Island Line Railway - current state and the future

[XDM]

I dug out the figures on this,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 risk from retaining the third rail on this system - is negligible.

I agree with HSTEd's rebuttal of an earlier claim on the thread that third rail is dangerous. DC is far safer per passenger mile than AC. The island's third rail is an asset which should be kept & used.
I hope D stock with third rail pick up is used. Perhaps with batteries for back up & storing regeneration.
One problem is the track. The poor ride could be blamed on the primative suspension on the small wheel tube stock. The D stock rides better & will show the track is to blame for poor ride rather than the stock. But more regular tampering will sort it.

 

[Helvellyn]

I stand corrected on the D78 gangway. Seems there are a few options SWR could explore.

 

[Non Multi]

There is more old 'tube' stock available soon: The 1977/79 Glasgow Subway units could be sent down after 2020. Standard gauge bogies would need to be fitted.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

There is more old 'tube' stock available soon: The 1977/79 Glasgow Subway units could be sent down after 2020. Standard gauge bogies would need to be fitted.

Well... they'd certainly fit through the tunnel without any problems!!!

 

[Rick1984]

Good luck getting bikes, wheelchairs, buggies and heavy luggage on them. Already a struggle!

 

[The_Engineer]

There is more old 'tube' stock available soon: The 1977/79 Glasgow Subway units could be sent down after 2020. Standard gauge bogies would need to be fitted.

Totally unsuitable! The very tiny loading gauge of the Glasgow Underground makes them very cramped indeed.

 

[cjmillsnun]

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.

What would you provide to reinstate the connecting service to the catamaran after closing Ryde Pier Head station? The connection with the catamaran and the hoverport is a crucial part of the line's feasibility both as a commuter line and for the tourist trade.

 

[hexagon789]

Totally unsuitable! The very tiny loading gauge of the Glasgow Underground makes them very cramped indeed.

Too slow as well; they can't run at 45 mph, they have a maximum of just 54 km/h (33.6 mph).

 

[Non Multi]

Posted on the LU forum section:

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/pic-20180516-item08-deep-tube-update.pdf

The earliest that '72 stock becomes available would be 2023.

 

[Domh245]

Posted on the LU forum section:



The earliest that '72 stock becomes available would be 2023.

It'd be 73 stock that comes available first, seeing as they're starting with the Piccadilly - but as the report notes, the trains are knackered

 

[Bletchleyite]

It'd be 73 stock that comes available first, seeing as they're starting with the Piccadilly - but as the report notes, the trains are knackered

And why use cramped deep Tube stock when D78s are available and according to Mr Shooter do fit?

It's a lovely curiosity as it is, but by and large lovely curiosities don't make effective public transport services. (See also Mk2 LHCS on the Cumbrian Coast which is putting passengers off in droves by failing every 5 minutes and looking old and knackered).

 

[Non Multi]

It'd be 73 stock that comes available first, seeing as they're starting with the Piccadilly - but as the report notes, the trains are knackered

Yes, indeed I meant '73 stock! I'm sure the report to justify the replacement of the LU '38 stock would have been similar in content.

And why use cramped deep Tube stock when D78s are available and according to Mr Shooter do fit?

It's a lovely curiosity as it is, but by and large lovely curiosities don't make effective public transport services. (See also Mk2 LHCS on the Cumbrian Coast which is putting passengers off in droves by failing every 5 minutes and looking old and knackered).

If D78s do fit, all those who've trotted out the that the tunnel height restriction requires 'deep level' tube stock are going to look pretty silly IMO. Anyway, it's increasingly looking like Hobson's choice for the Island Line.

 

[MarkyT]

Yes, indeed I meant '73 stock! I'm sure the report to justify the replacement of the LU '38 stock would have been similar in content.

If D78s do fit, all those who've trotted out the that the tunnel height restriction requires 'deep level' tube stock are going to look pretty silly IMO. Anyway, it's increasingly looking like Hobson's choice for the Island Line.

The story I have read is that today the double track tunnel, together with its twin single track portals at either end, will (just) clear certain designs of standard mainline-sized rolling stock. At some time in the late 1960s or early 70s, after the initial fleet of ex tube stock had arrived, a series of deep concrete bridge beams were installed near the Esplanade end to carry a road across the railway, and it was these these intruded into the tunnel space and fouled the main line clearance, but they have since been replaced again, restoring the original clearance. Nevertheless D78s will still be tight and the 100mm height gain necessary to accommodate the transit engine rafts underfloor in the diesel electric version might be a problem, but other options may be available, compatible with retaining the original height, such as pure electric or also incorporating a small battery/supercap bank underfloor, not for routine off 3rd rail running but primarily to help overcome low voltage in the power supply at some locations and allow improved acceleration and braking energy capture.

 

[Chris125]

At some time in the late 1960s or early 70s, after the initial fleet of ex tube stock had arrived, a series of deep concrete bridge beams were installed near the Esplanade end to carry a road across the railway, and it was these these intruded into the tunnel space and fouled the main line clearance, but they have since been replaced again, restoring the original clearance.

I've not heard of a change in the 60s/70s, but it can't have made much difference - there's only a few inches between the steam stock, the 503s proposed in the 80s and the D78s. The cut-down 03 shunters were taller still IIRC.

It's even said one of them was squeezed through the tunnel with it's original cab!

 

[yorksrob]

If the D78's do fit, why not just do the internal refurb of a fleet of the unconverted sets and convert from forth to third rail (and do the necessary renewals of the third rail that any line on the Southern region would have done).

 

[ainsworth74]

together with its twin single track portals at either end

I've often wondered why the portals are single track! If you're building a twin track tunnel anyway what on earth is the advantage of then building single portals?!

Another thought that I've batted around would be to look at the possibility of gaining more clearance by digging out the portals and slewing the line into the middle of the tunnel (you could keep the loop at Esplanade so it shouldn't impact on the ability to run a more frequent service if required in the future).

 

[hwl]

The story I have read is that today the double track tunnel, together with its twin single track portals at either end, will (just) clear certain designs of standard mainline-sized rolling stock. At some time in the late 1960s or early 70s, after the initial fleet of ex tube stock had arrived, a series of deep concrete bridge beams were installed near the Esplanade end to carry a road across the railway, and it was these these intruded into the tunnel space and fouled the main line clearance, but they have since been replaced again, restoring the original clearance. Nevertheless D78s will still be tight and the 100mm height gain necessary to accommodate the transit engine rafts underfloor in the diesel electric version might be a problem, but other options may be available, compatible with retaining the original height, such as pure electric or also incorporating a small battery/supercap bank underfloor, not for routine off 3rd rail running but primarily to help overcome low voltage in the power supply at some locations and allow improved acceleration and braking energy capture.

The concrete beams were added to remove the weight restriction on the Esplanade / Dover Street roundabout and have since been replaced with lower profile beams in the last decade.

 

[hwl]

I've not heard of a change in the 60s/70s, but it can't have made much difference - there's only a few inches between the steam stock, the 503s proposed in the 80s and the D78s. The cut-down 03 shunters were taller still IIRC.

It's even said one of them was squeezed through the tunnel with it's original cab!

The height has changed due to several factors at different points in time:
Installation of beams, later replaced with lower profile ones
Track raising to allow improved drainage.

 

[Mikey C]

If the D78's do fit, why not just do the internal refurb of a fleet of the unconverted sets and convert from forth to third rail (and do the necessary renewals of the third rail that any line on the Southern region would have done).

Yes, it begs the question too of why they didn't just buy some D78s 5 years ago when they were being withdrawn from service, or had they never even considered that they would fit as they never seemed to come up in discussions?

 

[47802]

If the D78's do fit, why not just do the internal refurb of a fleet of the unconverted sets and convert from forth to third rail (and do the necessary renewals of the third rail that any line on the Southern region would have done).

The fact that Shooter came out with the blunt statement "that they do fit" means they are clearly looking at a D train solution, especially as its said they are looking at refurbished stock and not new that would suggest its the only game in town. So that just leaves the question of how it will be powered, clearly retaining the 3rd rail is an option as you mention, but equally a Battery or Battery Hybrid solution my be seen as more cost effective if it avoids having to renew the third rail.

 

[The_Engineer]

equally a Battery or Battery Hybrid solution my be seen as more cost effective if it avoids having to renew the third rail.

That depend whether the long term or short term economic view is taken. I rather fear the short-term view will prevail......

 

[Non Multi]

That depend whether the long term or short term economic view is taken. I rather fear the short-term view will prevail......

Surely the cheapest option would be to take the D78 stock with the LU spec, and spend what is required on renewing the line's infrastructure, rather than potentially costly modifications to the D78 units.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely the cheapest option would be to take the D78 stock with the LU spec, and spend what is required on renewing the line's infrastructure, rather than potentially costly upgrades to the D78 units.

I doubt swapping the seats and such likes is particularly expensive. Though like the Marston Vale[1] I think the original seating layout would be fine - facing seats for those few making a long journey, lots of standing and longitudinal for summer and for short (pier) journeys.

[1] Which is apparently getting a different layout - I think they're wasting money on that as the as-built layout plus bogs would be fine in my view.

 

[MarkyT]

Yes, it begs the question too of why they didn't just buy some D78s 5 years ago when they were being withdrawn from service, or had they never even considered that they would fit as they never seemed to come up in discussions?

I don't understand who 'they' are in your statement. Someone would have had to do the refurb and if Vivarail had not been on the scene the likelihood is they would all have gone for scrap. In addition to their internal refurb and possible gangway improvements, and irrespective of whether diesels are included underfloor or not, The D78s in their Vivarail rebuilt form will get a modern traction control system and new more efficient traction motors. Whether the 3rd rail is replaced or not, performance should be improved significantly by this and maintenance reduced compared to their original configuration.

 

[Domh245]

Yes, it begs the question too of why they didn't just buy some D78s 5 years ago when they were being withdrawn from service, or had they never even considered that they would fit as they never seemed to come up in discussions?

Do also bear in mind that the terms of the SWT franchise agreement didn't require them to look into replacing the Island line stock - SWR, and their remit to look at replacing the island line stock have only existed for about a year. Of course, perhaps SWT could/should have talked to the DfT about getting some D78s straight from LU, but for whatever reason that didn't happen.

 

[A0wen]

I've not heard of a change in the 60s/70s, but it can't have made much difference - there's only a few inches between the steam stock, the 503s proposed in the 80s and the D78s. The cut-down 03 shunters were taller still IIRC.

It's even said one of them was squeezed through the tunnel with it's original cab!

AIUI the cut down 03s weren't because of Ryde tunnel but one of the other road bridges on the line - possibly Smallbrook?

 

[A0wen]

I agree with HSTEd's rebuttal of an earlier claim on the thread that third rail is dangerous. DC is far safer per passenger mile than AC. The island's third rail is an asset which should be kept & used.

You may agree with his logic, but it doesn't mean he's right.

You have twice as much route mileage with OHLE against 3rd rail. The chances of 'accidentally' coming into contact with OHLE is low going on negligible, quite the opposite with the DC conductor rail. That's why the NR risk profile on 3rd rail shows it to be far more risky than OHLE.

I don't think classing it as an AC versus DC issue is helpful - it's the method of transmission where the risk is and the fact remains a wire suspended 20' in the air whether it's carrying AC or DC is inherently safer than an unprotected conductor rail which is a matter of inches above the ground.

 

[yorksrob]

The fact that Shooter came out with the blunt statement "that they do fit" means they are clearly looking at a D train solution, especially as its said they are looking at refurbished stock and not new that would suggest its the only game in town. So that just leaves the question of how it will be powered, clearly retaining the 3rd rail is an option as you mention, but equally a Battery or Battery Hybrid solution my be seen as more cost effective if it avoids having to renew the third rail.

Yes, it begs the question too of why they didn't just buy some D78s 5 years ago when they were being withdrawn from service, or had they never even considered that they would fit as they never seemed to come up in discussions?

Yes, well I've always thought of sub-surface underground stock as being wider than usual, so I can see why it might not initially have been considered.

 

[yorksrob]

That depend whether the long term or short term economic view is taken. I rather fear the short-term view will prevail......

On the one hand, battery technology is still under development while there is an urgent need for new stock now.

On the other hand, the third rail is established technology which won't be disappearing from the Southern Region any time soon.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't understand who 'they' are in your statement. Someone would have had to do the refurb and if Vivarail had not been on the scene the likelihood is they would all have gone for scrap. In addition to their internal refurb and possible gangway improvements, and irrespective of whether diesels are included underfloor or not, The D78s in their Vivarail rebuilt form will get a modern traction control system and new more efficient traction motors. Whether the 3rd rail is replaced or not, performance should be improved significantly by this and maintenance reduced compared to their original configuration.

Indeed. A refurb and conversion to third rail would still be a decent bit of work for Vivarail.

I think this is potentially a very good outcome for the line.