Island Line Upgrade updates

[Chris125]

Why is a passing loop being installed at Brading and the loop at Sandown retained (4 turnouts) instead of redoubling from Sandown to Brading inclusive (2 turnouts)?

Quite a significant extra cost for no real benefit, a 30min service will see trains pass in the station at Brading.

The point mechanism upgrade might be replacing the hydropneumatic self-acting trailable loop turnouts at Sandown, as used on RETB lines in Scotland and elsewhere.... 'Cots' means 'commercial off the shelf' rather than any specialist railway equipment.

Thanks for that, very helpful.

I'm not convinced anything larger than a van could negotiate the current road access into St John's depot, and it's no good for stock deliveries anyway as buildings block access from the car park to the nearest rails.

They'd access Ryde St Johns by crane from the carpark next to the signalbox - I believe one of the 03 shunters arrived that way - but Sandown is probably more likely once they've addressed any gauging issues.

 

[Meerkat]

Sandown is much better I agree. It's the track maintenance base I understand and has a siding which might need to be slewed away from the back of the platform a little, temporarily, for unloading.

A bit to the right of your aerial view there are two sidings facing the other way which are recessed into the surface - a low loader could go straight in on top and the coach could come down a ramp toward the line behind the platform.

Apologies - I have forgotten the timeline....are the new trains arriving before/during/after the civils closure? Just wondering if St Johns has space to run the old trains and commission/test the new ones?? Will there be an overlap or only one fleet at a time?

 

[MarkyT]

They'd access Ryde St Johns by crane from the carpark next to the signalbox - I believe one of the 03 shunters arrived that way - but Sandown is probably more likely once they've addressed any gauging issues.

That makes sense. Being right by the signal box would make it easy to arrange a possession for that as well. Am I right in thinking Island Line borrowed one of the steam railway's diesel shunters for pw work at one time? Is that the transfer you're thinking of?

 

[AlbertBeale]

Isn't the Shanklin station car park also a possible access for the new carriages?

 

[Chris125]

That makes sense. Being right by the signal box would make it easy to arrange a possession for that as well. Am I right in thinking Island Line borrowed one of the steam railway's diesel shunters for pw work at one time? Is that the transfer you're thinking of?

I'm thinking of 03079 and 03179, used on engineering trains in the 80s and 90s - IIRC the former was delivered to St Johns, the latter to Sandown.

Apologies - I have forgotten the timeline....are the new trains arriving before/during/after the civils closure? Just wondering if St Johns has space to run the old trains and commission/test the new ones?? Will there be an overlap or only one fleet at a time?

It's not clear when the 484s were due to start operating, but the first unit was *meant* to arrive in early summer for testing, with major closures in Autumn and the final 483 withdrawn in March.

As for the transition, your guess is as good as mine - it's hard to see how they could operate together given the difference in floor heights and the possibility some platforms will see the track lowered.

 

[MarkyT]

Isn't the Shanklin station car park also a possible access for the new carriages?

A platform and fence in the way by the looks of it:

 

[satisnek]

Less track and bridges to maintain (vs more points)?
Avoids messing with Sandown?
Possibly track has been slewed (don't think so) or cables laid?

Quite a significant extra cost for no real benefit, a 30min service will see trains pass in the station at Brading.

Just had a look at Google Earth, and yes, the track has indeed been slewed at the Brading end (but this will have to be relaid to accommodate the loop anyway). I find it hard to believe that two miles of plain line on an existing trackbed would cost more than two additional points and extra signalling, but there may be 'issues' - Avenue Road bridge or a need to have a crossover at Sandown perhaps?

Alternatively, the cynic in me says that those responsible for the project are unaware that the section used to be double track in the first place...

 

[Chris125]

I find it hard to believe that two miles of plain line on an existing trackbed would cost more than two additional points and extra signalling, but there may be 'issues' - Avenue Road bridge or a need to have a crossover at Sandown perhaps?

Issues aplenty! Shingle and gravel ballast throughout, an embankment across a marsh, a cutting with stability issues, at least one area of dodgy geology outside Brading, a bridge shifted by a lorry strike a few years back... upgrading it all to modern Network Rail standards, with all the logistical headaches of working on the Island, won't come cheap.

Pains me to say it but rationalisation would, realistically, be a better way to reduce pointwork and signalling - even an occasional 20min service looks pretty unlikely, at best a short-lived token gesture.

 

[satisnek]

Issues aplenty! Shingle and gravel ballast throughout, an embankment across a marsh, a cutting with stability issues, at least one area of dodgy geology outside Brading, a bridge shifted by a lorry strike a few years back... upgrading it all to modern Network Rail standards, with all the logistical headaches of working on the Island, won't come cheap.

Pains me to say it but rationalisation would, realistically, be a better way to reduce pointwork and signalling - even an occasional 20min service looks pretty unlikely, at best a short-lived token gesture.

Yes, the days of shifting huge numbers of holidaymakers down to Sandown and Shanklin (and Ventnor!) have long gone. But I have to say that it's good to see some investment in the line (of which I have fond childhood memories), although I can't work out how the new stock will fit through Ryde Tunnel even with the track lowered to its original level. Does the use of slab track provide enough extra clearance?

 

[hooverboy]

Yes, the days of shifting huge numbers of holidaymakers down to Sandown and Shanklin (and Ventnor!) have long gone. But I have to say that it's good to see some investment in the line (of which I have fond childhood memories), although I can't work out how the new stock will fit through Ryde Tunnel even with the track lowered to its original level. Does the use of slab track provide enough extra clearance?

really?
not very optimistic are you?

you either see this as "it's all over", or the opportunity to (re)tap into potential tourist markets that have been neglected for decades.
who says it needs to be just tourism either?

what the railway,and the local government,need to do, is to come up with some ideas to make staycations more preferable to easyjet and package holidays on the costa del sol.

weather,unfortunately,is against you!, so you have to be creative.

(cost is a massive issue. why should I pay £500 for an all line train ticket for a week, then throw in accomodation costs,when I could go all inclusive with hotel paid,nice weather and food and beer on tap for the same price???)
if it was £250 I might consider it.£300 at a push

let's really stretch it.
for a return train ticket price from london-edinburgh I can buy a 3-4 day flight+hotel somewhere reasonably exotic.

I would very much like to explore more of the country,but it is not financially viable spending stupid amounts of money like a months take home pay on taking the mrs and kids to the isle of wight,with limited entertainments, poor quality accomodation and beaches by comparison.

I could do las vegas for a week on that!

 

[swt_passenger]

But I have to say that it's good to see some investment in the line (of which I have fond childhood memories), although I can't work out how the new stock will fit through Ryde Tunnel even with the track lowered to its original level. Does the use of slab track provide enough extra clearance?

You don’t think they’ve already worked this out before contracting for the 484s? We had a long thread about Island Line up until about October last year and I think it was confirmed or explained how they’d be clear quite a few times:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/island-line-railway-current-state-and-the-future.154219/page-69

 

[hooverboy]

You don’t think they’ve already worked this out before contracting for the 484s? We had a long thread about Island Line up until about October last year and I think it was confirmed quite a few times:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/island-line-railway-current-state-and-the-future.154219/page-69

apparently the tunnel is fine, there's a couple of bridges to sort out and platform gauging issues at a couple of stations.

 

[swt_passenger]

apparently the tunnel is fine, there's a couple of bridges to sort out and platform gauging issues at a couple of stations.

Indeed, and in any case the fact it isn’t actually mentioned in the list of work in post #1 of this thread is a good indication.

 

[satisnek]

You don’t think they’ve already worked this out before contracting for the 484s? We had a long thread about Island Line up until about October last year and I think it was confirmed or explained how they’d be clear quite a few times:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/island-line-railway-current-state-and-the-future.154219/page-69

Ah, thanks for that and I've looked at the Class 484 thread as well. Funny how I couldn't find anything about it on Google, except that the original tunnel height was 3.56m and the Class 484/D78 stock is 3.62m high. It's all a bit vague to me.

 

[D365]

Before the Class 484 order was announced, I was informed quite confidently by Vivarail that the D-Train would be suitable for the line and tunnel. Would be a bit embarrassing now if this turned out to not be the case...

 

[hwl]

Ah, thanks for that and I've looked at the Class 484 thread as well. Funny how I couldn't find anything about it on Google, except that the original tunnel height was 3.56m and the Class 484/D78 stock is 3.62m high. It's all a bit vague to me.

The tunnel issue was due to the roof effectively being lowered to add steel beams to support the road/roundabout above (1960's). When the road/roundabout was properly rebuilt the roof went back to the original original height pre steel beams.
That thread and the Londonreconnections article comments and @Chris125 are the best sources.
Height wise for gauge clearance a bit of track lowering on the north bound track under 2 or 3 bridges and some canopy cutback is all that is needed.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If anything once the beams were removed horizontal clearance was more of a concern than vertical, due to reverse curves in the tunnel (IIRC).

 

[hwl]

If anything once the beams were removed horizontal clearance was more of a concern than vertical, due to reverse curves in the tunnel (IIRC).

Agreed!

 

[satisnek]

Thanks for the info, I never knew about the steel beams. The fog is clearing!

 

[Chris125]

The tunnel issue was due to the roof effectively being lowered to add steel beams to support the road/roundabout above (1960's). When the road/roundabout was properly rebuilt the roof went back to the original original height pre steel beams.

Not true, even if it sounds like it should be!

The recent Ryde Rail book confirms newly-arrived 03079 [still with original 12ft 2in/3.72m cab] successfully squeezed through both tracks of the tunnel in August 1984... before getting stuck under Rink Road on the way back. Oops.

This theory about the roof appears to be relatively recent though this is the first time I've seen any mention of the roof being rebuilt in the 60s - photos of the recent reconstruction appear to show the original cast-iron(?) construction being removed with no obvious evidence that it would have restricted headroom.

Ah, thanks for that and I've looked at the Class 484 thread as well. Funny how I couldn't find anything about it on Google, except that the original tunnel height was 3.56m and the Class 484/D78 stock is 3.62m high. It's all a bit vague to me.

Actually the headroom appears to have been quite generous, the original drawings of the portals show 14ft from railhead to the crown of the arches - this may explain the height still available even after new drainage was installed in the 60s.

 

[satisnek]

Looks like I was a bit premature in saying that the fog was clearing! But I think I've got it now, something like...

There never used to be a height restriction in Ryde Tunnel, but possibly limitations on rolling stock width (and, with the reverse curve, therefore length). There were, however, a couple of low overbridges on the line.

When the route was electrified the track through the tunnel was raised, which may or may not have made the headroom a teensy bit too low for standard BR carriage designs. But it didn't matter because of the aforementioned overbridges.

Because of this, redundant London Transport tube stock was utilised. Then in the 1980s a simple 'like for like' replacement was made with the next generation of tube stock. So for half a century it was widely believed that the only passenger rolling stock which would fit through the tunnel (with its raised floor) were tube trains.

By the late 2010s the availability of the Class 483s was getting critically low, but, with a huge dollop of serendipity, a small company had seen it worthwhile to life-extend redundant D78 stock which, being fractionally lower and/or narrower than other sub-surface (and BR) stock, will fit on the Island Line with just a bit of work carried out on those overbridges.

Am I right?

 

[Helvellyn]

Looks like I was a bit premature in saying that the fog was clearing! But I think I've got it now, something like...

There never used to be a height restriction in Ryde Tunnel, but possibly limitations on rolling stock width (and, with the reverse curve, therefore length). There were, however, a couple of low overbridges on the line.

When the route was electrified the track through the tunnel was raised, which may or may not have made the headroom a teensy bit too low for standard BR carriage designs. But it didn't matter because of the aforementioned overbridges.

Because of this, redundant London Transport tube stock was utilised. Then in the 1980s a simple 'like for like' replacement was made with the next generation of tube stock. So for half a century it was widely believed that the only passenger rolling stock which would fit through the tunnel (with its raised floor) were tube trains.

By the late 2010s the availability of the Class 483s was getting critically low, but, with a huge dollop of serendipity, a small company had seen it worthwhile to life-extend redundant D78 stock which, being fractionally lower and/or narrower than other sub-surface (and BR) stock, will fit on the Island Line with just a bit of work carried out on those overbridges.

Am I right?

Between the second last and last paragraphs you could add in:

By the early 2010s it was widely assumed that the '38 stock (class 483) would be in turn replaced by the '73 stock. However, changed priorities and finances within TfL meant the '73 stock replacement kept getting pushed back.

 

[Chris125]

Am I right?

A very decent summary!

I'd just add that Standard Stock was long favoured by BR - before they knew if trains would continue running to Cowes and Ventnor (with their own tight tunnels), or just down Ryde Pier using bus engines maintained by Southern Vectis.

While gauging would have been a factor (the Island was always limited to relatively lower/shorter pre-grouping rolling stock), it seems BR was also worried about underfloor electrics being exposed to the waves which gave them few alternatives.

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

As it possible that SWR will not be in business by the time the infrastructure work gets underway, my question is whether the 'Operator of Last Resort', or whatever the title is, will be ready, willing and able to take on the island Line works.
Pat

 

[swt_passenger]

As it possible that SWR will not be in business by the time the infrastructure work gets underway, my question is whether the 'Operator of Last Resort', or whatever the title is, will be ready, willing and able to take on the island Line works.
Pat

Network Rail are involved, not just the TOC. Although the line has been operated as a vertically integrated set up over the last few years, as I understand it Network Rail have remained theoretically responsible for major renewals - there just haven’t been any...

I’d be very surprised if anything would change if OLR became involved.

 

[DelW]

A news article in this month's Railway Magazine quotes Andrew Mundy of SWR as saying that the "new" trains will be put on the rails at the engineers' siding in Sandown. They have also had discussions with the steam line about installing a connection at Smallbrook in order to base engineering trains at Haven Street during upgrade works.
Less positively, the article also suggests that the track lowering work needed at various locations is estimated to cost £1m above the currently available funding.

 

[Nick_C]

They have also had discussions with the steam line about installing a connection at Smallbrook in order to base engineering trains at Haven Street during upgrade works.

I'm guessing that it'd work out a lot cheaper to hire ballast wagons etc from the Steam Railway than to bring them over from the mainland?

 

[MarkyT]

I'm guessing that it'd work out a lot cheaper to hire ballast wagons etc from the Steam Railway than to bring them over from the mainland?

And the traction to haul them. There's also not much siding space on Island Line, so a connection could be useful for passenger stock during the changeover.

 

[DelW]

I'm guessing that it'd work out a lot cheaper to hire ballast wagons etc from the Steam Railway than to bring them over from the mainland?

I suspect that any agreement might be a quid pro quo rather than money changing hands? Assuming NR have a track gang and a tamper on the island, they could probably do some p-way maintenance on the steam line in return for use of its facilities.
Though I think the steam line's track is rather less bouncy than the "main" line these days.

 

[Chris125]

I suspect that any agreement might be a quid pro quo rather than money changing hands? Assuming NR have a track gang and a tamper on the island, they could probably do some p-way maintenance on the steam line in return for use of its facilities.

They both bring over mainland tampers from time to time, this would hopefully encourage some co-ordination going forward? Having the IWSR's engineering fleet available will hopefully encourage track renewals too, especially if escalating costs sees that part of the upgrade scaled back...