• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Island Line Railway - current state and the future

Status
Not open for further replies.

Malcolmffc

Member
Joined
19 Mar 2017
Messages
300
I understand the stock, but as many preserved railways show it can be done. And maintaining the track and electricity supply is done daily by Network Rail.

Wrong. Track and power supply maintenance on the IOW is not Network Rail’s responsibility.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
I would have thought the most sensible thing would be for either:

Responsibility for the infrastructure to return to NR in perpituity, given they're the ones with the expertise, or

The TOC to sub-contract out maintenance to NR.

Either way, it's hard to see what benefit the current arrangements bring.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,419
But it's the substations that are life expired, so if you introduced charging points, you would need to new substations anyway?

Could someone clarify please? I was assuming that Vivarail’s charging Points replace substations, so all three could be decommissioned??
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,419
Oh, and another question....
I assume the ORR are happy about having high current third rail in a station, the mitigation being that a driver and conductor will obviously be present??
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
17,866
Location
Airedale
Oh, and another question....
I assume the ORR are happy about having high current third rail in a station, the mitigation being that a driver and conductor will obviously be present??
If you mean the Vivarail idea, the mitigation is a train sat over it, surely?
If you mean at present, the ORR don't like third rail generally - see Marshlink, North Downs, Uckfield repeatedly on these forums - but can't order it removed.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
At NR in the noughties, I was asked to do a high level paper exercise to quantise and price up signalling renewals on the IOW and look at possible development synergies such as the new Brading loop idea and associated track simplifications elsewhere. Unfortunately I never got a chance to go and look at the assets, as a formal condition assessment wasn't due, and after some 'back of a fag packet' calculations nothing was ever said about the matter again while I was there. As I understood it, NR and RT before them were responsible for major capital renewals, although they had no day to day involvement in maintenance and routine spot component renewals.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
Oh, and another question....
I assume the ORR are happy about having high current third rail in a station, the mitigation being that a driver and conductor will obviously be present??

Take a look at the links on the Vivarail website. The 3rd / 4th rails are only live when there's a train on the being charged. They're dead the rest of the time.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
I would have thought the most sensible thing would be for either:

Responsibility for the infrastructure to return to NR in perpituity, given they're the ones with the expertise, or

The TOC to sub-contract out maintenance to NR.

Either way, it's hard to see what benefit the current arrangements bring.

Not sure how reverting it to NR offers any real benefits. It's in effect an isolated 8.5 mile branch line. There are longer Heritage Railways in the UK and they don't need NR oversight.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
Not sure how reverting it to NR offers any real benefits. It's in effect an isolated 8.5 mile branch line. There are longer Heritage Railways in the UK and they don't need NR oversight.
Heritage railways typically can draw upon a pool of volunteer engineering and operating expertise far larger than any commercial operation could ever support, and some of those are active NR, TOC and railway contractor staff on their days off! I think there are benefits in NR carrying out day to day maintenance, in standards, training, professional development and career progression, access to further technical support when needed, economies of scale in purchasing, and ability to second staff in from the mainland to cover absences and vacancies. These are similar to the benefits of train operations being run as part of a larger entity rather than a 'microfranchise'. Bottom line: Expertise, quality, and economies of scale.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Not sure how reverting it to NR offers any real benefits. It's in effect an isolated 8.5 mile branch line. There are longer Heritage Railways in the UK and they don't need NR oversight.

Apart from the fact that they have the staff expertise, the equipment, the stocks etc associated with maintaining a third rail electric railway ?

I don't know how that could possibly benefit a third rail electrified railway that's been allowed to deteriorate for the past twenty years !
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,972
Could someone clarify please? I was assuming that Vivarail’s charging Points replace substations, so all three could be decommissioned??

Vivarail have proposed battery storage alongside charging points when the local power supply is insufficient to charge train batteries directly. The batteries would charge slowly over something like 50 minutes off the mains and then be ready to recharge train batteries in 7 minutes. This approach would allow all the existing electric infrastructure to go. Combined with singling the line with a loop at Brading and giving Smallbrook Junction to Ryde St Johns to the IoWSR it would reduce maintenance costs.

I would make platform alterations to allow level boarding at most stations. 3 x 3 coach 230s with two in operation and one spare would be sufficient for a half hourly service. Longitudinal seating in the middle coach would increase standing capacity for busy periods with the end coaches being used by the vast majority of passengers at less popular times. If demand exceeds capacity buying three extra middle coaches would be much cheaper than two extra units and building two additional passing loops for 4tph.
 

philthetube

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2016
Messages
3,749
While their battery trains may have promise in the future, there hasn't even been a proper trial yet - Vivarail have only just built a prototype charger, their battery unit has carried out no mainline testing and may not even have the latest batteries fitted yet.

This would be a proper trial.
 

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
3,074
This would be a proper trial.

It wouldn't be a trial from Island Line's perspective, it would essentially be permanent unless the 3rd rail is retained - should it prove less reliable or more costly than expected we're stuck.

IMO the sensible way to trial this technology would be on a mainland route/service currently worked by diesel traction - this would fully showcase the benefits and allow direct comparisons while minimising the impact of any issues that crop up.
 

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
3,074
Or take the battery modules off and put diesel ones on for now?

Aside from any practical issues that would hardly be a quick, cheap or politically attractive fallback for a line that's been electric for half a century.

With the third rail in place one could argue that what is needed isn't D-trains, but unmodified D78s with a coat of paint and new seat covers!

Pretty much! It's in Vivarail's interest to push for every bang and whistle and perhaps some upgrades make sense long-term, but beyond converting to 3rd rail working they don't need re-engineering.
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Pretty much! It's in Vivarail's interest to push for every bang and whistle and perhaps some upgrades make sense long-term, but beyond converting to 3rd rail working they don't need re-engineering.

It might I suppose be worth blocking some doors up, but then equally if it's not busy the lost capacity doesn't matter, and if it is busy then they will help reduce dwell times, which I think is why TfW have gone for the full 4 doored layout.

The Marston Vale is as ever a special case - for the school trains 3-car would be better, but the whole reason D-trains were even ordered was because something longer won't fit - if the platforms fitted 2x23m they'd have been Class 172 operated for the last 5 years or so already and LM would have long since binned off the 15x.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
The Marston Vale is as ever a special case - for the school trains 3-car would be better, but the whole reason D-trains were even ordered was because something longer won't fit - if the platforms fitted 2x23m they'd have been Class 172 operated for the last 5 years or so already and LM would have long since binned off the 15x.

But it would never have justified 3 car trains (even if the platforms weren't an issue) just because 2 trains a day are very busy for 38 weeks of the year - that would be providing massive over capacity at higher cost which is completely unwarranted for more than 95% of the time.

The Island Line is exactly the same in that sense - yes there are peaks for 10 or 12 weeks of the year - and then for 40 weeks of the year it's quiet going on dead. Putting 3 cars on unnecessarily is a complete waste.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
But it would never have justified 3 car trains (even if the platforms weren't an issue) just because 2 trains a day are very busy for 38 weeks of the year - that would be providing massive over capacity at higher cost which is completely unwarranted for more than 95% of the time.

Isn't that what the entire line does? It's also the reason for the Class 150, as the 153 is adequate for other times. Therefore, they already disagree with you.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
Apart from the fact that they have the staff expertise, the equipment, the stocks etc associated with maintaining a third rail electric railway ?

I don't know how that could possibly benefit a third rail electrified railway that's been allowed to deteriorate for the past twenty years !

I bet the Island Line's equipment isn't the same as the mainland now - the mainland has been progressively upgraded mainly as new rolling stock has come on stream with more significant power demands. Yes the insulators and rail might be the same, but I wouldn't be surprised if the rest isn't now. And no, it isn't worth upgrading the Island Line to those standards - on the mainland it has been as the new rolling stock has been to meet increased demand - whereas the Island Line hasn't shown anything like that kind of uplift in demand.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
Isn't that what the entire line does? It's also the reason for the Class 150, as the 153 is adequate for other times. Therefore, they already disagree with you.

The entire line probably is over-capacity but a 150 and 153 are the lowest capacity DMUs which are on the network (excluding the PPM). I thought the 150 / 153 split was due to availability of stock in any case as in LM as was didn't have sufficient 150s to 'standardise' the line on just one type ?

Either way there isn't the demand to cart around fresh air - that costs the TOCs unnecessarily - so I'm not sure you can say they "disagree" with me on that basis. They're trying to run that on the lowest possible cost - quite rightly - same principle needs to be followed for the Island Line.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
The entire line probably is over-capacity but a 150 and 153 are the lowest capacity DMUs which are on the network (excluding the PPM). I thought the 150 / 153 split was due to availability of stock in any case as in LM as was didn't have sufficient 150s to 'standardise' the line on just one type? Either way there isn't the demand to cart around fresh air - that costs the TOCs unnecessarily - so I'm not sure you can say they "disagree" with me on that basis. They're trying to run that on the lowest possible cost - quite rightly - same principle needs to be followed for the Island Line.
An additional intermediate trailer vehicle per set will not be particularly expensive compared to the power cars and being fairly lightweight will not impact significantly on performance. The new fleet acquisition might be a one-off opportunity to also purchase these to cater for future traffic growth which I believe will occur on IOW once the quality of service goes up. The extra trailers might be taken out of the sets and stored during the winter to save some energy carting them around. Perhaps Vivarail with their whizzy American backing could organsise some clever leasing deal so the extra cars are not paid for while they're not being used.
 

hooverboy

On Moderation
Joined
12 Oct 2017
Messages
1,372
An additional intermediate trailer vehicle per set will not be particularly expensive compared to the power cars and being fairly lightweight will not impact significantly on performance. The new fleet acquisition might be a one-off opportunity to also purchase these to cater for future traffic growth which I believe will occur on IOW once the quality of service goes up. The extra trailers might be taken out of the sets and stored during the winter to save some energy carting them around. Perhaps Vivarail with their whizzy American backing could organsise some clever leasing deal so the extra cars are not paid for while they're not being used.
you could say the same about quite a lot of rural lines where there is "peaky" demand seasonally.

a modular 15-18m 2/3 car hybrid sprinter replacement fleet would be ideal.(i'm thinking articulated bo-2-bo or bo-2-2-bo configuration)
2 cars(153 replacements) can be light(around 25-30t per car compared to 40 for a 153 or 35 each for a 150), low track access charges and PRM compliant, and giving actually a bit more flexibilty than a 153 as they will still have 2 engines and limp home on 1 if need be.not to mention a 15 or 18m car will have less trouble with clearance on some nasty curves on the network.

for the purposes they would be required for 1*300bhp per car keeps the fuel costs down and will still permit up to 90mph running(pacers are 25t and can do 75mph on a 250bhp block...2 powered axles per car also helps with adhesion and 2 axles per bogie gives much better comfort/less squealing over bumps and curves)

3 car is basically go to workshop,drop in an extra trailing bogie and the fuselage, then connect electrics and air/vacuum for brakes.
could be done overnight or when refuelled/serviced.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top