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

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
12,118
Location
Another planet...
Just posting this from Railwaygazzette.com for amusement

GERMANY: The first Class 483/484 EMUs for the Berlin S-Bahn network began running on route S47 in the early hours of January 1, as the route became the first in the city to be operated under a tendered contract.
View attachment 88242
Wow... Those units really do have a face only a mother could love!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

spark001uk

Established Member
Joined
20 Aug 2010
Messages
1,978
Just posting this from Railwaygazzette.com for amusement

GERMANY: The first Class 483/484 EMUs for the Berlin S-Bahn network began running on route S47 in the early hours of January 1, as the route became the first in the city to be operated under a tendered contract.
View attachment 88242
I actually came across these on YouTube a while back whilst looking for 484 vids.!
 

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
2,035
Location
Croydon
Just posting this from Railwaygazzette.com for amusement

GERMANY: The first Class 483/484 EMUs for the Berlin S-Bahn network began running on route S47 in the early hours of January 1, as the route became the first in the city to be operated under a tendered contract.
View attachment 88242
Oh come on, surely these re-purposed Tyne and Wear units look better than a 484 <D.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
3,923
Weird that those Berlin trains are built by a consortium of Siemens and Stadler
 

ivzem

Member
Joined
15 Aug 2019
Messages
39
Location
Potsdam, Germany
Hey, at least those actually entered service on time, with the exact service that was agreed upon more than a year ago, and have apparently done pretty well since.
 

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
2,035
Location
Croydon
Hey, at least those actually entered service on time, with the exact service that was agreed upon more than a year ago, and have apparently done pretty well since.
It's true. Looks are not everything. Reliability, comfort and function should trump cosmetics. [/off-topic].

And we can be sure that the 484s are an improvement on the much older 483s whatever they look like.
 

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
2,722
Oh dear.

I'm sure it's marginal, perhaps the conversion from D78 to 484 had more impact on gauging than expected, but still rather embarrassing for Vivarail.


...there were no initial plans to do this but after further investigation there may be a necessity to lower the track to give enough room for the new units to get through the tunnel
 
Last edited:

spark001uk

Established Member
Joined
20 Aug 2010
Messages
1,978
I can almost hear the hordes now, "see, I told you they wouldn't fit.!!"
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
4,641
Has one actually been through the tunnel yet? If not, surely the best way to see if it fits is to send it through slowly: if it fits it fits, if it doesn't... :D
Well, the tunnel was deemed sufficiently big enough for the proposed use of class 503s in the 80s. According to Wikipedia, these were 3.48m high, and the D Stock is 3.62m. Maybe that extra 14cm is a problem.
 

spark001uk

Established Member
Joined
20 Aug 2010
Messages
1,978
They should nip down the local pound shop for a handful of laser pointers, tape them to the roof, drive up to the entrance and see where the dots are (or aren't). :D
 

northernbelle

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2018
Messages
390
Well, the tunnel was deemed sufficiently big enough for the proposed use of class 503s in the 80s. According to Wikipedia, these were 3.48m high, and the D Stock is 3.62m. Maybe that extra 14cm is a problem.
The tunnel has had significant alterations since then. I remember reading that the bigger constraint was the curvature at the Shanklin end of the tunnel limiting the length of vehicles.

Sadly it's consistent with other comments in recent weeks, one by Mike Hart in particular, and a conspicuous lack of testing through the tunnel.
It's always the way. I remember being told absolutely categorically that IETs were too long for the curves on the Royal Albert Bridge. When I highlighted that several had already been to Cornwall on test, they still refused to acknowledge the duff gen.
 

Gloster

Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
965
Location
Up the creek
I heard that the problem was a risk that the top corners of the vehicles would be foul. I can’t remember where I heard it or how reliable the source was.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
3,254
Location
Northern England
It's only the train roof, it's not like it's an important part of the train! All it does is stop the passengers getting wet; no need to repair it!
I mean, it does also keep water from getting into the electrics, but what does that matter? It's not like no lighting, heating, doors, or ability to safely control the train would affect the service at all! :D

But no, in all seriousness, it will be very embarrassing to both SWR and Vivarail if it does indeed turn out that they won't fit. Cries of "Told you so!" from lots of members of the public...
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
1,716
Are there other solutions if the tunnel is too small? E.g. can the suspension be lowered, fit smaller wheels etc? Is it the case that the trains will physically fit, but will not allow for any lateral movement, e.g. over track joints or going round corners?
 

D365

Established Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
7,946
Are there other solutions if the tunnel is too small? E.g. can the suspension be lowered, fit smaller wheels etc? Is it the case that the trains will physically fit, but will not allow for any lateral movement, e.g. over track joints or going round corners?
I’d suggest you ask this under ”Speculative Ideas” as it’s not confirmed to be fact at this point.
 

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
2,722
Well, the tunnel was deemed sufficiently big enough for the proposed use of class 503s in the 80s. According to Wikipedia, these were 3.48m high, and the D Stock is 3.62m. Maybe that extra 14cm is a problem.

The 503 proposal did involve single-tracking the tunnel and lowering through the single bores, at least in part to reduce maintenance costs and increase linespeed.

Height is just one factor - the tight reverse curves and arched roof make length and width just as important, especially at the cantrail where the middle and end of the carriages get closest to the arched roof.

The tunnel has had significant alterations since then.

I wouldn't say so - the covered way, re-roofed after privatisation, was not obviously more restrictive than the rest of the tunnel.
 
Last edited:

david1212

Member
Joined
9 Apr 2020
Messages
309
Location
Midlands
Over Christmas I read numerous website pages about the IOW railway. While a quick search now hasn't found it I saw a photo of a train with a gauging profile attached at a portal of one of the Ryde tunnels. This may have been for a previous idea. If so logic would say this should have been done again adjusted for planned track lowering and / or to determine the current limit and hence determine the adjustment required.
 

Top