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

[birchesgreen]

Havenstreet and then onto the Island Line via a new link.

When and why did a 33 come through the rebuilt Wightlink arrangements?

Visitor to the IOWSR gala

 

[Bob Price]

How did the 05 shunter get over there?

I guess all this will have been sorted. Vivarail have hinted that the order was placed long before it was announced so guaging, delivery and service will have been planned a long time ago.

They have also said the units will be completed after the move to Southam. Whether the lockdown will change this we wait to see.

 

[Midnight Sun]

When and why did a 33 come through the rebuilt Wightlink arrangements?

 

[swt_passenger]

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?

Outsized loads are permitted on that Wightlink route, it’s come up in one of the previous Island Line threads. I remember looking up the ferry website at the time. What they say today:

Maximum Dimensions: Height 4.65m (15’2″) | Width 4.1m (13’45”)
This crossing is ideal for Central and East Wight and principal towns of Newport, Cowes, Ryde, Sandown, Shanklin and Ventnor. The service operates all year round, day and night with an average of 29 return weekday sailings.The ferries on this route have double-width ramps and can accommodate extra-long or heavy loads, subject to sufficient spread of weight. Vehicles with an overall height in excess of the dimensions shown may also be accepted but you must contact us in advance.

Wightlink business services - Wightlink Ferries

If you’re a business looking to travel across the Solent between the Isle of Wight and Hampshire, we can help.

www.wightlink.co.uk

 

[gimmea50anyday]

To get to the other side

What? The Wight side?....

(See what I did there...)

 

[DelW]

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.

If the new stock is, as expected, operating a maximum half-hourly interval service crossing at a new Brading loop, there's presumably no need to retain the existing double track between just south of Esplanade and just north of Smallbrook.

Singling that stretch would allow the remaining track to be centred under the arch at Smallbrook Lane, to use the better span at Rink Lane (the down appears to have more headroom than the up), and possibly to ease the reverse curves in the tunnel (depending whether they're within the twin span or single span sections). If any of those are still needed of course.

Does anyone know whether this is feasible and/or intended? And also, whether the opportunity will be taken to remove the disused track from the pier? Though I suppose it may be more economical just to let that rust away (like the old tramway decks).

 

[Chris125]

If the new stock is, as expected, operating a maximum half-hourly interval service crossing at a new Brading loop, there's presumably no need to retain the existing double track between just south of Esplanade and just north of Smallbrook.

Singling that stretch would allow the remaining track to be centred under the arch at Smallbrook Lane, to use the better span at Rink Lane (the down appears to have more headroom than the up), and possibly to ease the reverse curves in the tunnel (depending whether they're within the twin span or single span sections). If any of those are still needed of course.

Does anyone know whether this is feasible and/or intended? And also, whether the opportunity will be taken to remove the disused track from the pier? Though I suppose it may be more economical just to let that rust away (like the old tramway decks).

Rationalisation would make a lot of sense but it seems SWR are leaving the existing infrastructure largely as-is. A little surprising but SWR only lease the operational infrastructure, so the savings for South Western could struggle to justify the upfront cost.

One wonders if a Network Rail-led project, like the resignalling once proposed for 2012 and the upcoming Ryde Pier works, might take a longer-term view.

 

[cav1975]

Rationalisation would make a lot of sense but it seems SWR are leaving the existing infrastructure largely as-is. A little surprising but SWR only lease the operational infrastructure, so the savings for South Western could struggle to justify the upfront cost.

One wonders if a Network Rail-led project, like the resignalling once proposed for 2012 and the upcoming Ryde Pier works, might take a longer-term view.

Maybe, but the advantage of what SWR is doing is that they are retaining flexibility should they need it either for a planned timetable or at times of disruption.

 

[BayPaul]

The thing that intrigues me is why they didn't decide to replace the 483s with the D78s when they first started to retire them from the District Line. At the time all of the speculation on here was that they didn't fit through the tunnel, but as I understand it, they would have fitted just as well through it then as now. It seems odd to wait for Viva to buy them, rather than buy/lease them directly at the time, as they were an obvious choice even back then.

 

[Energy]

The thing that intrigues me is why they didn't decide to replace the 483s with the D78s when they first started to retire them from the District Line. At the time all of the speculation on here was that they didn't fit through the tunnel, but as I understand it, they would have fitted just as well through it then as now. It seems odd to wait for Viva to buy them, rather than buy/lease them directly at the time, as they were an obvious choice even back then.

I would imagine that they would still need converting anyway so would be cheaper just to buy D trains than to work on a separate conversion

 

[Mikey C]

I would imagine that they would still need converting anyway so would be cheaper just to buy D trains than to work on a separate conversion

How much work (other than conversion to 3rd rail) did the D78s actually need, seeing that they aren't on a proper mainline railway?

If just the bare minimum had been done to the passenger saloons, I imagine most customers would have considered them a big upgrade to the 483s anyway as their interior was already quite stylish, indeed the height difference inside would have been a massive upgrade

 

[DavidGrain]

Had the D trains been taken as they were with just the conversion to 3rd rail they would still have been old stock but the Vivarail units have been extensively refurbished so to those who don't know they are new trains.

 

[Mikey C]

Had the D trains been taken as they were with just the conversion to 3rd rail they would still have been old stock but the Vivarail units have been extensively refurbished so to those who don't know they are new trains.

They didn't look old inside though as they had a major refurbishment done between 2005 and 2008

 

[3141]

The thing that intrigues me is why they didn't decide to replace the 483s with the D78s when they first started to retire them from the District Line. At the time all of the speculation on here was that they didn't fit through the tunnel, but as I understand it, they would have fitted just as well through it then as now. It seems odd to wait for Viva to buy them, rather than buy/lease them directly at the time, as they were an obvious choice even back then.

Who do you mean by "they"? The last of the D78s had been retired before First took over the franchise so they couldn't have decided to use them when they began to be withdrawn. My recollection is that the DfT asked for proposals for the Island Line - either from the bidders, or from the winner after they'd been awarded the franchise, I don't remember which. Your suggestion means that a decision to use D78s should have been made back in 2015. The only organisation that could have made such a decision is the DfT. In 2015 they probably were not expecting a change of franchise two years later, because they were about to discuss an extension with Stagecoach. Also, when suggestions were made at that time about converting D78s for other uses, much scorn was poured on the idea. So I don't think it was at all an obvious idea.

 

[jopsuk]

How much work (other than conversion to 3rd rail) did the D78s actually need, seeing that they aren't on a proper mainline railway?

The guards will probably rather welcome gaining a safe corridor connection between the cars. Presumably the work includes checking for and fixing any corrosion of the bodywork and under-frames, and one would hope that the new paintwork will be specially chosen due to the working conditions along the pier, including anti-corrosion coatings for the underside.

 

[Tynwald]

So what actualy is being done to these units. Are they retaining their DC motors and camshaft control, ar are they being re-tractioned to AC motors and inverter control. They would also have been built with MG sets.

 

[gingertom]

So what actualy is being done to these units. Are they retaining their DC motors and camshaft control, ar are they being re-tractioned to AC motors and inverter control. They would also have been built with MG sets.

Being fitted with AC motors with IGBT traction control.

 

[D365]

Being fitted with AC motors with IGBT traction control.

Correct. Even if the DC motors were being retained (like on 230001), the camshaft controls would have been replaced.

 

[Chris125]

The thing that intrigues me is why they didn't decide to replace the 483s with the D78s when they first started to retire them from the District Line. At the time all of the speculation on here was that they didn't fit through the tunnel, but as I understand it, they would have fitted just as well through it then as now. It seems odd to wait for Viva to buy them, rather than buy/lease them directly at the time, as they were an obvious choice even back then.

The future of Island Line was far from clear back then, with years of speculation (fuelled in part by the local MP) advocating radical change; removing it from the franchise system, setting up a community interest company, converting to light rail, batteries, hydrogen, flywheels, blah blah blah... D78s weren't really in the conversation even on forums like this, as much as I tried!

...that said, it was pretty obvious that change wouldn't come before the SWT franchise expired when the can could be kicked down the road no longer.

 

[BayPaul]

Who do you mean by "they"? The last of the D78s had been retired before First took over the franchise so they couldn't have decided to use them when they began to be withdrawn. My recollection is that the DfT asked for proposals for the Island Line - either from the bidders, or from the winner after they'd been awarded the franchise, I don't remember which. Your suggestion means that a decision to use D78s should have been made back in 2015. The only organisation that could have made such a decision is the DfT. In 2015 they probably were not expecting a change of franchise two years later, because they were about to discuss an extension with Stagecoach. Also, when suggestions were made at that time about converting D78s for other uses, much scorn was poured on the idea. So I don't think it was at all an obvious idea.

I did probably mean a combination of DfT and SWT - Presumably at that time the operational team at SWT on the Island would have been pestering their management that the 483s were in desperate need of replacement, and I would have expected that the management at SWT could have been talking to DfT to say that this was a good opportunity to replace the trains at a fairly low cost. Whether or not any of this happened I have no idea, but it certainly could have happened. As others have mentionned, the Vivarail converted trains have several advantages over a simple 3rd rail conversion, so it is good that it is happening, but the basic conversion would still have been much better than the old stock!

 

[delt1c]

Remember that saying " You can please some of the people some of the time. But you cant please all of the people all of the people all of the time". Had it not been for ex LT tube stock the island could have lost all its railways. Yes the 27 and 38 TS were not perfect but they kept the railway running. Now we have the D78 stock coming it is a great leap forward in passenger terms, more spacious , brighter and to most travellers "new" . Its time to be positive and supportive not bar room lawyers who "think" they know better.

 

[Chris125]

I did probably mean a combination of DfT and SWT - Presumably at that time the operational team at SWT on the Island would have been pestering their management that the 483s were in desperate need of replacement, and I would have expected that the management at SWT could have been talking to DfT to say that this was a good opportunity to replace the trains at a fairly low cost.

That's unlikely to be honest, reliability wasn't really an issue before 2019 when 004 was withdrawn before they could finish 007 - back then any issues were usually infrastructure related, if anything the power supply was probably a bigger concern.

SWT *did* look at the Piccadilly 73TS some years back, but they'd have been much more straightforward and easier to justify in the remaining life of the franchise; little if any need for gauging works or higher platforms.

 

[Nym]

Except that the 73TS is noticeably longer than the 38TS.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Wasn't the 1983 stock suggested for IoW at one point, too? Always quite liked the style of the '83 Stock, but the single leaf doors were never really suitable for LU. Quite fitting that the new stock for Island Line is the 1983 Stock's "older brother" I suppose.

 

[Nym]

83TS has a lot less in common with D78 stock than the 73TS has with D78.

Although a fair few of the auxiliary systems on the 83TS are very similar to the D78, and the 83TS was really the pinnacle of design for maintainability in my opinion (electrically at least), the traction system was doomed from the start, and is completely different to anything that has come before, or after it.

 

[Chris125]

Wasn't the 1983 stock suggested for IoW at one point, too? Always quite liked the style of the '83 Stock, but the single leaf doors were never really suitable for LU. Quite fitting that the new stock for Island Line is the 1983 Stock's "older brother" I suppose.

I don't believe so, not seriously anyway - IIRC one of the Brian Hardy books suggests they wanted the 59/62TS (i forget which) long-term, but committed to the 'stopgap' 483s when those needed more work than expected.

 

[Nym]

62TS wasn't the best starting point for them to be honest (59TS is basically the same), but it did have the advantage of being able to be shortened to 3 car "relatively" easily.

 

[Mikey C]

62TS wasn't the best starting point for them to be honest (59TS is basically the same), but it did have the advantage of being able to be shortened to 3 car "relatively" easily.

Well it was relatively similar to the 38 stock, and the 62s were available in the early 90s and there were a lot of withdrawn trains to cannibalise too. I guess the timing didn't quite work out

 

[Chris125]

Well it was relatively similar to the 38 stock, and the 62s were available in the early 90s and there were a lot of withdrawn trains to cannibalise too. I guess the timing didn't quite work out

I suspect Ryde Works and NSE just couldn't wait any longer for their preferred stock to be available, AIUI the Standard stock was really ropey at the end.

 

[Mills444]

Are the new units going to be DOO capable even though they are intended to be guarded ?