1938 stock on the IoW ("It is old, we must get rid of it")

[pablo]

ISTR that Piccadilly units were longer than stock on the other tube lines. Is that the 'tunnel' factor?

 

[Dstock7080]

ISTR that Piccadilly units were longer than stock on the other tube lines. Is that the 'tunnel' factor?

'38 Stock are:
DM 15.92m
T/NDM 15.61

'73 Stock are:
DM 17.47m
T/UNDM 17.67m

I doubt that compressors could be fitted under '73 DMs, now after the equipment added at refurb.

It is possible that new Stock would go onto the extended Northern first, thus releasing '95s for the Piccadilly.

 

[swt_passenger]

I doubt that compressors could be fitted under '73 DMs, now after the equipment added at refurb.

When discussed back in 2010, the infamous Peter Skuce had asked SWT that very question in the recent web chat:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=411077&postcount=8

They confirmed they intended to use 73 stock in 2 car formations.

 

[43167]

Could they justify running a 20 minute service (ie 3 trains per hour) during busy periods ? Unfortunately passing loops are in the wrong places to operate a 30 minute frequency.

I suspect it is operationally convenient to keep the service as Ryde to Shanklin because a train takes almost exactly an hour to do a round trip.

When I 1st went just after the 483's were introduced, it was a train every 20mins. Services passed at Sandown and between Smallbrook and Ryde St Johns.

 

[D6975]

When I 1st went just after the 483's were introduced, it was a train every 20mins. Services passed at Sandown and between Smallbrook and Ryde St Johns.

When I went there in the late 80s, there were trains every 20 mins, each one formed of 4 coaches (Summertime). I believe they currently only have 6 servicable units, so 100% availability required to do that now.

The passing loop positions only allow a 20 min frequency, hence the lopsided 20 min and 40 min gaps operating 2 sets rather than 3.
This must surely have an impact on use of the line, the possibility of a long wait if you just miss the one after the 20 min gap will be annoying to most folk. Having a passing loop at half way allowing a regular 30 min service as others have suggested is crying out to be done really. (given the apparent reluctance to operate 3 sets)

 

[43167]

Indeed, because sets 001, 003, 005 & 010 (the set formed of 2 cars for spare) have been scrapped.

 

[12CSVT]

I believe they currently only have 6 servicable units, so 100% availability required to do that now.

Five units, not six ! 483002 has been out of service for years, even though the 'Platform 5' books still show it as operational.

 

[Lockwood]

And now for the dumb question:
How did they get the '38 stock over in the first place?
And don't just say "on a boat"

Would it have been a convoy of those heavy loaders taking one car each, then craning them onto the track somewhere?
Some connection of some sort to roll them off of the loaders straight on to rails?

 

[Chris125]

Unfortunately, if given the new trains you would have to put in place on the line the same level safety equipment that is being out into the tracks on the LUL within the tracks of the IOW line, which would make it pretty expensive for the IOW council to have them.

One thought cross my mind, however they may be too tall in height is the Class 313's once Southern has finished using them?

The IW Council are not involved in the running of Island Line, replacement rolling stock would be an issue for the franchise holder - SWT.

As I explained in a previous post, height is not the greatest problem - the 503 design is actually slightly taller than a 313 or 508, but crucially vehicle length was several metres shorter than the standard 20m length of the PEP units and so could be squeezed though Ryde Tunnel. That said, any 'mainline' fleet would need conventional height platforms reinstated.

Indeed as was mentioned previously the old 1920s-vintage 485/486 sets were 3 & 4-cars long and could run as 7. Therefore if any restrictions on length have recently been introduced then it's fair to assume that this can be put right at a cost.

As long as the height restriction is an issue, I can't see a tramway-type solution being viable on the Island Line.

I don't think Lake was built for anything longer than a 4 or 5 carriage train, while Ryde Pier Head and Shanklin would struggle to cope with anything longer than a 4 car train due to modern stopping positions following various accidents.

Height shouldn't be an issue for low floor trams, and even conventional platform designs might fit - the stumbling block would be the cost of buying the trams, altering the platforms and obviously overhead electrification.

And now for the dumb question:
How did they get the '38 stock over in the first place?
And don't just say "on a boat"

Low Loaders via the ferry from Portsmouth, if I remember correctly the bogies were brought over separately and reunited with the bodies at Ryde St Johns.

Chris

 

[southern442]

There would be too little cost for too little benefit in replacing them. The IoW railway is not very long which equates to not much wear and and tear compared to chugging up and down the mainline.

Why bother to fix up a pacer or a HST when better designs are available which will save money in the long run because they don't need constantly fixing.

then again, the slamdoors (411 and 421) survived 50 years or so..
they could get 15 years out of the HST's and 20 more years out of the pacers (not that anyone wants 20 more years of the pacers)

 

[AndyLandy]

then again, the slamdoors (411 and 421) survived 50 years or so..
they could get 15 years out of the HST's and 20 more years out of the pacers (not that anyone wants 20 more years of the pacers)

True, but I suspect the PRM-TSI legislation starts to come into play. If we'd had accessibility requirements to meet 10 years ago, the SR slammers would probably have been withdrawn sooner.

 

[southern442]

True, but I suspect the PRM-TSI legislation starts to come into play. If we'd had accessibility requirements to meet 10 years ago, the SR slammers would probably have been withdrawn sooner.

Speaking of which, is anything being done to the 483s to meet the 2020 requirements?

 

[jopsuk]

True, but I suspect the PRM-TSI legislation starts to come into play. If we'd had accessibility requirements to meet 10 years ago, the SR slammers would probably have been withdrawn sooner.

If a little over twenty years ago NSE had the budget available (rather than it being massively cut back pre-privatisation) there would barely have been any slammers in their area by 2000; it would have been Networkers as far as the eye could see.

 

[yorksrob]

If a little over twenty years ago NSE had the budget available (rather than it being massively cut back pre-privatisation) there would barely have been any slammers in their area by 2000; it would have been Networkers as far as the eye could see.

We have some things to thank privatisation for. NSE would got rid of proper trains a lot earlier !

 

[Chris125]

There appears to be a new issue with tube stock on the Island - it seems to me that guards are no longer moving between carriages while the train is on the move, so as only one car has door controls the other is either locked out of use or those inside effectively travel for free. I don't know whether there was an incident or if this is the result of some kind of safety audit, can anyone shed any light on the situation?

Chris

 

[Birdbrain]

Trust me to be away when an Isle Of Wight thread crops up! I can confirm that the guards are no longer moving between carriages. During the day the two coach sets have one guard in each coach. This means that everybody is made to pay their fare which previously was not always the case. I suspect that the station usage figures will grow! In the evening/early morning the Shanklin end coach is locked out and everyone travels in one coach. I don't know why this has come about but I would be interested to find out!

I think the Isle Of Wight railways are due some investment. The idea of turning it into a heritage railway is nonsense. The railway is a real asset to the people who live here. For example a Shanklin to Ryde return by bus is £9 and takes 45 minutes each way. By rail it is £4.10 and 20 minutes each way. Not only this but the link to Ryde Pier and Portsmouth is vital. It's much better than driving and parking at the ferry. In an ideal world Brading would be doubled to provide the frequency to meet with the half hourly ferries.

 

[cav1975]

I don't think that there's rolling stock on the IOW that is less than 50 years old, unless there's a mark 2 coach on the steam railway...

There are 2 ballast hopper wagons on the steam railway built in 1965 for London Transport which were only 20 years old when they came over and are still not quite 50!

 

[BestWestern]

Trust me to be away when an Isle Of Wight thread crops up! I can confirm that the guards are no longer moving between carriages. During the day the two coach sets have one guard in each coach. This means that everybody is made to pay their fare which previously was not always the case. I suspect that the station usage figures will grow! In the evening/early morning the Shanklin end coach is locked out and everyone travels in one coach. I don't know why this has come about but I would be interested to find out!

That's very interesting, presumably there must have been an incident involving a fall or injury moving between cars. Have IL recruited in order to have the manpower for essentially doubling their number of turns?!

 

[Lrd]

That's very interesting, presumably there must have been an incident involving a fall or injury moving between cars. Have IL recruited in order to have the manpower for essentially doubling their number of turns?!

I remember seeing vacancies for jobs over there a little while a go, fairly sure it was for guards. One of the requirements was that you had to live on the Island.

 

[Chris125]

Trust me to be away when an Isle Of Wight thread crops up! I can confirm that the guards are no longer moving between carriages. During the day the two coach sets have one guard in each coach.

I thought that must be the case, though the first train of the day I took a few weeks back only had the one guard - I had to change carriages to get a ticket.

Not only must this hurt the economics of the service, what do they do about 4-car sets? At least one has run but with two vehicles locked out, which is pretty pointless.

Chris

 

[D7666]

When discussed back in 2010 ...........

..... They confirmed they intended to use 73 stock in 2 car formations.

Moving to 2013, 1973 tube stock is now planned for a life extension (and 1972 stock ditto).

No tube stock will be released for a very very long time yet.

--
Nicj

 

[southern442]

Moving to 2013, 1973 tube stock is now planned for a life extension (and 1972 stock ditto).

No tube stock will be released for a very very long time yet.

--
Nicj

That's good because they are currently my favourite tube stock!

 

[Birdbrain]

Both services I traveled on today only had one guard but both carriages in use. This effectivly made one coach a "free" coach. This really can't be good. I wonder what the offical reason is. Makes you think is there anything they can do in order to use the doors again.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Both services I traveled on today only had one guard but both carriages in use. This effectivly made one coach a "free" coach. This really can't be good. I wonder what the offical reason is. Makes you think is there anything they can do in order to use the doors again.

In theory it should be possible to build gangways like those on full-size stock that would fit to 'tube' stock, though I imagine one of the reasons this hasn't happened on the island line previously is that it wasn't deemed worthwhile. (of course on the actual tube there's a number of reasons not to do it, including the rather sharp turns on some lines, and the problem of huge numbers of people trying to get through a narrow and low gangway. Not to mention the fact that there's no need for a guard to move down the train and check tickets on the tube!).

Fitting such gangways to the 1938 stck (even if it does continue for another 30 years) is unlikely to be viable and might not be easy from a structural point of view. If 'new' (i.e. 1972/3 stock) is eventually introduced to the island it might be worth investigating though. The other option is ticket barriers on every station (except Esplanade and Pier Head of course).

 

[Birdbrain]

It would be good if they could sort something out like that. Ticket barriers are an option but I guess then you have the issue of manning them. It was frustrating today though as the poor guard could only look through the window to see a carriage full of people who got on at stations with no ticket buying facilities!

 

[Tiny Tim]

It's great to see the old tube stock on the Isle of Wight, but let's face it, it's not there for the benefit of railway enthusiasts, it's simply the cheapest way to get the job done. There's not going to be a single penny spent on the Island Line unless it's absolutely necessary. I'm afraid the IoW doesn't come very far up anyone's list of priorities as far as capital expenditure is concerned.

 

[rmt4ever]

It would be good if they could sort something out like that. Ticket barriers are an option but I guess then you have the issue of manning them. It was frustrating today though as the poor guard could only look through the window to see a carriage full of people who got on at stations with no ticket buying facilities!

Why would the "poor guard" care? If as suggested there is a new policy preventing him/her entering the other coaches, then they are doing less work or having an easier time at work, for the same salary. Win win!

 

[Monty]

Why would the "poor guard" care? If as suggested there is a new policy preventing him/her entering the other coaches, then they are doing less work or having an easier time at work, for the same salary. Win win!

One could argue they are loosing money, as most if not all (commerical) guards earn a commission for each ticket sold.

 

[D365]

It would be good if they could sort something out like that. Ticket barriers are an option but I guess then you have the issue of manning them. It was frustrating today though as the poor guard could only look through the window to see a carriage full of people who got on at stations with no ticket buying facilities!

Can't he alternate between coaches at stops? Though I understand, that would be harder with a doubled-up train.

 

[Chris125]

Can't he alternate between coaches at stops? Though I understand, that would be harder with a doubled-up train.

They need access to the door controls, so have to remain at the Ryde end of the unit.

If the controls were duplicated in the other carriage then they could indeed alternate, though giving the driver control over the doors may be a better option and allow the guard to concentrate solely on revenue collection - either option would probably have to wait for the 73TS however.

Chris