Island Line Railway - current state and the future

[Rick1984]

Very interesting. I imagine they'll straighten out Ryde Esplenade. Easier access to Hoverport makes me wonder if they'll use the Spanish solution with platform faces on either side and opening doors on both sides.

Wi-fi and charging points are a bit pointless given the distance. A toilet might be more use.
If they are D Stock hopefully they'll be 3 car with a generous bike/buggy/disabled space.

 

[MarkyT]

Very interesting. I imagine they'll straighten out Ryde Esplenade. Easier access to Hoverport makes me wonder if they'll use the Spanish solution with platform faces on either side and opening doors on both sides.

Wi-fi and charging points are a bit pointless given the distance. A toilet might be more use.
If they are D Stock hopefully they'll be 3 car with a generous bike/buggy/disabled space.

On board accessible toilets are space hogging, costly and require constant servicing and cleaning, and heavy tanks of water and effluent to be carried about, filled and emptied periodically. Wi-fi and power points are easy by comparison, comparatively cheap and largely 'fit and forget'.

As to Esplanade, its also possible the second platform might be brought back into use with a relocated single to double connection north of the station and a new accessible footbridge which would also improve access between the hovercraft terminal and the bus interchange and town.

 

[The Ham]

Very interesting. I imagine they'll straighten out Ryde Esplenade. Easier access to Hoverport makes me wonder if they'll use the Spanish solution with platform faces on either side and opening doors on both sides.

Wi-fi and charging points are a bit pointless given the distance. A toilet might be more use.
If they are D Stock hopefully they'll be 3 car with a generous bike/buggy/disabled space.

Given the short distances a toilet may not be of much use either, depending on what station/public facilities there is.

 

[Rick1984]

Only reason I mentioned a toilet is that not all stations have one. Didnt think about cleaning and maintenance. That would probably make having one too much of a faff.

 

[DelW]

As to Esplanade, its also possible the second platform might be brought back into use with a relocated single to double connection north of the station and a new accessible footbridge which would also improve access between the hovercraft terminal and the bus interchange and town.

If the service becomes half-hourly with trains crossing at a new Brading loop, surely there's no need for any double track north of Smallbrook? AIUI, part of the plan is for the steam line to take over the up track from Smallbrook to St John's, so I can't see any benefit in keeping double track from there to Esplanade.

Reinstating the down platform at Esplanade would make access between down trains and the bus station and town more difficult than now, without helping up passengers to get to the hovercraft terminal.

 

[Rick1984]

That's why I thought they might lesesn the curve to compensate for width of D Stock and at same time extend the platforms to provide platforms on both sides of train and allow passengers off both sides simultaneously?

 

[MarkyT]

If the service becomes half-hourly with trains crossing at a new Brading loop, surely there's no need for any double track north of Smallbrook? AIUI, part of the plan is for the steam line to take over the up track from Smallbrook to St John's, so I can't see any benefit in keeping double track from there to Esplanade.

Depends on whether they want to retain capability for a more frequent service at certain peak times or dates, or generally in the future. A report prepared on behalf of the local authority looked at a 15min interval service. which looked possible using the existing loops and double track in conjunction with the new Brading facility. Also the old 20min interval would be remain possible but wouldn't fit well with the ferries I understand.

That's why I thought they might lesesn the curve to compensate for width of D Stock and at same time extend the platforms to provide platforms on both sides of train and allow passengers off both sides simultaneously?

Another possibility to improve stepping distance might be moving gap filler steps on the new stock. Platforms on either side are not liked operationally as there are more doors to confirm clear on departure. Where they exist physically, invariably today doors open on one side alone. Except at terminals, where they can be used sequentially one for alighting, one for boarding during the longer turn round layover, they would be likely to add to platform dwell time in practice, and at terminals their primary function would be to segregate the arriving pax from large crowds awaiting boarding and mitigate the scrum effect. I conclude that such an arrangement would not be suitable for Ryde Esplanade

 

[A0wen]

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.

Why? Surely it's about having a solution that's appropriate for the line. The Island Line is an isolated 8.5 mile line which may have equipment which if not life expired is certainly nearing it. If it simplifies the infrastructure and makes it more cost effective to run, then it's a sensible way forward. It may also have the benefit of reducing the cost of extending the network as presently any extension would need further electrification infrastructure.

3rd rail has fallen out of favour for several reasons - H&S being a pretty key one. And it's not just a risk for trespassers - there are no shortage of railway workers who have been killed or seriously injured having come in contact with 3rd rail, which simply doesn't happen with the other options.

 

[yorksrob]

Why? Surely it's about having a solution that's appropriate for the line. The Island Line is an isolated 8.5 mile line which may have equipment which if not life expired is certainly nearing it. If it simplifies the infrastructure and makes it more cost effective to run, then it's a sensible way forward. It may also have the benefit of reducing the cost of extending the network as presently any extension would need further electrification infrastructure.

3rd rail has fallen out of favour for several reasons - H&S being a pretty key one. And it's not just a risk for trespassers - there are no shortage of railway workers who have been killed or seriously injured having come in contact with 3rd rail, which simply doesn't happen with the other options.

When there is a solution that can 'simplify' the renewal of the route, we will know about it because it will appear elsewhere on the third rail network. Until then preventing third rail replacement will simply be an obstacle to getting the line renewed.

The fact that the route is physically isolated shouldn't be an excuse to not renew the line or provide a sub-standard solution.

 

[mallard]

Simply removing the third rail and running diesels is obviously a retrograde step. However, replacing the ground-level 3rd rail system with overhead wires would be a good improvement. It's a short-distance, low-speed, self-contained line, so there's no particular reason why it couldn't use a tram-style DC overhead system running at the same voltage as the 3rd rail, which would allow the system to be installed in stages (trains equipped with both pantograph and shoegear) and the 3rd rail to, potentially, be retained in areas with limited clearance. It would likely be significantly cheaper than a "standard" 25KV AC system that would be significantly "over-specced" for what is a de-facto light rail line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Simply removing the third rail and running diesels is obviously a retrograde step. However, replacing the ground-level 3rd rail system with overhead wires would be a good improvement. It's a short-distance, low-speed, self-contained line, so there's no particular reason why it couldn't use a tram-style DC overhead system running at the same voltage as the 3rd rail, which would allow the system to be installed in stages (trains equipped with both pantograph and shoegear) and the 3rd rail to, potentially, be retained in areas with limited clearance. It would likely be significantly cheaper than a "standard" 25KV AC system that would be significantly "over-specced" for what is a de-facto light rail line.

You proposing to take the top off Ryde Tunnel?

 

[B&I]

If Metrocars fit the profile (and I assume someone has taken into account the difficulties of OLE electrification on this route), but are knackered, are there no German systems disposing of similar vehicles which could be used ?

The IoW strikes me as a good place for lightrailification, particularly if it could act as a prelude to reviving some more of the old network. If, however, the line is to remain as it is, it would seem to me a sensible place for trying something battery powered, using the salvageable bits of the 3rd rail equipment perhaps to charge.

 

[A0wen]

If Metrocars fit the profile (and I assume someone has taken into account the difficulties of OLE electrification on this route), but are knackered, are there no German systems disposing of similar vehicles which could be used ?

Well, no. Because if you re-read the post suggesting those, there was some wibble attached to it about converting them to have 3rd rail pick up.... so let's understand this, you take a bunch of life expired 40 year old lightweight train sets, designed for use on a 1.5kv overhead system and convert them to be 750v 3rd rail......

The D trains would, if they fit through the tunnel, seem to be a sensible solution. Even using diesel power the way it's been designed would allow for a different power-source in future if that's what was desired.

I fail to see why going from electric to diesel is considered a 'retro grade' step. If it was moving from electric to diesel mechanical as happened on Tyneside in the 60s, then maybe, but the fact is technology has moved forward somewhat in the intervening 50 years. The D trains are using the diesel engine simply as a generator - and before anyone cites the environmental points, electricity does not, for the most part, come out of thin air. It also uses other resources (copper etc) to get the power to the train and the DC 3rd rail system is remarkably inefficient.

Given the constraints of the tunnel, OHL is unlikely ever to be viable - which then leaves battery or hybrid and the D train is pretty much the latter....

 

[mallard]

You proposing to take the top off Ryde Tunnel?

allow [...] the 3rd rail to, potentially, be retained in areas with limited clearance.

(This text here because the silly forum software won't let me submit a post that consists entirely of quotes.)

 

[Domh245]

Why complicate things by making it dual pickup - just stick batteries on to get through the tunnel or other areas of limited overhead clearance.

 

[MarkyT]

Another possibility suggested elsewhere is to retain 3rd rail electric operation throughout, in combination with a SMALL battery/supercap bank on board, not for off-supply working normally but for improved acceleration performance, helping to overcome any weakness in the supply and for capturing braking energy for reuse without complex substation arrangements. That could also provide sufficient back-up reserve to at least get to the next station in a power failure or partial engineering isolation scenario and is, in my opinion, is a very clever and viable idea. There is another issue with D-trains. The diesel-electric adaptation raises the floor height by about 100mm compared to the originals D78s, to make sufficient space underfloor for the engine generator modules. The various battery versions Vivarail have been developing more recently can keep the original floor height if required, and that clearly also limits the overall height, which might be critical in an IOW application.

 

[DelW]

Depends on whether they want to retain capability for a more frequent service at certain peak times or dates, or generally in the future. A report prepared on behalf of the local authority looked at a 15min interval service. which looked possible using the existing loops and double track in conjunction with the new Brading facility. Also the old 20min interval would be remain possible but wouldn't fit well with the ferries I understand.

I think the best current scenario is retention of something similar to the current service but with more modern stock and better timings. I think there's very little chance of an enhanced service even at peak times.

IIRC (and subject to correction), the 20 minute interval service originated when Wightlink had three catamarans in service (plus maintenance spare) prior to the arrival of Wight Ryder I and II in 2009, which run the service today. All the older boats have been scrapped or sold, so unless Wightlink invest in one or more new boats, there's no likelihood of better than a half-hourly interval service (it's roughly a 20 minute crossing and 10 minute turn-around).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, no. Because if you re-read the post suggesting those, there was some wibble attached to it about converting them to have 3rd rail pick up.... so let's understand this, you take a bunch of life expired 40 year old lightweight train sets, designed for use on a 1.5kv overhead system and convert them to be 750v 3rd rail......

Much as I'm near certain it's going to be D-trains, be they third rail, battery or diesel, with a possible second option of ex-Merseyrail 507s or ex-Southern 508s/313s, this just seems bizarre. I wonder, doing some complete blue sky thinking, are any of the Hamburg DT1, DT2 or DT3 EMUs still going spare or if they've all been scrapped? They're 750VDC third rail (bottom contact, but that's easily changed) and about the right size?

 

[A0wen]

Much as I'm near certain it's going to be D-trains, be they third rail, battery or diesel, with a possible second option of ex-Merseyrail 507s or ex-Southern 508s/313s, this just seems bizarre. I wonder, doing some complete blue sky thinking, are any of the Hamburg DT1, DT2 or DT3 EMUs still going spare or if they've all been scrapped? They're 750VDC third rail (bottom contact, but that's easily changed) and about the right size?

Perhaps because the PEPs are life-expired and are going rusty? They also have to be 750v 3rd rail supplied, whereas the D train offers a couple of different options. The D78's also have the benefit of being shorter - each car is circa 2m shorter - which given the limitations of clearance may be critical.

Why on earth would the DT1 - 3 make sense? Even the youngest of them were built in 1968. They are a design which was *never* used in the UK so it makes precisely no sense to even consider them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why on earth would the DT1 - 3 make sense? Even the youngest of them were built in 1968. They are a design which was *never* used in the UK so it makes precisely no sense to even consider them.

Because they're small loading gauge third rail units.

But that aside, I was being a bit "blue-sky". Realistically to me nothing other than D-trains (or new build) make sense.

 

[Rick1984]

Platforms on either side are not liked operationally as there are more doors to confirm clear on departure. Where they exist physically, invariably today doors open on one side alone. Except at terminals, where they can be used sequentially one for alighting, one for boarding during the longer turn round layover,

Thanks for the reply. That suggests that Hoverport access would therefore be improved by a bridge and lift or reopening subway and adding lift. Both would be quite complex undertakings.

 

[A0wen]

Thanks for the reply. That suggests that Hoverport access would therefore be improved by a bridge and lift or reopening subway and adding lift. Both would be quite complex undertakings.

And completely pointless - there is step-free access from Ryde Esplanade station to the Hoverport terminal already, walk past the bus station to the overbridge where the tunnel begins and double back. Granted it's not as short as the overbridge, but nor does it warrant a whole new overbridge.

I suspect those with mobility problems already go for the Wightlink crossing from the Esplanade which again is step free throughout, also arrival at Portsmouth Harbour makes it easier for onward travel.

 

[Chris125]

Very interesting. I imagine they'll straighten out Ryde Esplanade.

In such a constrained location between the bus station and hoverpad, with the curve partially supported by the pier, a meaningful straightening would be very complex and probably hard to justify financially.

Depends on whether they want to retain capability for a more frequent service at certain peak times or dates, or generally in the future.

According to a comment on the KILF Campaign page:

"They are proposing...keeping existing passing points at Ryde and Sandown to allow possibility of 20 minute service in future if demand increases"
​

...though that surely won't survive discussions with the DfT.

I fail to see why going from electric to diesel is considered a 'retro grade' step.

It's a retro-grade step for the significant number of people whose houses back onto the railway, especially the stations and depot; for the wider environment; and day-to-day operations as they'll surely lack the reliability of the current fleet.

 

[xcooler123]

After listening to the Shooter interview, my guess would be battery powered Class 230's on the line with their "4th rail" charging system that they have patented at Ryde Pier Head and Shanklin to charge in between journeys. The Island Line is almost perfect for this set up - short enough for current battery technology to work, regular stops to take advantage of regenerative braking and also means NR/SWR/DfT don't have to commit to the (expensive) cost of upgrading/maintaining the 750V 3rd rail system.

 

[Rick1984]

="Chris125, post: 3453485, member: 5083"]In such a constrained location between the bus station and hoverpad, with the curve partially supported by the pier, a meaningful straightening would be very complex and probably hard to justify financially.

Will have to see what they come up with then. I imagine any larger stock might struggle with the curve at Esplanade

 

[47802]

After listening to the Shooter interview, my guess would be battery powered Class 230's on the line with their "4th rail" charging system that they have patented at Ryde Pier Head and Shanklin to charge in between journeys. The Island Line is almost perfect for this set up - short enough for current battery technology to work, regular stops to take advantage of regenerative braking and also means NR/SWR/DfT don't have to commit to the (expensive) cost of upgrading/maintaining the 750V 3rd rail system.

Possibly or the Hybrid Battery/Diesel solution he was talking about.

 

[A0wen]

It's a retro-grade step for the significant number of people whose houses back onto the railway, especially the stations and depot; for the wider environment; and day-to-day operations as they'll surely lack the reliability of the current fleet.

Well hardly - the 230s don't seem particularly noisy and as has been pointed out these are basically Transit engines.

The emissions are limited by virtue of the fact they will be Euro V or Euro VI compliant and probably less polluting than whatever is used to generate the electricity to power 8.5 miles of conductor rail.

Reliability is a TBC, but the Island Line fleet isn't exactly reliable despite its relatively basic nature.

 

[Chris125]

Well hardly - the 230s don't seem particularly noisy and as has been pointed out these are basically Transit engines.

They sound pretty noisy in this video, massively more so than what's been running Island Line for the last half-century - if that isn't a 'retro-grade' step I don't know what is.

The emissions are limited by virtue of the fact they will be Euro V or Euro VI compliant and probably less polluting than whatever is used to generate the electricity to power 8.5 miles of conductor rail.

The 3rd rail doesn't create any pollution on the Island and is powered by the national grid, so I can't see how that's more polluting than diesel either locally or nationally.

Reliability is a TBC, but the Island Line fleet isn't exactly reliable despite its relatively basic nature.

Disruption caused by train faults are pretty exceptional in my experience, I can only recall two this year and they are usually sorted pretty quick. Last year 004 and 008 seemed to go on forever, working almost every day month and after month without issue.

 

[TheGrew]

I think my ideal situation for the IOW would be to rip the lot out and put in a Tram Network. In a couple of places I would reroute the trams away from the railway alignment and try and capture a couple of additional flows with new track.
- In Ryde I would remove Pier Head Station and convert Esplanade to a through station (more on that in a sec). I would reroute away from the tunnels to street running on George St with a stop at the top before turning left onto Star Street and Park Road before rejoining the railway alignment near the bus museum (there looks to be sufficient land for the required earth works).
- In Brading I would add a further stop closer to the Roman Villa somewhere near Nicholas Close.
- In Sandown I would run down Avenue Road onto the High Street and Esplanade (following the existing one way system) before getting back out onto Broadway and reconnecting with the existing alignment near Lake.
- In Shanklin I would extend beyond the existing station down Regent Road to the High Street.

For network expansion I would look to run West out of Ryde parallel to the A3054 with street running where required through Wootten Bridge and Fishbourne (which would both have stops). Before reaching the roundabout with the A3021 where I would have a trianglar junction with spurs off to East Cowes (with stop as Osbourne House en-route) and Newport.

Obviously this is all pie in the sky stuff but the fact Southern Vectis (which would by my prefered tram-operator) gets healthy bus loading shows a level of demand.

 

[HSTEd]

3rd rail has fallen out of favour for several reasons - H&S being a pretty key one. And it's not just a risk for trespassers - there are no shortage of railway workers who have been killed or seriously injured having come in contact with 3rd rail, which simply doesn't happen with the other options.

I dug out the figures on this, and if you exclude tresspassers the risk to railway staff is vanishingly small - indeed it has been quite some time since someone has recieved a life threatening electric shock from a third rail traction supply.

The national occurence a few years ago was about 0.4FWI/year according to data I got from an FOI request to ORR.

The risk from retaining the third rail on this system, where any engineering possesions will likely involve total shutdown of the traction supply stem (due to the simple nature of the route) - is negligible.