Island Line Upgrade updates

[swt_passenger]

I would be surprised if the rails are not welded, cheaper to maintain. Maybe that is to follow when most of the work is done.

Those traction return bonds at the rail joints, (second photo in post #555), look fairly permanent?

 

[trebor79]

I would be surprised if the rails are not welded, cheaper to maintain. Maybe that is to follow when most of the work is done.

Doesn't welded track require a decent formation and substantial depth and shoulder of ballast? The island railway formations were not well engineered in the first place and it would be very expensive to make them suitable for welded rail, I'd have thought.

 

[D6130]

I have to admit I am a little surprised that we haven't seen any welded rails yet, with the Brading relay being with new track panels. I just hope the track is maintained better than previously, as some of those jointed sections were rather rough in the end. At least the ride of the 484s should be much smoother than the 38 stock.

During my two and a half years as a guard on the Island line, I was told by the old hand drivers, guards and permanent way staff that the main reason that the track was so rough was because it was laid on shingle ballast - which is composed of small round pebbles which easily roll apart - as opposed to the hard, angular pieces of granite used on the mainland, which lock together and form a firm, rigid base for the track. There will be no need for welded rail in the station areas, where the speed limit is 15 or 20 mph, but I suspect that it will be used on the Smallbrook - Brading and Brading-Sandown sections, where it is possible to reach line speed for a fair distance. Hopefully they will bring a good quantity of granite ballast over from the mainland too. The new ballast in the photos of Brading station looks better than anything previously seen on the island.

 

[CunningPlan]

My thoughts exactly - the line length is about 8.3 miles, from May services are timed to take 23 mins from Ryde Pier Head to Shanklin with 6 intermediate stops - so allow a 90 second penalty for slowing stop and starting for each of those and that's 9 minutes. So the actual moving time is about 13 mins to cover 8.3 miles - average there is about 40 mph. If you upped that by 10% to 44 mph you'd only reduce the journey time by about 1.5 mins.

So the answer is, not much and no probably not.

I don't understand this standpoint. When the line was electrified back in the 60s the line speed was raised so the "new" stock could be used to its full potential. Considering parts of the line need pretty comprehensive rebuilding anyway to deal with the poor formation, why not do the same this time around?

On a slightly different note, I have compared the December 2015 National Rail timetable (https://web.archive.org/web/2016010.../Complete timetable - Separate PDFs.zip?a=new - table 167) to the details in the NR journey planner from May, and it's clear that northbound services are expected to have to wait at Brading for the southbound train.

2015's xx18 Sunday departure from Shanklin is due to become xx17, leaving Sandown at xx23 (xx24 in 2015). So far so similar. However the Brading times are vastly different - xx32 from May when it was xx28 in 2015. The overall northbound journey time is expected to be 4 minutes longer at 28 minutes (arriving at Pier Head xx45) compared to a 24 minute schedule when passing at St John's and Sandown. The only exceptions seem to be the last 2 journeys of each day as the line is clearly down to a 1-train service, and they only take 24 minutes for the whole northbound run. However the scheduled time from Brading to Pier Head is being cut from 14 minutes to 13, and the scheduled journey time from Brading to Shanklin is also down from 10 minutes to 9, which to me implies they likely do intend to raise the line speed on those sections.

(and in case you were wondering why I chose the 2015 NRT for comparison, it's entirely because I know if you go that for back they're a little easier to get hold of online compared to more recent editions!)

 

[A0]

I don't understand this standpoint. When the line was electrified back in the 60s the line speed was raised so the "new" stock could be used to its full potential. Considering parts of the line need pretty comprehensive rebuilding anyway to deal with the poor formation, why not do the same this time around?

On a slightly different note, I have compared the December 2015 National Rail timetable (https://web.archive.org/web/20160106012814/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse documents/eNRT/Dec15/Complete timetable - Separate PDFs.zip?a=new - table 167) to the details in the NR journey planner from May, and it's clear that northbound services are expected to have to wait at Brading for the southbound train.

2015's xx18 Sunday departure from Shanklin is due to become xx17, leaving Sandown at xx23 (xx24 in 2015). So far so similar. However the Brading times are vastly different - xx32 from May when it was xx28 in 2015. The overall northbound journey time is expected to be 4 minutes longer at 28 minutes (arriving at Pier Head xx45) compared to a 24 minute schedule when passing at St John's and Sandown. The only exceptions seem to be the last 2 journeys of each day as the line is clearly down to a 1-train service, and they only take 24 minutes for the whole northbound run. However the scheduled time from Brading to Pier Head is being cut from 14 minutes to 13, and the scheduled journey time from Brading to Shanklin is also down from 10 minutes to 9, which to me implies they likely do intend to raise the line speed on those sections.

(and in case you were wondering why I chose the 2015 NRT for comparison, it's entirely because I know if you go that for back they're a little easier to get hold of online compared to more recent editions!)

The timings can probably be explained by the fact Brading isn't exactly halfway down the line - in fact it's a mile closer to Shanklin than Ryde Pier Head. So I assume it's timetabled against the arrival from Ryde as IIRC it's single track most of the way from Ryde to Brading.

On overall speed it's not slow considering the frequency of station stops and the need to ensure passenger comfort with acceleration / deceleration.

The spacing of stations is:

Shanklin - Lake 1m 5ch
Lake - Sandown 62ch
Sandown - Brading 1m 67ch
Brading - Smallbrook Jnc 2m 37ch
Smallbrook Jnc - Ryde St John's 79ch
Ryde St John's - Esplanade 67ch

So realistically the only bit which *might* benefit from linespeed improvement would be Brading - St John's (on the basis not all trains stop at Smallbrook). The rest of the time, you'd be uplifting a linespeed to a level which would either be unachievable or usable for such short periods it makes no sense.

 

[D6130]

I don't understand this standpoint. When the line was electrified back in the 60s the line speed was raised so the "new" stock could be used to its full potential. Considering parts of the line need pretty comprehensive rebuilding anyway to deal with the poor formation, why not do the same this time around?

On a slightly different note, I have compared the December 2015 National Rail timetable (https://web.archive.org/web/20160106012814/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse documents/eNRT/Dec15/Complete timetable - Separate PDFs.zip?a=new - table 167) to the details in the NR journey planner from May, and it's clear that northbound services are expected to have to wait at Brading for the southbound train.

2015's xx18 Sunday departure from Shanklin is due to become xx17, leaving Sandown at xx23 (xx24 in 2015). So far so similar. However the Brading times are vastly different - xx32 from May when it was xx28 in 2015. The overall northbound journey time is expected to be 4 minutes longer at 28 minutes (arriving at Pier Head xx45) compared to a 24 minute schedule when passing at St John's and Sandown. The only exceptions seem to be the last 2 journeys of each day as the line is clearly down to a 1-train service, and they only take 24 minutes for the whole northbound run. However the scheduled time from Brading to Pier Head is being cut from 14 minutes to 13, and the scheduled journey time from Brading to Shanklin is also down from 10 minutes to 9, which to me implies they likely do intend to raise the line speed on those sections.

(and in case you were wondering why I chose the 2015 NRT for comparison, it's entirely because I know if you go that for back they're a little easier to get hold of online compared to more recent editions!)

There was only a very modest increase in line speed with electrification in 1967 - from 40 to 45, IIRC. In practice, speed limits were largely academic until the arrival of the 1938 stock in 1989, because neither the O2 tanks nor the 'Standard' tube stock were fitted with speedometers. I remember one quite exhilarating - and slightly scary - occasion in 1988, when I was guard on the 'boat train' and the driver was 'caught short' during the turnround at Shanklin. We eventually departed six minutes late, much to the chagrin of passengers hoping to connect with the catamaran. It was clear from the outset that the driver was 'going for it' and once we left Sandown all hell let loose. Even though this (by then singled) section was laid with 60 foot flat-bottom rail, the vertical and lateral motion (of the passengers as well as the train) had to be seen to be believed! at the bottom of the bank on Moreton Common, I did a discreet quarter milepost timing and worked out that we had been doing 66 mph. We arrived at the Pierhead one minute down and the passengers made their connection, shaken but not stirred! I've never felt able to put this writing up to now, but the driver concerned is long since retired and probably no longer with us.....one of the great island railway characters!

 

[Chris125]

I would be surprised if the rails are not welded, cheaper to maintain. Maybe that is to follow when most of the work is done.

There will be no need for welded rail in the station areas, where the speed limit is 15 or 20 mph, but I suspect that it will be used on the Smallbrook - Brading and Brading-Sandown sections, where it is possible to reach line speed for a fair distance.

A member of RMweb actually did an inspection of the track last year and in his view jointed track would be easier to maintain and interestingly the existing line was in generally good nick aside from the shingle ballast. With even the old bullhead sections - at least some of which must be getting on for a century old - being fettled its clear now that significant track renewal is no longer planned.

 

[VEP3417]

the vertical and lateral motion (of the passengers as well as the train) had to be seen to be believed!

wasnt much different when i went there before closure was definitely one of the most fun train rides to be had...it was soo bad it was good

 

[DelW]

I remember an occasion a couple of years ago, on a fairly busy train somewhere south of Smallbrook - I was standing in the aisle next to the connecting door and looking down the length of the coach. The sight of everyone bouncing up and down exactly in unison was so funny I nearly laughed out loud.
It isn't just the track that causes the bounciness, you need the deeply sprung seats as well, it wouldn't happen on modern rock-hard upholstery.

 

[Chris125]

Regarding the track between Brading and Smallbrook, the piles of material in the update below appears to confirm the same approach as the rest of the line - spot re-sleepering, replacing the worst rails and cutting out dipped joints.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/355569249197459/permalink/463254558428927/

Seems most of the remaining civils work is at Shanklin which is a hive of activity. Bit concerned about the scaffold holding the canopy up....


Shanklin by Chris, on Flickr

 

[trebor79]

I remember an occasion a couple of years ago, on a fairly busy train somewhere south of Smallbrook - I was standing in the aisle next to the connecting door and looking down the length of the coach. The sight of everyone bouncing up and down exactly in unison was so funny I nearly laughed out loud.
It isn't just the track that causes the bounciness, you need the deeply sprung seats as well, it wouldn't happen on modern rock-hard upholstery.

Took my six year old some for a day out on the island on the summer, including a ride on the train. We both really enjoyed the bouncy ride and he thought it was hilarious everyone bouncing up and down.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I can't help wondering how the drivers managed to cope with it - presumably they spend basically the whole day, on average 5 days a week, bouncing up and down in their seats while at the same time having to control the train? I'm not sure what the physical effects of that would be on the body but I doubt they can be entirely good.

 

[D6130]

I can't help wondering how the drivers managed to cope with it - presumably they spend basically the whole day, on average 5 days a week, bouncing up and down in their seats while at the same time having to control the train? I'm not sure what the physical effects of that would be on the body but I doubt they can be entirely good.

Quite a few of the drivers stood up for the faster parts of the journey and those that didn't ended up with back problems to a greater or lesser extent ....although standing wasn't great for one's knees and ankles, so it was a no-win situation really. We guards tended to stand up most of the time - even when not checking tickets.

 

[philthetube]

Although the ride is undeniably bouncy, those from London will remember that the 59 stock, so presumably the 38 as well, was pretty lively on outside sections on the Northern and Central lines.

 

[100andthirty]

And D stock was notable for its bouncy ride on jointed track.

 

[VEP3417]

the tiny little fold down seat cant have been very comfortable either

forgot how basic the cab was.......they will me missed...bouncy ride and all

 

[MotCO]

And D stock was notable for its bouncy ride on jointed track.

That doesn't bode well for the 484's . Hope the track relaying sorts this out.

 

[D365]

And D stock was notable for its bouncy ride on jointed track.

Is that before or after the new bogies?

 

[100andthirty]

Is that before or after the new bogies?

The new bogies had exactly the same suspension characteristics as the old bogies. Of course, VivaRail may well have tuned the suspension to the prevailing conditions.

 

[D365]

The new bogies had exactly the same suspension characteristics as the old bogies. Of course, VivaRail may well have tuned the suspension to the prevailing conditions.

Ah, I had assumed that those had been altered as a part of the process to improve the ride quality.

 

[221101 Voyager]

the tiny little fold down seat cant have been very comfortable either

forgot how basic the cab was.......they will me missed...bouncy ride and all

At least the drivers of the 484 will have a better seat to sit on, so they won't absorb as many bumps!

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Reports on a Facebook Group of some movements of the old 483 stock:

002 has been shunted ready for recycling, 009 has had some parts stripped (mostly braking gear) to allow 008 to return to a running condition. 009 will then once stripped also be recycled.

This leaves 006, 007 and 008 as ‘runners’ ready for movement to their new homes. No info on what the plans are for 004.

 

[Chris125]

Looks like we'll see units leaving this week, they've been shunting at Ryde in preparation with a unimog(?):

https://www.facebook.com/groups/355569249197459/permalink/464315621656154/

 

[swt_passenger]

Looks like we'll see units leaving this week, they've been shunting at Ryde in preparation with a unimog(?):

https://www.facebook.com/groups/355569249197459/permalink/464315621656154/

The last photo in that set shows quite well how the platform height change really does make use of 483s impossible...

 

[Chris125]

Up up and away - 002 goes airborne:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/355569249197459/permalink/464908224930227/

 

[Gloster]

At 15.30 today two Class 483 vehicles were on the back of trailers on St John’s Road station forecourt. Four more vehicles, presumably two sets, were in the northbound platform. One set (004?) was still in the siding beyond the bridge at the north end of the station. All seen from a passing bus.

 

[richardlong]

There was only a very modest increase in line speed with electrification in 1967 - from 40 to 45, IIRC. In practice, speed limits were largely academic until the arrival of the 1938 stock in 1989, because neither the O2 tanks nor the 'Standard' tube stock were fitted with speedometers. I remember one quite exhilarating - and slightly scary - occasion in 1988, when I was guard on the 'boat train' and the driver was 'caught short' during the turnround at Shanklin. We eventually departed six minutes late, much to the chagrin of passengers hoping to connect with the catamaran. It was clear from the outset that the driver was 'going for it' and once we left Sandown all hell let loose. Even though this (by then singled) section was laid with 60 foot flat-bottom rail, the vertical and lateral motion (of the passengers as well as the train) had to be seen to be believed! at the bottom of the bank on Moreton Common, I did a discreet quarter milepost timing and worked out that we had been doing 66 mph. We arrived at the Pierhead one minute down and the passengers made their connection, shaken but not stirred! I've never felt able to put this writing up to now, but the driver concerned is long since retired and probably no longer with us.....one of the great island railway characters!

I think I might have been a passenger on that run! Or certainly one exactly like it but I always thought it was early 80s - maybe it was a regular occurrence? We really thought we’d missed the boat when we left Shanklin!

 

[fgwrich]

At 15.30 today two Class 483 vehicles were on the back of trailers on St John’s Road station forecourt. Four more vehicles, presumably two sets, were in the northbound platform. One set (004?) was still in the siding beyond the bridge at the north end of the station. All seen from a passing bus.

Well, they've certainly gone by today. A video on twitter (I cant find it now i'm afraid) showed two lorries driving through Portsmouth's Wightlink terminal earlier with 2 vehicles. I wonder if their final destination could be Raxstar at Eastleigh?

 

[Rick1984]

quite surprised 002 stayed in one piece when lifted!

 

[swt_passenger]

I’m guilty of this myself, but I think we’re putting a few posts up recently that should really have been in the other thread?