Trams proposed for Isle of Wight

[MarkRedon]

Christopher Garnett, formerly head of GNER Great North Eastern Railway, now lives in the Isle of Wight. As reported in October http://onthewight.com/2015/10/14/is...re-highly-experienced-expert-for-rail-review/, Mr Garnett agreed to act as an unpaid consultant to the Council on the Isle of Wight. See: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-35495934.

The BBC

Tram plan to replace Isle of Wight rail line

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-35495934 reports that he has concluded that a tram system should replace the existing third rail line between Ryde Pier Head and Shanklin. The report is clearly aware of the overhead electrification clearance difficulties that very restricted tunnel height will bring for any such scheme.

See also http://www.islandecho.co.uk/news/is-the-future-trams-and-steam-trains-into-ryde, which clarifies that the trams to be used would be second-hand stock:

The trams available are said to be 15-year-old T69 trams, which were refurbished internally in 2013 and could run for a further 10 years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Those trams are utter rubbish - typical AnsaldoBreda "quality", allegedly no two trams have the wiring quite the same, for instance. If new ones cannot be afforded, they'd be better approaching a European country and obtaining some more bombproof, possibly even older, high-floor trams, after all it is primarily a high-platform system so this would actually keep costs down.

I do think this would broadly be a good idea, but not if they are going to use those.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
FWIW, there would also be a strong argument for removing it from the National Rail network (other than for through tickets from outside) and having it run within Southern Vectis's fare system.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Surely one of the advantages of conversion to a tramway would mean the awkward tunnel at Ryde could be closed with the route diverted along a street-running section?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely one of the advantages of conversion to a tramway would mean the awkward tunnel at Ryde could be closed with the route diverted along a street-running section?

Yes, that is the biggest advantage. However, there are presently no stations on that stretch.

Were it not for that tunnel, a few used Pacers with the cheapest RVAR modifications possible would be a perfect solution to the problem. Or indeed D78s.

But there's no two ways about it - T69s are absolute rubbish. That's why Brum has got rid of them, and so has Manchester. If they weren't, they'd have kept them. Witness how old Sheffield's trams are by comparison.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Yes, that is the biggest advantage. However, there are presently no stations on that stretch.

Were it not for that tunnel, a few used Pacers with the cheapest RVAR modifications possible would be a perfect solution to the problem. Or indeed D78s.

But there's no two ways about it - T69s are absolute rubbish. That's why Brum has got rid of them, and so has Manchester. If they weren't, they'd have kept them. Witness how old Sheffield's trams are by comparison.

I mentioned that the tunnel would likely be closed in response to the OP's mention of it. Isuppose street running seems rather silly with no stations, though presumably one or both of St. Johns and Esplanade would be replaced with a stop at street level (Disclaimer: I haven't visited the island since I was a kid, and am not familiar with the area in question). I'm entirely in agreement about the T69s though, and surely there'd be a second-hand option from Europe that would be suitable and might even have been put together competently! I'd hope there'd be some scope for capacity improvements though, as simply replacing the stock and the power supply would probably kill the route as it'd need closing to be converted anyway - and would the passengers bother coming back?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Done right, there'd be a massive relaunch including it being seen as part of Vectis's network.

If Vectis are going to compete rather than complement, they might as well just beef the pier up to allow a 17-seater minibus shuttle (or buy the disused diesel tram off Southport if it's still in running order and use that), close it and leave it at that.

 

[Chris125]

Surely one of the advantages of conversion to a tramway would mean the awkward tunnel at Ryde could be closed with the route diverted along a street-running section?

No, not really - the tunnel has far more vertical clearance than most people realise, hence the late 80s proposal to use Merseyrail 503s - a few more inches could be achieved by digging out the extra ballast added at electrification, but even slab track should be cheaper than street running.

 

[billio]

The trams in Bordeaux run through the city centre without overhead wires, the power is picked up from two strips laid in the centre of the tracks. Pedestrians are not electrocuted as a section of strip is only powered when the tram is directly over the top. How this works I have no idea.

My question is, why can this method not be used within a tunnel to replace overhead wires ?.

 

[Class 170101]

Why weren't the 1983 Stock taken on when it was displaced from the Jubilee Line?

Secondly the 1972, 1973 and 1992 Stock will probably become available shortly given what TfL seem to be upto.

 

[Aldenham]

Why weren't the 1983 Stock taken on when it was displaced from the Jubilee Line?

Secondly the 1972, 1973 and 1992 Stock will probably become available shortly given what TfL seem to be upto.

AFAIR the main problem that newer tube stock than the current 38TS presents is that of having a mainly aluminium body. This then suffers from electrolytic corrosion where it comes into contact with steel parts. Add salt water into the mix and it becomes quite a significant issue.

 

[MarkyT]

The trams in Bordeaux run through the city centre without overhead wires, the power is picked up from two strips laid in the centre of the tracks. Pedestrians are not electrocuted as a section of strip is only powered when the tram is directly over the top. How this works I have no idea.

My question is, why can this method not be used within a tunnel to replace overhead wires ?.

It could but it'd be expensive to have trams fitted with such a sophisticated and probably patented system for only a short segment of the line as well as an overhead pickup for elsewhere on the route. An overhead supply can be fitted into a very tight space today using suspended conductor rail systems, or if as now the tunnel track is considered a fully segregated section, unswitched ground mounted third rail could be retained with a simple pickup shoe, with OHLE elsewhere. Another hi-tech system only installs the third rail or overhead pickup at stops in sensitive city centre locations and uses onboard supercapacitors and batteries to fast charge and power the vehicles between them. As used in Sevilla and Zaragoza (Spain): http://www.caf.es/en/ecocaf/nuevas-soluciones/tranvia-acr.php

 

[Nym]

AFAIR the main problem that newer tube stock than the current 38TS presents is that of having a mainly aluminium body. This then suffers from electrolytic corrosion where it comes into contact with steel parts. Add salt water into the mix and it becomes quite a significant issue.

1992TS is mainly aluminum I believe, but has around 20 years before it's going to the razor blade factory.

Another issue is potentially that all these stocks only have compressors fitted to non-driving vehicles, so you'd need a 3 car formation.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yes, that is the biggest advantage. However, there are presently no stations on that stretch. Were it not for that tunnel, a few used Pacers with the cheapest RVAR modifications possible would be a perfect solution to the problem. Or indeed D78s.

Street running would also solve the unfortunate problem of flooding that occurs in the tunnel section.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Street running would also solve the unfortunate problem of flooding that occurs in the tunnel section.

Indeed so. I've long thought that this would be a good option.

Trams are also lighter than trains, which would mean that the pier would last longer. Costs would also be reduced by the fact that trams tend to be DOO (with a few exceptions).

The only bad thing about the proposal is T69s, but, particularly if high-floor is an option, which it is, there will be plenty of other options available on the market, all of which will be more reliable than T69s, and many of which will continue the heritage theme.

Are Den Haag flogging their GTL8s any time soon? That's a low-platform system, so they would derive a benefit from going low-floor. Though they'd need work to add a cab at both ends and doors on both sides, I suppose.

 

[Chris125]

Street running would also solve the unfortunate problem of flooding that occurs in the tunnel section.

It wouldn't solve the wider issue - these days the tunnel floods because Monktonmead Brook bursts it's banks and flows along the railway through Ryde, depot included.

While the tunnel can be returned to use quite quickly, the last major flood caused 20 washouts as far back as Smallbrook which took 3 weeks to fix. That said it's still a relatively rare event, with any money better spent on addressing and mitigating the causes of the flooding.

Trams are also lighter than trains, which would mean that the pier would last longer. Costs would also be reduced by the fact that trams tend to be DOO (with a few exceptions).

I doubt it would make much difference, the line is already operated by relatively low speed and lightweight trains and is maintained accordingly.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Those trams are utter rubbish - typical AnsaldoBreda "quality", allegedly no two trams have the wiring quite the same, for instance. If new ones cannot be afforded, they'd be better approaching a European country and obtaining some more bombproof, possibly even older, high-floor trams, after all it is primarily a high-platform system so this would actually keep costs down.

A number of BR units were allegedly the same including the forum favourite mk3 derived long distance third rail unit

 

[The Ham]

A number of BR units were allegedly the same including the forum favourite mk3 derived long distance third rail unit

I don't know what units you are referring to, as you can't possibly mean the saintly 442's!

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Yes, that is the biggest advantage. However, there are presently no stations on that stretch.

Were it not for that tunnel, a few used Pacers with the cheapest RVAR modifications possible would be a perfect solution to the problem. Or indeed D78s.

But there's no two ways about it - T69s are absolute rubbish. That's why Brum has got rid of them, and so has Manchester. If they weren't, they'd have kept them. Witness how old Sheffield's trams are by comparison.

If it weren't for the tunnel, another option could have been ex-DLR units (if the DLR were ever to retire their old units) which would have needed the third rail pickup modifying. How much heavier or lighter is a DLR unit compared with the ex tube stock the Island Line currently uses?

 

[infobleep]

Perhaps they could close it and give it over to the Isle of Wight railway. They could replace the service with a bus.

Never understood how the service managed to survive beyond the 60s?

 

[Class 170101]

1992TS is mainly aluminum I believe, but has around 20 years before it's going to the razor blade factory.

Aren't TfL saying they will retire them early as they aren't all that reliable though?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Aren't TfL saying they will retire them early as they aren't all that reliable though?

What aspect of them isn't reliable? If it's the traction package, could they be re-tractioned?

 

[Chris125]

If it weren't for the tunnel, another option could have been ex-DLR units (if the DLR were ever to retire their old units) which would have needed the third rail pickup modifying.

Look at the stats for the Class 503 which were expected to fit the tunnel; the B92s are more or less the same height but with shorter, narrower vehicles so certainly shouldn't be discounted.

 

[Monty]

Perhaps they could close it and give it over to the Isle of Wight railway. They could replace the service with a bus.

Never understood how the service managed to survive beyond the 60s?

The IoWSR (Isle of Wight Steam Railway) have said multiple times they are not interested in the running the Ryde - Shanklin line, they don't have the money or man power to run a meaningful service and the burden would probably bankrupt them.

As for why the services survived the 60s is because of the large passenger flows during the summer months. I'm don't know if you have ever been to the island but the road network is already quite congested as it is. Would hate to think what would happen if you closed the railway and replaced it with buses.

I'm also not sure how I feel about handing a transport monopoly over to Southern Vectis, the way they have treated some the smaller operators is nothing short of appalling.

 

[Dstock7080]

Another issue is potentially that all these stocks only have compressors fitted to non-driving vehicles, so you'd need a 3 car formation.

The '38s didn't have DM mounted compressors until converted for the Island Line, so it could be done again.

 

[Nym]

Aren't TfL saying they will retire them early as they aren't all that reliable though?

They're built in Derby in the AdTranz/BREL era, reliability should be obvious...

There's a long list of problems with 1992TS, but there's also a long list of solutions.

Body end cracks have all been welded up (never really done properly in the first place), and re-tractioning has just gone to tender.

Put it this way, it's still going to be the penultimate or last fleet to be replaced with NTfL, depends on how reliable the 1972TS remains to be.

 

[Nym]

The '38s didn't have DM mounted compressors until converted for the Island Line, so it could be done again.

I suppose yes.

Given the amount of work they'd be doing to them for Island Line anyway, it wouldn't be that much work to put some floor traps in an ex. DM car and convert it to be a Driving Trailer car.

You'd need to put the floor traps in, and a couple of small mods to the inner longitudinals, but it should technically fit. For 1972TS, you'd also need to move the Motor Alternator set into this as well, same deal.

 

[Chris125]

Perhaps they could close it and give it over to the Isle of Wight railway. They could replace the service with a bus.

Never understood how the service managed to survive beyond the 60s?

The half-mile long Ryde Pier, specifically the listed cast-iron structure carrying road traffic, has a severe weight and speed restriction and could never take the weight of coaches and buses. Buses on the Island are expensive and suffer badly from road congestion in summer.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The IoWSR (Isle of Wight Steam Railway) have said multiple times they are not interested in the running the Ryde - Shanklin line, they don't have the money or man power to run a meaningful service and the burden would probably bankrupt them.

I am sorry that you have had to make this posting of clarification yet again, as this has been made quite a number of times in the years that I have been on this website.

Still, thank you for making it once again to answer the latest query that was raised.

 

[southern442]

Eh, I still want the railway to stay, but this idea isn't too bad and would probably make a significant difference to the cost of running the line in terms of maintenance and revenue.
Plus, if Manchester is anything to go by, there would be great opportunities to open up old lines on the island - I reckon that if the service came to Newport and Cowes it could be a viable transport option.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps they could close it and give it over to the Isle of Wight railway. They could replace the service with a bus.

Vectis routes 2 and 3 already serve the route, so no need for any additional buses.