• 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.

Midnight Sun

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2018
Messages
310
Thanks for the potted history. I understand that Ventnor station was also quite inconveniently sited for the town and sea front, at the top of a steep hill.
There were plans in 1909 to build a funicular railway from the station down to the seafront. With another to the top of St Bonface from the station. If built it would have looked and been run the same way as the Great Orme Tramway at Llandudno. It was a local land owner (Mrs Evans) who blocked it.

https://www.iwhistory.org.uk/RM/funicularrailway/
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Rick1984

Member
Joined
23 Aug 2012
Messages
1,030
Thanks for the potted history. I understand that Ventnor station was also quite inconveniently sited for the town and sea front, at the top of a steep hill.
Sadly plan for a funicular railway from the seafront right up St. Boniface down was never realised. Could've really changed Ventnor's fortunes.
Read more here:


Oops beaten to it!

At one point I was lifted out of my seat and then slammed back down and I can assure that was painful
I was nearly bounced out my seat once!
 

pdeaves

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
5,632
Location
Gateway to the South West

norbitonflyer

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2020
Messages
2,272
Location
SW London
When I travelled on the line on Thursday, there were some notices up at Shanklin about weekend closures, I think one was the weekend just gone or possibly next weekend. I didn't pay much attention as it was just a one-off day trip for me.

Have to say I'm surprised a D78 will fit through Ryde tunnel.
All measured apparently before they ordered.
The Tube stock, although the only stock that used to fit, left quite a lot of spare headroom. There is a photo somewhere of a class 485 with gauging templates to test whether a Wirral Line 503 would have fitted.

I also recall reading that the clearances in the tunnel (actually a covered way) have improved because the supports for the road above have been replaced and are now of shallower depth, which is why D stock will now fit.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
The Tube stock, although the only stock that used to fit, left quite a lot of spare headroom. There is a photo somewhere of a class 485 with gauging templates to test whether a Wirral Line 503 would have fitted.

I also recall reading that the clearances in the tunnel (actually a covered way) have improved because the supports for the road above have been replaced and are now of shallower depth, which is why D stock will now fit.
It was more the closeness of the wall to the windows at a couple of points that surprised me. D stock is quite a bit wider and longer isn't it?
I'm sure it'll all be fine, it's just one of those things that appears to be a bit marginal at first sight.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
The Tube stock, although the only stock that used to fit, left quite a lot of spare headroom. There is a photo somewhere of a class 485 with gauging templates to test whether a Wirral Line 503 would have fitted.

I also recall reading that the clearances in the tunnel (actually a covered way) have improved because the supports for the road above have been replaced and are now of shallower depth, which is why D stock will now fit.

There were two limiting factors with Ryde tunnel - one was some concrete beams installed in the late 60s to support the road above - these caused a height restriction but apparently have now been removed.

The other is the tunnel has a 'reverse curve' in it which limits the length of the stock which will fit through it.

Here's a comparison between the 483, D78 (484) and 507 - picking the latter because the Merseyrail system also has some clearance restrictions through its tunnels

Class 483 length 16m, width 2.6m, height 2.9m (rounded up the odd cm).

D78 length 18.4m, width 2.85m, height 3.62m

507 length 19.8m, width 2.82m, height 3.6m

I guess that the additional length of about 1.5m per car is the reason why something like a 507 won't fit down there and the decision has been to go with the D trains. The reason why the old Merseyrail 503s would have been considered though is their car length was 17.6m - so shorter and therefore more likely to have fitted.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
I presume the current underground S stock will fit, especially as the carriages are shorter than those on the D78. In 40 years time perhaps they'll replace the 484s :D
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,098
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Unsure if this is the only progress they've made so far or if there are some nearer-completed units in the workshops, they do look quite a few months away from completing, I guess covid hasn't helped the situation.
I bet swr are desperate to get their hands on them with their failing 483s
There's an alternate solution which would be to maintain the fleet you actually have???
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,098
Location
Somewhere, not in London
I presume the current underground S stock will fit, especially as the carriages are shorter than those on the D78. In 40 years time perhaps they'll replace the 484s :D
Yes, but they have air suspension so actually a significantly larger kinematic profile at speed.
 

Speed43125

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2019
Messages
1,131
Location
Dunblane
There's an alternate solution which would be to maintain the fleet you actually have???
Parts availability is pretty much non-existent. The whole episode reminds of Chalk's Ocean Airways actually. Luckily trains can't fall out of the sky... :D
 
Last edited:

gimmea50anyday

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2013
Messages
3,456
Location
Back Cab
Chalks had some pretty dodgy maintenance going on leading up to flight 101 but that was more likely down to the age of the aircraft and no technical support available from Grumman than doing things ValuJets way...
 

Speed43125

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2019
Messages
1,131
Location
Dunblane
Chalks had some pretty dodgy maintenance going on leading up to flight 101 but that was more likely down to the age of the aircraft and no technical support available from Grumman than doing things ValuJets way...
Exactly, DC-9s were able to be maintained properly well into the 2010s ( Northwest, later Delta kept them until 2014 I believe), those ancient Grummens were maintained by cannibalizing other aircraft (I believe they had dozens of aircraft with parts removed as needed), which is more similar to the 483s. No real manufacturer support, but no real alternative to keeping on using the ancient fleet.
Sorry if this is all getting rather OT...
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
There's an alternate solution which would be to maintain the fleet you actually have???

Only viable to a point though - keeping any 80 year old vehicle working takes a bit of effort, regardless of whether it's a train, bus, car or plane - parts availability being a key factor.

The reality is the 483s were probably due replacement 10 years ago - their predecessors were retired when nearly 70 years old, these are 10 years older than that. The original plan would have seen the Piccadilly line's 1973 units, but delays in their replacement which won't happen for another couple of years now has killed that idea.
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,833
There's an alternate solution which would be to maintain the fleet you actually have???
Post 91 on this thread:
(link to post about bogie overhauls)
... suggests that the 483s are still receiving significant mechanical work. But you're talking about stock that's almost twice as old as anything else on the national network, fitted with equipment built by manufacturers who disappeared decades ago.
 

trainmania100

Established Member
Joined
8 Nov 2015
Messages
2,566
Location
Newhaven
Surely the bakerloo line stock can't have that much life left in it, if the 1938 stock held on a few years longer they could have had the bakerloo line stock
Guessing the 484s will go by road from ferry, unless some sort of special crane operations lifting them from the boat onto Ryde peirr
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
5,042
Location
Birmingham
Surely the bakerloo line stock can't have that much life left in it, if the 1938 stock held on a few years longer they could have had the bakerloo line stock.

The 1972 Tube Stock have no cab side doors which would create operational problems during busy periods. Anyway they are probably going to be around for the best part of 10 years yet.
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,418
Surely the bakerloo line stock can't have that much life left in it, if the 1938 stock held on a few years longer they could have had the bakerloo line stock
Well the 484s fit so why for a smaller train which is older and you will have to wait until 2028 for?
 
Last edited:

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
Guessing the 484s will go by road from ferry, unless some sort of special crane operations lifting them from the boat onto Ryde peirr

Both previous lots of tube stock have been delivered by road, so that is how they'll arrive. Only question is whether they are taken to Sandown where there is road access or as has been mentioned elsewhere, they are delivered via the steam railway at Wootton Bridge.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,396
Well the 484s fit so why so for a smaller train which is older and you will have to wait until 2028 for?

Not to mention that the 72TS is virtually life expired anyway.
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,833
Guessing the 484s will go by road from ferry, unless some sort of special crane operations lifting them from the boat onto Ryde peirr
Ryde pier is only served by passenger catamarans which have no capacity for freight or vehicles. The vehicle ferries from Portsmouth go to Fishbourne (Wootton Creek).
 

DavidGrain

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2017
Messages
1,233
They will be based at Eastleigh for much of the testing I would assume so would not involve too long a road transit when they are ready for delivery.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,771
Here's a "I guess they've checked this?" conundrum- since the Class 483 were delivered (indeed, quite recently) the Wighlink terminals on the Portsmouth-Fishbourne route have been upgraded to allow double deck loading of vehicles. Whilst clearly standard HGVs are easily accommodated on this route, are outsized loads?

Red Funnel, serving the far less convenient East Cowes terminal, have a dedicated freight vessel with only the Bridge over the deck
 

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
3,074
I also recall reading that the clearances in the tunnel (actually a covered way) have improved because the supports for the road above have been replaced and are now of shallower depth, which is why D stock will now fit.
There were two limiting factors with Ryde tunnel - one was some concrete beams installed in the late 60s to support the road above - these caused a height restriction but apparently have now been removed.

Another increasingly popular myth I'm afraid.

03079 with it's original (12ft+) cab was squeezed through the tunnel both ways on its arrival back in '84 - that wasn't possible with the bridges carrying Smallbrook Lane and Rink Road so both shunters had their cabs cut down at Ryde.

This is consistent with photos of the 'covered way' being built and it's recent reconstruction (I'm not aware of anything in the 60s), both showing it's original cast-iron construction which had no obvious impact on headroom.
 
Last edited:

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
3,074
Here's a "I guess they've checked this?" conundrum- since the Class 483 were delivered (indeed, quite recently) the Wighlink terminals on the Portsmouth-Fishbourne route have been upgraded to allow double deck loading of vehicles. Whilst clearly standard HGVs are easily accommodated on this route, are outsized loads?

Should be fine, steam locos and even a class 33 have been through the new arrangements at Gunwharf/Fishbourne.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top