Island Line Railway - current state and the future

[Domh245]

So presumably it would simply be a case of removing the pantograph and fitting shoes? Or would there need to be more modifications to work from a third rail? If there aren't many modifications that would be needed to make them work from a third rail then these might actually be more suitable for the Island line than 230s!

There would almost certainly be electrical systems that would require changing so that they can work from a 750V supply rather than a 1500V one. I would also think that converting them might cause issues with the ORR - they might be hesitant to allow conversion of them to top contact third rail and would rather they converted it to bottom contact or overhead contact, a D78 wouldn't have that issue. Additionally, their replacement isn't even confirmed yet so you would still have issues with getting them into service in anywhere near as short a timescale as D78s.

 

[swt_passenger]

There would almost certainly be electrical systems that would require changing so that they can work from a 750V supply rather than a 1500V one. I would also think that converting them might cause issues with the ORR - they might be hesitant to allow conversion of them to top contact third rail and would rather they converted it to bottom contact or overhead contact, a D78 wouldn't have that issue. Additionally, their replacement isn't even confirmed yet so you would still have issues with getting them into service in anywhere near as short a timescale as D78s.

I don’t believe use of top contact third rail would be a problem for ORR as it already exists.

 

[Domh245]

I don’t believe use of top contact third rail would be a problem for ORR as it already exists.

Granted, but my thinking was that they won't be as keen to let it happen if the rolling stock isn't already compatible. They won't argue if there is some sort of Grandfather rights, but if you're refitting the stock to make it work, they probably would expect SWR to jump through more hoops to prove that converting the Tyne metrocars to top contact third rail is safe enough compared to conversion

 

[HSTEd]

Granted, but my thinking was that they won't be as keen to let it happen if the rolling stock isn't already compatible. They won't argue if there is some sort of Grandfather rights, but if you're refitting the stock to make it work, they probably would expect SWR to jump through more hoops to prove that converting the Tyne metrocars to top contact third rail is safe enough compared to conversion

Why on earth wouldn't it?
This would mean that we could have no new third rail stock at all.

 

[DanNCL]

There would almost certainly be electrical systems that would require changing so that they can work from a 750V supply rather than a 1500V one. I would also think that converting them might cause issues with the ORR - they might be hesitant to allow conversion of them to top contact third rail and would rather they converted it to bottom contact or overhead contact, a D78 wouldn't have that issue. Additionally, their replacement isn't even confirmed yet so you would still have issues with getting them into service in anywhere near as short a timescale as D78s.

The procurement process for the new metro trains has already begun. The new fleet will be 84 units, the current fleet has 90. There has already been 1 PVR decrease in the metro recently (although that doesn't seem to have improved fleet availability) and it's also possible that there may be another PVR decrease soon on the Metro, so that would free up more units.

The ORR hasn't stopped new build EMUs from being able to work from a top contact third rail, so I can't see why they would have a problem with an older train being refitted to work from a top contact third rail.

 

[Domh245]

The procurement process for the new metro trains has already begun. The new fleet will be 84 units, the current fleet has 90. There has already been 1 PVR decrease in the metro recently (although that doesn't seem to have improved fleet availability) and it's also possible that there may be another PVR decrease soon on the Metro, so that would free up more units.

I'm well aware that the procurement process has started, but we don't even know who's been shortlisted yet. The estimated delivery date is 2021, so it'd be about December 2021 before they can start to be put into service on the Island line once Tyne and Wear metro have released enough trains and have been modified. A D78 could be in service as soon as Vivarail have refurbished the interior for you.

The ORR hasn't stopped new build EMUs from being able to work from a top contact third rail, so I can't see why they would have a problem with an older train being refitted to work from a top contact third rail.

There has been plenty of suggestion on here that the third rail installation is in desperate need of replacement, so if you need to replace/repair the infrastructure, and you need to retrofit the rolling stock with a new means of current collection, then the ORR might suggest that they'd prefer a safer system installing. Mainline third rail stock is something of a different matter as there is essentially no chance of conversion in the near future, nor is it in anyway practical to convert it because of the plethora of different stock. An isolated system where there is a good opportunity for conversion is a different matter.

 

[DanNCL]

There has been plenty of suggestion on here that the third rail installation is in desperate need of replacement, so if you need to replace/repair the infrastructure, and you need to retrofit the rolling stock with a new means of current collection, then the ORR might suggest that they'd prefer a safer system installing. Mainline third rail stock is something of a different matter as there is essentially no chance of conversion in the near future, nor is it in anyway practical to convert it because of the plethora of different stock. An isolated system where there is a good opportunity for conversion is a different matter.

If the third rail infrastructure needs to be replaced anyway then the ORR may insist on OHLE for new electrical infrastructure, in which case the D stock would need just as many, if not more mods, than the TW metro stock would (if OHLE had to be installed then it could be powered at 1.5 kv dc and then the metro fleet wouldn't need any modification at all; the D stock would need a pantograph, which may make them too tall for the Ryde tunnels, as D stock is 17 cm taller than TW metrocars)

 

[swt_passenger]

Is the DC power supply really in such poor condition, or is it being exaggerated to justify its removal? Or to justify not replacing any trains?

If it (DC supply kit) can be routinely replaced as a preventive maintenance activity on the mainland, what’s the main issue with a couple of extra transportable equipment cabins being ordered for the IOW?

When people refer to ‘third rail infrastructure’ are they normally including the conductor rail, because that seems to have a much greater life than the running rails.

 

[Domh245]

If the third rail infrastructure needs to be replaced anyway then the ORR may insist on OHLE for new electrical infrastructure, in which case the D stock would need just as many, if not more mods, than the TW metro stock would (if OHLE had to be installed then it could be powered at 1.5 kv dc and then the metro fleet wouldn't need any modification at all; the D stock would need a pantograph, which may make them too tall for the Ryde tunnels (D stock is 17 cm taller than TW metrocars)

Vivarail have been talking about an ability for their Battery powered D-train to recharge from 25kV overhead, so evidently they've done the design work and could fit a pantograph if they need to. Also worth pointing out that 750v DC overhead is a far more common type of installation than 1.5kV DC overhead, so it'd 'only' require the pantograph and a connection to the existing electrical equipment, assuming you go for the cheap option rather than one which Vivarail have retractioned, added batteries to, or anything else. That said however D stock, already having a top-contact system, would make it easier for third rail to replaced on a simple renewal basis rather than a full system replacement if SWR so wished. Alternatively, you could even just go with a Diesel or Battery D-train and not worry about replacing the third rail at all beyond limited sections for charging at terminals and passing points.

And the D stock still has the massive advantage of being available now rather than 3 or more years time.

 

[HSTEd]

There has been plenty of suggestion on here that the third rail installation is in desperate need of replacement, so if you need to replace/repair the infrastructure, and you need to retrofit the rolling stock with a new means of current collection, then the ORR might suggest that they'd prefer a safer system installing. Mainline third rail stock is something of a different matter as there is essentially no chance of conversion in the near future, nor is it in anyway practical to convert it because of the plethora of different stock. An isolated system where there is a good opportunity for conversion is a different matter.

Well any conversion to anything will be to diesel.
It either stays top contact third rail or it goes diesel, those are the only two options.

 

[yorksrob]

If the ORR suggested de-commissioning the third rail on the line, I would suggest that it might be time to de-commission the ORR.

 

[MarkyT]

Well any conversion to anything will be to diesel.
It either stays top contact third rail or it goes diesel, those are the only two options.

Yes, although standard profile stock will just fit through the Ryde tunnels apparently, there's definitely no room for OHLE as well. I don't see a problem with refurbishing the 3rd rail equipment, replacing substation components if required. As you've said many times the load here is moderate, not unlike a light rail scheme or a typical small industrial premises. The 3rd rail system is already there so there's no safety case to demonstrate as when proposing it new.

There's no mention of signalling, but clearly a new loop at or near Brading would have some impact on this. Axle counters in a new signalling system could help with loop resistance, which has been a problem apparently, as the rails can be bonded up more comprehensively than with track circuits, with no IBJs and impedence bonds, although actually the single line sections between Smallbrook Jn and Sandown and between Sandown and Shanklin do not have continuous track circuits currently, being worked under 'tokenless block' and 'one train working without train staff' respectively. New conductor rail, perhaps the aluminium composite type could also help lower loop resistance.

 

[3141]

If the ORR suggested de-commissioning the third rail on the line, I would suggest that it might be time to de-commission the ORR.

I believe the ORR has played a part in making overhead electrification unaffordable. If it also blocked re-equipment of an existing third-rail route that would further call its position into question. However, since it hasn't raised objections to third- and fourth rail re-equipment elsewhere there's no obvious reason why it should choose to do so on the Isle of Wight.

 

[yorksrob]

I believe the ORR has played a part in making overhead electrification unaffordable. If it also blocked re-equipment of an existing third-rail route that would further call its position into question. However, since it hasn't raised objections to third- and fourth rail re-equipment elsewhere there's no obvious reason why it should choose to do so on the Isle of Wight.

Indeed. My post was more a response to the hypothetical suggestion that it might do so from previous posters on here.

 

[BestWestern]

There was a feature recently, somewhere, on the T&W Metro. According to their top bloke, the Metro cars are, essentially, shot to bits. Totally knackered, to the point that reliability is desperately poor despite their last overhaul, and the network was allegedly looking at service reductions due to rolling stock failures if new trains weren't ordered. Okay there was obviously an element of PR about it, but future long term use for the current Metro cars didn't sound especially promising.

 

[DanNCL]

There was a feature recently, somewhere, on the T&W Metro. According to their top bloke, the Metro cars are, essentially, shot to bits. Totally knackered, to the point that reliability is desperately poor despite their last overhaul, and the network was allegedly looking at service reductions due to rolling stock failures if new trains weren't ordered. Okay there was obviously an element of PR about it, but future long term use for the current Metro cars didn't sound especially promising.

There is a massive element of PR about it.

Although there were service cuts on the Metro last year, and more are due later this month (peak hour additional services being removed from the timetable and running on an ad-hoc basis only), the fact that the cuts won't be reversed once a new fleet of trains enters service on the Metro (6 of the present units will be withdrawn without replacement) suggests that many of the issues are either infrastructure related (OHLE and signal faults are becoming much more common on the Metro) or (more likely) the result of cost-cutting measures, rather than all down to rolling stock problems.

It doesn't help that the management at Nexus are totally useless; if they had got on with infrastructure and rolling stock renewal 10 years ago rather than occupying their time with a fantasy idea of converting the Metro into a tram network (Project Orpheus) then the Metro wouldn't have any of it's present issues. Knowing how useless the management at Nexus are it wouldn't surprise me if they decided to sell a few Metrocars off for use on the Isle of Wight before any replacement trains have even been ordered!

The last overhaul only saw refurbished interiors (and PRM mods), corrosion repairs and the installation of cab air con (which was later removed as a cost cutting measure), and the previous overhaul only saw refurbished interiors and a strengthened cab to operate over the national network. The traction equipment is the original equipment from when the trains were built in the late 70s/early 80s (same time as the D stock in the same factory), so no wonder it's worn out!

I think also on a cost basis Metrocars, despite not being 750v dc units, may actually be cheaper than D stock. Metrocars would only need electrical mods to work from 750v DC (D stock would still need mods to work from 3rd rail rather than 4th rail) and a refresh (including air con). Unless a derogation were to be made, D stock would presumably need new cabs as seen on the 230 prototype to meet current regulations (Metrocars already have a strengthened cab for operating on the national network), which would presumably increase the cost of refurbishing D Stock massively. I'm still reading elsewhere that D stock is too tall for Ryde tunnel. I know what the height is of both the D stock (11ft 11 inches / 3.62 m) and the Metrocars (11ft 4 inches / 3.45 m), but not Ryde Tunnel, can anyone confirm the height of Ryde tunnel?

 

[MarkyT]

There was a feature recently, somewhere, on the T&W Metro. According to their top bloke, the Metro cars are, essentially, shot to bits. Totally knackered, to the point that reliability is desperately poor despite their last overhaul, and the network was allegedly looking at service reductions due to rolling stock failures if new trains weren't ordered. Okay there was obviously an element of PR about it, but future long term use for the current Metro cars didn't sound especially promising.

Not surprising after nearly 40 years of intensive use, although Similar Stadtban B trams in Germany are still in service with some operators planning to keep them for many years yet, although they may be able to lay their hands on spares more easily over there, while of course Metro Cammel, the original manufacturer of the T&W examples, are long defunct. It's possible the bodies are fine even if the mechanics and electrics are shot, but a complete rebuild might be uneconomic anyway, especially in the very small quantities required for Island Line alone.

 

[ainsworth74]

A gentle reminder that this thread is about the Island Line. Mentioning the TY Metro Cars in the context of a possible future on the Island Line is fine but lets avoid a broader discussion of the TY Metro's woes.

Many thanks!
ainsworth74

 

[Domh245]

I think also on a cost basis Metrocars, despite not being 750v dc units, may actually be cheaper than D stock. Metrocars would only need electrical mods to work from 750v DC (D stock would still need mods to work from 3rd rail rather than 4th rail) and a refresh (including air con). Unless a derogation were to be made, D stock would presumably need new cabs as seen on the 230 prototype to meet current regulations (Metrocars already have a strengthened cab for operating on the national network), which would presumably increase the cost of refurbishing D Stock massively. I'm still reading elsewhere that D stock is too tall for Ryde tunnel. I know what the height is of both the D stock (11ft 11 inches / 3.62 m) and the Metrocars (11ft 4 inches / 3.45 m), but not Ryde Tunnel, can anyone confirm the height of Ryde tunnel?

Your enthusiasm is noted, but the odds of T&W metro cars being the future stock are slim to none. The D stock mod to work from third rail is as simple as bonding the 4th rail shoe (or connection of) to the axles - the mods for the metrocars will involve changing electrical equipment in addition to replacing the pantograph with third rail shoes. If (as is a real possibility) the third rail is going to be taken out, the metrocars are left high and dry without any means of self propulsion.

The cab strengthening mod already exists and can be done easily enough by Vivarail who you would have to buy the units from anyway, and I'm not convinced it is too much anyway in the grand scheme of buying the units and refurbishing them.

I'm afraid that what you're reading is either wrong, or Adrian Shooter is wrong, and I'd be inclined to trust the guy who owns them and has access to the relevant gauging data rather than something on the internet. And it was discussed in great length on here that height isn't the issue so much as the vehicle length because of the reverse curves.

Additionally (and you keep on ignoring it) - the D stock solution can get trains into service as soon as the plan is given the go ahead and the conversion is done (and importantly before 31/12/2019), and the metrocars definitely can't. Indeed, note what was said in the IWCP article

If it agrees, it is hoped the old Island Line trains would be replaced by 2020./QUOTE]

 

[DanNCL]

Additionally (and you keep on ignoring it) - the D stock solution can get trains into service as soon as the plan is given the go ahead and the conversion is done (and importantly before 31/12/2019), and the metrocars definitely can't. Indeed, note what was said in the IWCP article

I haven't ignored it. I'm aware that the bulk of the Tyne & Wear Metro fleet will still be needed in Newcastle at that point, but I'm also aware of the fact that 6 units will not be replaced (90 units of the current fleet; only 84 units in the new fleet), and that there are likely to be even more PVR cuts on the Metro shortly (the next new timetable removes peak only diagrams) which would easily free up at least those 6 units I've already mentioned, and potentially other units on the Metro as well, and those units could be delivered to the Isle of Wight before 31/12/2019.

I know that the TW Metrocars aren't the most likely option for the Island Line, but I don't think they should be ruled out.

 

[Domh245]

I haven't ignored it. I'm aware that the bulk of the Tyne & Wear Metro fleet will still be needed in Newcastle at that point, but I'm also aware of the fact that 6 units will not be replaced (90 units of the current fleet; only 84 units in the new fleet), and that there are likely to be even more PVR cuts on the Metro shortly (the next new timetable removes peak only diagrams) which would easily free up at least those 6 units I've already mentioned, and potentially other units on the Metro as well, and those units could be delivered to the Isle of Wight before 31/12/2019.

I know that the TW Metrocars aren't the most likely option for the Island Line, but I don't think they should be ruled out.

If the TW Metrocars' reliability is as bad as @BestWestern's post alludes to, reducing the PVR will give them a bit more resilience in the fleet to keep on top of maintenance. I'd be amazed if they then decided to get rid of that resilience again, it'd be a bold decision to say the least.

 

[danielnez1]

I know that the TW Metrocars aren't the most likely option for the Island Line, but I don't think they should be ruled out.

If that was the case, NEXUS would be paying SWR to take them off their hands . In all seriousness, the Metro Trains are life-expired (and built on the mega cheap at the time) so they are not a feasible proposition for Island Line.

The D78s would defiantly be the closest thing to a "quick fix" that is at the right place and at the right time. Though I would like to see VivaRail's proposed wide inter coach gangways fitted to them if they are going to the Island Line.

 

[DelW]

The SWR proposal is also reported to include platform changes at Esplanade. Presumably that might reduce the curvature issues there.
Also, if the track is being modified with a loop at Brading, it would be possible to single-track Ryde tunnel, which might allow it to be centred in the main single-bore section.
A combination of those could maybe accommodate D78s as-is or converted to 230s.

 

[philthetube]

If that was the case, NEXUS would be paying SWR to take them off their hands . In all seriousness, the Metro Trains are life-expired (and built on the mega cheap at the time) so they are not a feasible proposition for Island Line.

The D78s would defiantly be the closest thing to a "quick fix" that is at the right place and at the right time. Though I would like to see VivaRail's proposed wide inter coach gangways fitted to them if they are going to the Island Line.

If they want the guard walking between cars they will have to have inter coach gangways.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not surprising after nearly 40 years of intensive use, although Similar Stadtban B trams in Germany are still in service with some operators planning to keep them for many years yet, although they may be able to lay their hands on spares more easily over there, while of course Metro Cammel, the original manufacturer of the T&W examples, are long defunct. It's possible the bodies are fine even if the mechanics and electrics are shot, but a complete rebuild might be uneconomic anyway, especially in the very small quantities required for Island Line alone.

Whereas a D78 with the Vivarail spruce-up is near enough a new vehicle - even if it retains its third rail shoegear.

 

[Helvellyn]

If they want the guard walking between cars they will have to have inter coach gangways.

Exactly, everyone saying D78 stock seems to miss this point that was mentioned as part of the SWR presentation to the local council. My hunch is ex-Great Northern 313s or ex-Merseyrail 507s/508s.

The 313s were built to a slightly smaller gauge for use on the Northern City line. Remove the pantographs and they'd have an even lower profile. However, I believe they would have to operate as three-car units. Also, whilst Southern have shown you can improve the interior with 2+2 seating they still look dated inside.

The 507s/508s could possibly be reduced to two-car formation and have the benefit of having undergone a much more substantial refurbishment. They could possibly change the seating throughout to 2+2 and add wi-fi and charging points like on the 450s. If they can overcome any gauging issues and make the necessary platform alterations then this could be the option.

Either way, PEP stock would allow SWR to say they've halved the age of the Island Line fleet. They would also have plenty of spares available.

455s could be an option but not sure how the gauging issues work out. They have the benefit of a comprehensive refurbishment by SWT and have recently been retractioned. If they picked the best of the 455/9 fleet they'd have the youngest units that have refinements over the 455/7 and 455/9 fleet.

Any of the above also come with another benefit - lots of spares that can be harvested from other units. And as an aside all would be younger than the 1973 stock that was the originally proposed replacement for the 483s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly, everyone saying D78 stock seems to miss this point that was mentioned as part of the SWR presentation to the local council.

The D-train has gangways. Indeed, Vivarail have a few options on this - there is the basic option which is the existing door but with a UIC tubular rubber surround (pretty much standard on all European LHCS and quite a few MUs as well), but there is also a premium option of an S-stock style walk through wide gangway. I'd venture that this latter option will be the spec. I'm fairly sure I heard that the Marston Vale units will have this newer gangway option[1].

PEPs are a possibility too, but they really are getting old now. (Yes, I'll give you they are the same age as the D78s, and Merseyrail in particular have done a very good job of keeping theirs nice which may well given the timeless design fool many into thinking they are newer than they are, but they don't have new bogies and running gear).

[1] It's interesting that the D-train orders we hear about are *not* the basic on the cheap option - they seem to be speccing up to new-train standards, with fancy gangways, bogs and new seats (and possibly aircon), following the Vivarail line that they basically are new trains, it's just that the bodyshell hasn't been melted down and re-moulded first.

 

[Domh245]

Exactly, everyone saying D78 stock seems to miss this point that was mentioned as part of the SWR presentation to the local council. My hunch is ex-Great Northern 313s or ex-Merseyrail 507s/508s.

D trains now come with Gangways as standard

https://twitter.com/Vivarail/status/967739914904395777

Just thought you might want a look at the new gangway design - will be in all production trains!

 

[Bletchleyite]

D trains now come with Gangways as standard

https://twitter.com/Vivarail/status/967739914904395777

They always did. A surround was put on the as-built gangway to make it safe to use it while the train is in motion.

 

[Domh245]

They always did. A surround was put on the as-built gangway to make it safe to use it while the train is in motion.

Whilst the D78 had a gangway in name, they certainly weren't recognisable as one by mainline standards, being mainly intended for emergency evacuation. Also worth noting that the solution they shared in the tweet (and implied that's the one that they're offering) I linked to involves cutting off most of the vehicle end, rather than just putting a surround around it.