Island Line Railway - current state and the future

[Chester1]

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.

Battery technology is viable for the Island Line today. Vivarail's prototype can recharge in 8 minutes for 40 mile of range. Assuming better performance than existing stock 22 minutes with an 8 minute turn around is reasonable. If delayed the unit could do up to 2 return journeys without charging and then manage to fully recharge in 8 minutes. Recharging facilities would be needed at the depot and at one end of the line but both ends would obviously be more reliable. Maybe the economics won't work out but it is a viable option.

 

[DelW]

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?!

If the tunnel roof is brick arch(es) rather than beams, the twin arch arrangement needs less difference in level between the top of the loading gauge and the ground. This could be more of an issue at the ends, than in the middle where the line is deeper.

I doubt swapping the seats and such likes is particularly expensive. Though like the Marston Vale 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.

The original D78 layout would hardly be contentious, since it's much the same as all the trains on the island since the end of steam 50 years ago!

 

[yorksrob]

Battery technology is viable for the Island Line today. Vivarail's prototype can recharge in 8 minutes for 40 mile of range. Assuming better performance than existing stock 22 minutes with an 8 minute turn around is reasonable. If delayed the unit could do up to 2 return journeys without charging and then manage to fully recharge in 8 minutes. Recharging facilities would be needed at the depot and at one end of the line but both ends would obviously be more reliable. Maybe the economics won't work out but it is a viable option.

Perhaps. I hope they last a long time.

 

[The Ham]

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.

There's also the possibility that if Vivarail hadn't brought them that there wouldn't be any available as they may have already been scrapped (bearing in mind they brought the trains about 3.5 years ago).

 

[Mikey C]

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.

It was known to everyone that the D78s were being withdrawn, a few units could easily have been kept for the IoW, even without Vivarail being involved, as Vivarail was created to create cheap DMUs and the IoW is (for now at least) an electric railway. Conversion to 3rd rail would have been easy enough, and to me the interior in it's withdrawn state would have been perfectly adequate for IoW use.

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.

IF the D78s fit, then it's bizarre that someone didn't raise this an option, whether at SWT or the DfT. It's not as if how to replace the 38s hadn't been spoken about previously, the impression being given that the 73s were what they were waiting for.

 

[A0]

It was known to everyone that the D78s were being withdrawn, a few units could easily have been kept for the IoW, even without Vivarail being involved, as Vivarail was created to create cheap DMUs and the IoW is (for now at least) an electric railway. Conversion to 3rd rail would have been easy enough, and to me the interior in it's withdrawn state would have been perfectly adequate for IoW use.



IF the D78s fit, then it's bizarre that someone didn't raise this an option, whether at SWT or the DfT. It's not as if how to replace the 38s hadn't been spoken about previously, the impression being given that the 73s were what they were waiting for.

The 73's were the originally preferred option - it's been discussed several times - but their replacement has been delayed / deferred a couple of times. They were the logical choice as there was / is no question of whether they fit.

I think you're oversimplifying with the statement "well everyone knew the Ds were available, why weren't some being kept" - you could have made the same case for the A60 / A62s - there has, for a long time been the presumption that the IoW would get "like for like" i.e. another round of deep-level tube stock, but as the replacements for that have been delayed it does change the way people look at the options. What VivaRail have proved is the D78s are sound units and quite flexible - and the options of either hybrid or low-cost diesel power packs are entirely sensible options for consideration on the Island Line.

 

[A0]

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

But maintaining it on an 8.5 mile glorified branch line which has a few miles of water between it and the rest of the network is not a compelling reason to keep it. The reduction in maintenance costs on the other hand in terms of supply, conductor rail etc - and don't go peddling the old pony that 3rd rail never fails where OHLE does, people like Bald Rick who know far more about it than you or I have debunked that claim often enough - may be the difference between viable and non-viable in the medium term.

 

[Chris125]

IF the D78s fit, then it's bizarre that someone didn't raise this an option, whether at SWT or the DfT. It's not as if how to replace the 38s hadn't been spoken about previously, the impression being given that the 73s were what they were waiting for.

D78s may fit through the tunnel but they will require other infrastructure changes - clearly platform heights will need addressing, as will any clearance issues with overbridges and the depot at Ryde.

While a like-for-like replacement with 73TS may have been cheap enough for SWT to consider, D78s would have been a much more costly long-term investment which needed a commitment and funds I'm sure the DfT would not have been ready to make.

 

[A0]

Battery technology is viable for the Island Line today. Vivarail's prototype can recharge in 8 minutes for 40 mile of range. Assuming better performance than existing stock 22 minutes with an 8 minute turn around is reasonable. If delayed the unit could do up to 2 return journeys without charging and then manage to fully recharge in 8 minutes. Recharging facilities would be needed at the depot and at one end of the line but both ends would obviously be more reliable. Maybe the economics won't work out but it is a viable option.

Quite - the Electrostar BEMU trial was done on the Harwich branch which is 11 miles each way, so about 50% longer than the Island Line and that unit had a 60 mile range - so 3 round trip's worth on the Island line.

 

[A0]

D78s may fit through the tunnel but they will require other infrastructure changes - clearly platform heights will need addressing, as will any clearance issues with overbridges and the depot at Ryde.

While a like-for-like replacement with 73TS may have been cheap enough for SWT to consider, D78s would have been a much more costly long-term investment which needed a commitment and funds I'm sure the DfT would not have been ready to make.

Not sure clearance issues are valid - the cut down 03s had a height of 11' 10", the D78s were 11' 11".

This article provides some useful insights into the challenges....

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2018/third-ryde-tube-transfer-troublesome/

Notably this "The voltage drop along the line is apparently so severe that at Shanklin, the third rail is only supplying some 350V out of the normal 630V, which explains the leisurely get-aways passengers experience at that end of the line." - which suggests the 3rd rail equipment is getting somewhat "tired".....

 

[HSTEd]

But maintaining it on an 8.5 mile glorified branch line which has a few miles of water between it and the rest of the network is not a compelling reason to keep it. The reduction in maintenance costs on the other hand in terms of supply, conductor rail etc - and don't go peddling the old pony that 3rd rail never fails where OHLE does, people like Bald Rick who know far more about it than you or I have debunked that claim often enough - may be the difference between viable and non-viable in the medium term.

The reduction in maintenance costs will be offset by the increase in maintenance costs associated with the charging equipment and the battery packs on the trains.
How will the chargers operate? You will likely need a DC substation either way to provide the charging power.
And the substation will likely be more expensive as it will hae to provide all the energy for the journey in a small fraction of the journey time.

At which point your only saving relates to the conductor rail itself. You don't even have to have any segmentation system because the entire line will be hot or not.

This is just marketing types spouting buzz words to try and avoid a tiny amoutn of up front capital spend.

 

[yorksrob]

There's also the possibility that if Vivarail hadn't brought them that there wouldn't be any available as they may have already been scrapped (bearing in mind they brought the trains about 3.5 years ago).

Quite. Infact, that's probably what would have happened.

 

[yorksrob]

But maintaining it on an 8.5 mile glorified branch line which has a few miles of water between it and the rest of the network is not a compelling reason to keep it. The reduction in maintenance costs on the other hand in terms of supply, conductor rail etc - and don't go peddling the old pony that 3rd rail never fails where OHLE does, people like Bald Rick who know far more about it than you or I have debunked that claim often enough - may be the difference between viable and non-viable in the medium term.

Actually, that's a highly compelling reason for keeping it.

Given the choice between some bespoke system that might end up one of it's kind (Bury electrics anyone?) with all the associated issues of equipment renewal, or a ready supply of equipment, spare parts and expertise a half hour ferry ride away, I know which one I'd choose in terms of long term viability.

I don't know why people on this forum seem so determined to peddle this load of old toot that just because the Wight line is separated by a bit of water, it is somehow uniquely unsuited to a traction system that transports thousands of people across the south, every day, usually without incident.

 

[Chester1]

The reduction in maintenance costs will be offset by the increase in maintenance costs associated with the charging equipment and the battery packs on the trains.
How will the chargers operate? You will likely need a DC substation either way to provide the charging power.
And the substation will likely be more expensive as it will hae to provide all the energy for the journey in a small fraction of the journey time.

At which point your only saving relates to the conductor rail itself. You don't even have to have any segmentation system because the entire line will be hot or not.

This is just marketing types spouting buzz words to try and avoid a tiny amoutn of up front capital spend.

Vivarail are offering batteries for charging points for places where the power supply cannot support charging the train batteries with sufficient speed. To run battery powered units would require charging points at the depot, the pier and Shanklin. The depot charger wouldn't need a massive supply because the units there would be charging over night. Only Shanklin or Ryde Pier would need fast charging and if the local supply can't support it then use the maximum possible at Ryde and put a battery station near or at Shanklin station to allow fast charging there. That is not much kit to maintain. A single line with one loop at Brading would be sufficient to support a half hourly service and 6 x 2 car sets would be sufficient to run it. Singling the line would allow the IoWSR to extend to a better terminal station at Ryde St Johns. It will be interesting to see SWRs proposals when they are published but battery trains on a single line seems like a low maintenance option that would still decrease journey times and increase capacity.

 

[Mikey C]

The 73's were the originally preferred option - it's been discussed several times - but their replacement has been delayed / deferred a couple of times. They were the logical choice as there was / is no question of whether they fit.

I think you're oversimplifying with the statement "well everyone knew the Ds were available, why weren't some being kept" - you could have made the same case for the A60 / A62s - there has, for a long time been the presumption that the IoW would get "like for like" i.e. another round of deep-level tube stock, but as the replacements for that have been delayed it does change the way people look at the options. What VivaRail have proved is the D78s are sound units and quite flexible - and the options of either hybrid or low-cost diesel power packs are entirely sensible options for consideration on the Island Line.

The A stock was life expired, ditto the C stock. By contrast the D78s were only withdrawn to give the operating convenience of a unified sub-surface fleet. They were in especially good nick, with their bogies replaced and a very effective refurbishment inside, indeed much conditions than the 73 stock.

I'm not saying they should have been snapped up 3 years ago, but it seems careless for them to not be considered by someone at the time, it's not as if there are vast numbers of alternative units that can be used on the line.

 

[A0]

Vivarail are offering batteries for charging points for places where the power supply cannot support charging the train batteries with sufficient speed. To run battery powered units would require charging points at the depot, the pier and Shanklin. The depot charger wouldn't need a massive supply because the units there would be charging over night. Only Shanklin or Ryde Pier would need fast charging and if the local supply can't support it then use the maximum possible at Ryde and put a battery station near or at Shanklin station to allow fast charging there. That is not much kit to maintain. A single line with one loop at Brading would be sufficient to support a half hourly service and 6 x 2 car sets would be sufficient to run it. Singling the line would allow the IoWSR to extend to a better terminal station at Ryde St Johns. It will be interesting to see SWRs proposals when they are published but battery trains on a single line seems like a low maintenance option that would still decrease journey times and increase capacity.

The Island line is only 16 miles as a round trip - I'm not sure you need a charging point at Pier Head - notwithstanding the challenges of electrical supplies over the sea. Shanklin and St John's should suffice.

I agree singling St Johns - Smallbrook would be sensible as it would benefit the IoWSR - and that's been touted a few times.

 

[Chris125]

Not sure clearance issues are valid - the cut down 03s had a height of 11' 10", the D78s were 11' 11".

D78s are a lot longer than an 03 and are probably wider at the roofline too, so will have issues (especially with arched bridges/tunnel roofs on tight curves) where the shunter wouldn't.

Notably this "The voltage drop along the line is apparently so severe that at Shanklin, the third rail is only supplying some 350V out of the normal 630V, which explains the leisurely get-aways passengers experience at that end of the line." - which suggests the 3rd rail equipment is getting somewhat "tired".....

That was questioned in the comments below however: "Given the minimum voltage before cutout circuitry kicks in is 400V (and has been for decades) which busts Garnett’s 350V non sense" - it seems the technical aspects of his report leave a lot to be desired.

 

[philthetube]

I am not sure how much of the cost of installing third rail is the cost of the rail itself but I would be surprised if that is life expired considering the hammering some of the Stuff on the underground has taken for long periods. I can understand everything else needing replacing though.

 

[A0]

I am not sure how much of the cost of installing third rail is the cost of the rail itself but I would be surprised if that is life expired considering the hammering some of the Stuff on the underground has taken for long periods. I can understand everything else needing replacing though.

The physical rail probably isn't. The pots and everything else is a different question. On the basis most of the SR has seen significant track works and improvement since 1968 which the Island line won't have, suggests the whole lot will need replacement.

I don't believe LU will have any length of track that dates that far back - clearly there may be some yards or sidings that do, but not actual running lines.

 

[A0]

D78s are a lot longer than an 03 and are probably wider at the roofline too, so will have issues (especially with arched bridges/tunnel roofs on tight curves) where the shunter wouldn't.

The claim was a non cut down 03 made it through the tunnel and that would mean almost 12' 3".....

The platform curve at Ryde is more interesting - here's a thought though, single the line between the tunnel and footbridge. That's fairly straight and a new platform would fit there - put a new station building over the end of the bus station and that would allow the demolition of the existing Esplanade station and rebuild of the bus station - which both the council and SVOCwould probably support.

 

[Chester1]

The claim was a non cut down 03 made it through the tunnel and that would mean almost 12' 3".....

The platform curve at Ryde is more interesting - here's a thought though, single the line between the tunnel and footbridge. That's fairly straight and a new platform would fit there - put a new station building over the end of the bus station and that would allow the demolition of the existing Esplanade station and rebuild of the bus station - which both the council and SVOCwould probably support.

Single the line full stop! It will never need more than a half hourly service again which only requires a single track line with a new loop at Brading. If more capacity was needed then platform extensions and SDO would be cheaper than extra track and signalling. Replacing the tunnel portals to allow the tunnel track to be scewed down the middle for maximium loading gauge would be very beneficial, as would the IoWSR opperating from Ryde rather than the middle of nowhere. As you have pointed out there are more options for the Esplanade station if it only needs one track and one platform. The line has one shot at modernisation and needs the lowest opperating costs and infrastructure risk as possible. 8 and a half miles of third rail, double track sections, loops, a pier, a very low tunnel and a big opperating subsidy are not a great mix. A single line, one loop, a singled + scewed track in the tunnel, a charging point at the depot and Shanklin (with a battery station to avoid a sub station) and 6 x 2 coach 230s would be a low cost solution. Batteries for cars are expected to last about 7 years and the 230 batteries could be replaced by smaller lighter batteries with the same range halfway through their lives. The impending PRM-TSI deadline would provide a good time to close the line for work from the end of the 2019 summer season to spring 2020, providing plenty of time for Vivarail to build half a dozen 230s.

 

[hooverboy]

Single the line full stop! It will never need more than a half hourly service again which only requires a single track line with a new loop at Brading. If more capacity was needed then platform extensions and SDO would be cheaper than extra track and signalling. Replacing the tunnel portals to allow the tunnel track to be scewed down the middle for maximium loading gauge would be very beneficial, as would the IoWSR opperating from Ryde rather than the middle of nowhere. As you have pointed out there are more options for the Esplanade station if it only needs one track and one platform. The line has one shot at modernisation and needs the lowest opperating costs and infrastructure risk as possible. 8 and a half miles of third rail, double track sections, loops, a pier, a very low tunnel and a big opperating subsidy are not a great mix. A single line, one loop, a singled + scewed track in the tunnel, a charging point at the depot and Shanklin (with a battery station to avoid a sub station) and 6 x 2 coach 230s would be a low cost solution. Batteries for cars are expected to last about 7 years and the 230 batteries could be replaced by smaller lighter batteries with the same range halfway through their lives. The impending PRM-TSI deadline would provide a good time to close the line for work from the end of the 2019 summer season to spring 2020, providing plenty of time for Vivarail to build half a dozen 230s.

I'm thinking that 8 miles of that 8/1/2 mile 3rd rail are no longer necessary with BEMU operation.
you just need three small 750VDC charge points.
even if you just ran D78 stock(or 313/507/508) as is, the power gear would need to be replaced from clapped out 630vdc stuff anyway.

The key to getting better profitability for the line,and justifying the expense is better marketing IMHO...yes primarily for tourists,because they spend a lot of money in the local businesses to keep them running.

my 2p worth:
1)From the mainland,a fully integrated IOW travelcard should be available- like a london travelcard. covering train on mainland,ferry,and ALL bus,train,tram on IOW.
2)Said travelcard available for longer durations at a discount for IOW residents
3)employ pay as you go "smartcard" technology on all IOW transport like oyster but simpler....same process, but purchase and topping up points at main ferry/hovercraft terminals, main bus and rail stations in IOW, and also top up points in selected newsagents chains ie WHSmith.....you need the brand to to associate with top up point.

this also negates the requirement for 1 guard/conductor per train, just a random revenue inspector with a scanner floating between journeys.

4)Have IOW travel heavily discounted/free as a bonus for mainland annual season/gold ticket holders ...to drum up business via days out and stay-cations.

 

[Chester1]

I'm thinking that 8 miles of that 8/1/2 mile 3rd rail are no longer necessary with BEMU operation.
you just need three small 750VDC charge points.
even if you just ran D78 stock(or 313/507/508) as is, the power gear would need to be replaced from clapped out 630vdc stuff anyway.

The key to getting better profitability for the line,and justifying the expense is better marketing IMHO...yes primarily for tourists,because they spend a lot of money in the local businesses to keep them running.

my 2p worth:
1)From the mainland,a fully integrated IOW travelcard should be available- like a london travelcard. covering train on mainland,ferry,and ALL bus,train,tram on IOW.
2)Said travelcard available for longer durations at a discount for IOW residents
3)employ pay as you go "smartcard" technology on all IOW transport like oyster but simpler....same process, but purchase and topping up points at main ferry/hovercraft terminals, main bus and rail stations in IOW, and also top up points in selected newsagents chains ie WHSmith.....you need the brand to to associate with top up point.

this also negates the requirement for 1 guard/conductor per train, just a random revenue inspector with a scanner floating between journeys.

4)Have IOW travel heavily discounted/free as a bonus for mainland annual season/gold ticket holders ...to drum up business via days out and stay-cations.
5

The government has enabled reintroducing bus regulation in an act of parliament that became law just before the election last year. None of the metropolitan cities have used it yet though. IoW could justify obtaining the same powers because of its segregation from the mainland, its separate railway line and reliance on ferries. A residents card would certainly be a good idea, maybe with an extra discount outside the tourist season. A smartcard system is highly unlikely though due to the cost of buying or building it. The driver opening and closing the doors but with a compulsory second safety critical person focused on selling and checking tickets would help reduce fare evasion.

I think if Vivarail 230s are chosen then the static battery station option would be the best choice to remove all third rail kit and avoid problems with the level of power supply that can be supported. The range of 40 miles and charge time of 8 minutes means only charging at the depot and Shanklin would be necessary but a 3rd charger at Ryde Pier would be useful but maybe not worthwhile depending on cost of installation and maintenance over the sea.

 

[Robertj21a]

Lots of tortuous ideas to keep it all much as it is. Even so, it still seems more sensible (to me at least !) to convert it into a proper light rail system, which can then be easily extended if/when appropriate.

 

[Chester1]

Lots of tortuous ideas to keep it all much as it is. Even so, it still seems more sensible (to me at least !) to convert it into a proper light rail system, which can then be easily extended if/when appropriate.

Its not tortuous to rip up the third rail infrastructure, single the line, add 1 passing loop and install two battery station charging points. I agree light rail would be better and make extending to Newport and Cowes possible but the level of funding neccessary is too high. The line as it currently exists is nearly the perfect choice for a first long term use of BEMUs in the UK and that would help the political case for funding.

 

[Chris125]

The claim was a non cut down 03 made it through the tunnel and that would mean almost 12' 3".....

That's a short vehicle (less than 8m) with a relatively narrow cab - it will protrude outwards, towards the walls and the bottom of the roof arch, less through the tight curves in the tunnel than an 18m+ carriage.

 

[hooverboy]

. A smartcard system is highly unlikely though due to the cost of buying or building it. The driver opening and closing the doors but with a compulsory second safety critical person focused on selling and checking tickets would help reduce fare evasion.
.

wouldn't cost much to build/implement at all.There are lots of towns/cities/regions in europe with such a system already.
as an added bonus it's also a lot quicker at bus stops etc with embarking/disembarking as it's just a quick swipe rather than waiting for granny in front of you to divest of her piggy bank of 5p's at the driver

added driver security too as less cash-less chance of thefts and robberies.

as mentioned before, inspections generally done by inspector with a scanner jumping on/off at random routes or stations.The system works fine.

 

[hooverboy]

Lots of tortuous ideas to keep it all much as it is. Even so, it still seems more sensible (to me at least !) to convert it into a proper light rail system, which can then be easily extended if/when appropriate.

I know, but a quick, immediate,low cost fix is needed.
I agree that having dual track VLR system(toulouse metro style) with interconnect to newport/cowes is the ideal,and concreting over ryde tunnel during the process would help reliability no end, but in terms of capital outlay/timescale probably not feasible unless IOW suddenly becomes the new majorca..OR they pull some rabbits out of hats with new events/festivals/recreation etc that people want to come to....cowes could do it if they had something like the red bull races held there on a regular basis

as for second safety critical person-----bone of contention there.If GTL can do Driver only and has done so for 30 odd years(with a better safety record than guarded i should add),and with a MUCH higher capacity route, also you have just removed one of the really serious risks(live rail) from the equation, then what is the point?...the line is losing money,so costs have to be kept down.

by all means retrain them as drivers/maintainance/signalling ,but the on-board role is basically surplus to requirements if you have one floating inspector.cctv can inform the driver of drunken altercations and so on...and that can be relayed to BTP who can be at the next station to deal with it...They have power of arrest etc,a conductor doesn't and is less capable/more likely to be harmed in such an event.

 

[A0]

I'm thinking that 8 miles of that 8/1/2 mile 3rd rail are no longer necessary with BEMU operation.
you just need three small 750VDC charge points.
even if you just ran D78 stock(or 313/507/508) as is, the power gear would need to be replaced from clapped out 630vdc stuff anyway.

The key to getting better profitability for the line,and justifying the expense is better marketing IMHO...yes primarily for tourists,because they spend a lot of money in the local businesses to keep them running.

my 2p worth:
1)From the mainland,a fully integrated IOW travelcard should be available- like a london travelcard. covering train on mainland,ferry,and ALL bus,train,tram on IOW.
2)Said travelcard available for longer durations at a discount for IOW residents
3)employ pay as you go "smartcard" technology on all IOW transport like oyster but simpler....same process, but purchase and topping up points at main ferry/hovercraft terminals, main bus and rail stations in IOW, and also top up points in selected newsagents chains ie WHSmith.....you need the brand to to associate with top up point.

this also negates the requirement for 1 guard/conductor per train, just a random revenue inspector with a scanner floating between journeys.

4)Have IOW travel heavily discounted/free as a bonus for mainland annual season/gold ticket holders ...to drum up business via days out and stay-cations.

Southern Vectis have already got smart ticketing on the IoW..... and there used to be a combined bus / train rover, but doesn't seem to be any more.

The IoW doesn't need a regulated bus service - it's already got a monopoly operation with Svoc. The regulation in metro areas is designed to stop one area being over-served and others not served, which isn't an issue on the IoW.

 

[Chris999999]

...a quick, immediate,low cost fix is needed.

by all means retrain them as drivers/maintainance/signalling ,but the on-board role is basically surplus to requirements if you have one floating inspector.cctv can inform the driver of drunken altercations and so on...and that can be relayed to BTP who can be at the next station to deal with it...They have power of arrest etc,a conductor doesn't and is less capable/more likely to be harmed in such an event.

So the floating inspector will be on one of the 2 trains running, but BTP will be hanging about to board at any station as required? This isn't going to reduce costs at all.