, are going to their profit-thirsty mode now.
Click to expand...
I think SWR would be very disappointed if they were expecting Island Line to produce a profit! Even in normal times it's only kept alive by subsidy.

Like all other TOCs post-Covid, SWR are currently paid a fee to operate the service level mandated by DfT, with all ticket revenue (such as it is) going to the government.
 
K

kentrailman

Member
Joined
5 Nov 2019
Messages
83
Location
Kent
Re making more money ... If they had some sort of system to check tickets at the pier head before boarding the train, or at Esplanade on getting off it, I am sure it would pay for itself. Perhaps they could sell tickets at Portsmouth harbour as there is no time on arrival from ferry before boarding the train. Or maybe a contactless machine at pier head. The guard never has time to check or issue tickets between pier head and Esplanade. Usually in my experience not even bothering to try. The sign at pier head says "buy your ticket on the train" and I am sure countless tourists ( and locals !) Get a free ride from pier head to Esplanade. Many tourists probably assume it is included with the ferry fare and hop on the train. yes only £1.60 single per person but every little helps !
 
Last edited:
G

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
8,473
Location
Up the creek
kentrailman said:
Re making more money ... If they had some sort of system to check tickets at the pier head before boarding the train, or at Esplanade on getting off it, I am sure it would pay for itself. Perhaps they could sell tickets at Portsmouth harbour as there is no time on arrival from ferry before boarding the train. Or maybe a contactless machine at pier head. The guard never has time to check or issue any tickets between pier head and Esplanade. The sign at pier head says "buy your ticket on the train" and I am sure countless tourists ( and locals !) Get a free ride from pier head to Esplanade. Many tourists probably assume it is included with the ferry fare and hop on the train. yes only £1.60 single per person but every little helps !
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you would have to have a row of Quick Fare machines as there are only seven minutes to get from the FastCat to the train. Sufficient, you might think. Well, no, not if the Cat is delayed by leaving a bit late due to a late arrival or too many passengers (*), by having to wait for a larger ship to pass through Portsmouth Harbour entrance, by having to go the long way round due to the state of the tide, by taking a long time to dock due to the wind, etc. Then it is a dash to the platform: locals know that they have to be at the Cat’s doors when they are opened. And then we are expected to stop and buy a ticket…

Most guards do their best, but at any but the quietest periods rarely get through both coaches. If someone asks for a ticket to, say, Shanklin they say they will come back and move on to the next Esplanade/St Johns Road passenger. They do vary where they will start, which probably helps a bit.

* - Or, as recently, by a large but placid school group who were being disorganised by one of the masters constantly running about rearranging things and holding up the queue. We ended up fifteen plus late at the Pier Head from a ten late arrival at Portsmouth.
 
T

TomatoKetchup

Member
Joined
2 Apr 2024
Messages
6
Location
London
Gloster said:
Various comments. The tourists who travelled along the pier because it was a novelty in a tube travelled in what was recognisably a tube train. The current trains are much closer to normal trains, and only enthusiasts and the occasional former District line user will know that they are ex-LT. There is, frankly, very little for non-enthusiasts to do at the Pier Head except fishing: most locals have no interest in the Pier Head unless they are going to the mainland.

The trip along the pier is nearly two minutes: this leaves you about one minute more than the time to change ends at the Pier Head. The trip is tightly timed enough, but terminating at Esplanade gives a tiny bit of recovery time in order to avoid knocking the second train, which is the boat connection. It is not perfect, but it is probably better than a late-running non-connector carrying one man and his rod, which then delays the boat connection on the way back.

The connection to the FastCat service is what keeps the line going and you have to make that the number one priority when planning. If you ignore that, then goodbye Islandline: it can be a miserable walk along the pier, so I would rather keep the train.
Click to expand...
That makes sense, the sad thing is before the modernisation, we had a more frequent service, every 20/40 mins from the pier, with most connecting to the Fast Cat. Shame what went wrong after the modernisation

Out of curiosity, what do you all prefer, the 20/40 minutes frequency in the days of the Class 483s, or the non reliable 30 min frequency?

What is 1 thing, you miss about the Class 483 (Ex-1938 Tube) trains when they were still running on the Island?
 
bramling

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,786
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
TomatoKetchup said:
That makes sense, the sad thing is before the modernisation, we had a more frequent service, every 20/40 mins from the pier, with most connecting to the Fast Cat. Shame what went wrong after the modernisation

Out of curiosity, what do you all prefer, the 20/40 minutes frequency in the days of the Class 483s, or the non reliable 30 min frequency?

What is 1 thing, you miss about the Class 483 (Ex-1938 Tube) trains when they were still running on the Island?
Click to expand...

Personally I think the old service was better, especially as there was (at one time) the ability to run a 4-car train on the service which had the 40-minute gap in front, so in theory the level of capacity was balanced out even if the frequency wasn’t.

Everyone knew what the timetable was, so it wasn’t really an issue.
 
B

Big Jumby 74

Member
Joined
12 Feb 2022
Messages
1,075
Location
UK
TomatoKetchup said:
Out of curiosity, what do you all prefer, the 20/40 minutes frequency
Click to expand...
Back before then, when it was 20 min frequency, three trains per hour, UP & DOWN trains at the southern end would cross on the double track section between Sandown and Brading. Putting aside the 'why's and wherefore's' (etc), that stretch was singled back in the late 80's, so it became a single track between clear (North) of Sandown (loop, as it became) all the way to Smallbrook Junction. This was the reason for the 20/40 split in frequency. Roll forward to more recent events, as pointed out by a-another Up thread, the new loop at Brading is in the wrong place. A simple study of the 38 stock era (pre 484) timetable point to point schedules, will indicate the loop needs to be North of Brading station, and it is perhaps ironic, that the original formation between Brading (North of Wall Lane bridge) and just south of Smallbrook, although only ever single track, was built originally to accommodate double track, and the road overbridges along that stretch could still accommodate same. That would have allowed an equal 30 min interval service, running at the same speeds and point to point schedules as was in place before, no need to try to tighten the schedules up to what some might say is unrealistic in performance terms, and would also have allowed all trains to go up the pier at Ryde.
Instead the new loop at Brading has cost far more than needed, in order to comply with all sorts of other (related) legal issues, foot crossing, footbridge (as was) etc etc., whereas if the loop was just to the North, Brading could have remained as a single track/one platform station.
I'm sure some will point out the cost of (re?) building drainage, widening a now partially overgrown (double track) cutting up through Whitefield Wood area and the rest, will likely have cost far more (and been far more complex to execute) than the works that did take place at Brading - who knows?
We are where we are!
 
T

TomatoKetchup

Member
Joined
2 Apr 2024
Messages
6
Location
London
Big Jumby 74 said:
Back before then, when it was 20 min frequency, three trains per hour, UP & DOWN trains at the southern end would cross on the double track section between Sandown and Brading. Putting aside the 'why's and wherefore's' (etc), that stretch was singled back in the late 80's, so it became a single track between clear (North) of Sandown (loop, as it became) all the way to Smallbrook Junction. This was the reason for the 20/40 split in frequency. Roll forward to more recent events, as pointed out by a-another Up thread, the new loop at Brading is in the wrong place. A simple study of the 38 stock era (pre 484) timetable point to point schedules, will indicate the loop needs to be North of Brading station, and it is perhaps ironic, that the original formation between Brading (North of Wall Lane bridge) and just south of Smallbrook, although only ever single track, was built originally to accommodate double track, and the road overbridges along that stretch could still accommodate same. That would have allowed an equal 30 min interval service, running at the same speeds and point to point schedules as was in place before, no need to try to tighten the schedules up to what some might say is unrealistic in performance terms, and would also have allowed all trains to go up the pier at Ryde.
Instead the new loop at Brading has cost far more than needed, in order to comply with all sorts of other (related) legal issues, foot crossing, footbridge (as was) etc etc., whereas if the loop was just to the North, Brading could have remained as a single track/one platform station.
I'm sure some will point out the cost of (re?) building drainage, widening a now partially overgrown (double track) cutting up through Whitefield Wood area and the rest, will likely have cost far more (and been far more complex to execute) than the works that did take place at Brading - who knows?
We are where we are!
Click to expand...
100% I agree. The refurbishment has seemed to cause more problems that it should've done, they should've just levelled the platforms up for level boarding and leave it the way it was. If they just took out the 483s and placed the 484s in then none of this gibberish would've happened. The 20/40 min frequency was much better, as even if it was a 40min wait, the trains were often 4 Carriages. Nowadays, we have 5 Class 484s and only 2 of them are used. 484 001 was damaged fine, but what about the rest? I haven't been to the island recently, but do they couple two units together? If only 2 trains are used for the timetable, they might as well have a high capacity by doing so?
 
T

TomatoKetchup

Member
Joined
2 Apr 2024
Messages
6
Location
London
bramling said:
Personally I think the old service was better, especially as there was (at one time) the ability to run a 4-car train on the service which had the 40-minute gap in front, so in theory the level of capacity was balanced out even if the frequency wasn’t.

Everyone knew what the timetable was, so it wasn’t really an issue.
Click to expand...
Exactly what I'm thinking. The refurbishment has made us worse off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top