Could wooden stock run to Ryde one day?

[Brush 4]

Why are wooden carriages operating to Ryde alongside electric trains considered dangerous by the ORR, according to reports? There were other factors as well such as a need for a loop at St Johns Rd for running round.
An 0-4-4T worked wooden stock through the London Underground on shared tracks, several times without death or fire, so how can wooden stock in the open air for all of 1 mile on a dedicated line, be a 'safety' issue?

At St Johns, there is already a crossover south of the station. Sat view seems to show a line running between the Works and platform. This ends north of the station and would need reconnecting, plus a new crossover. However, there is a crossover at Esplanade. This would require locos to run for less than a mile there to run round but, would save on the high cost of track alterations at St Johns Rd so, probably a net gain. So, what valid reasons are there from ORR?

Of course the line is not connected at Smallbrook Junc. but the IOWSR obviously would have planned for that anyway.

 

[Paul Hitchcock]

Why are wooden carriages operating to Ryde alongside electric trains considered dangerous by the ORR, according to reports? There were other factors as well such as a need for a loop at St Johns Rd for running round.
An 0-4-4T worked wooden stock through the London Underground on shared tracks, several times without death or fire, so how can wooden stock in the open air for all of 1 mile on a dedicated line, be a 'safety' issue?

At St Johns, there is already a crossover south of the station. Sat view seems to show a line running between the Works and platform. This ends north of the station and would need reconnecting, plus a new crossover. However, there is a crossover at Esplanade. This would require locos to run for less than a mile there to run round but, would save on the high cost of track alterations at St Johns Rd so, probably a net gain. So, what valid reasons are there from ORR?

Of course the line is not connected at Smallbrook Junc. but the IOWSR obviously would have planned for that anyway.

I suspect most of these "reports" are in the nature of enthusiasts wishful thinkings. As an example, Ryde Esplanade is sharply curving and on 1 in 50. Certainly not the place to run round especially with the added thrill of being drenched in sea water on windy days. The problems are, I gather, more to do with S.W.R.

 

[Clarence Yard]

No, the ORR are firmly in the frame on this one.

They dislike steam locos uncoupling and coupling on the DC electrified Network, they dislike preserved railways running on or adjacent (without physical barriers) to electrified lines and they don’t allow wooden bodied coaches to be used for passenger service on the national network.

To sort out steam running to Ryde St Johns Road at a reasonable cost to both SWR and the IOWSR has, so far, proved impossible. But its time will come again, possibly after some “regime change” at the ORR. Until then, the current arrangements at Smallbrook will have to do for both parties.

 

[Paul Hitchcock]

It is all too easy for peeved, sentimental enthusiasts to blame the regulatory body. The issues here were neither straightforward nor cheap to resolve. S.W.R. did not seem to have a similar viewpoint to their pre-decessors.

 

[Clarence Yard]

I am a professional railwayman working next to the guys who have tried to get the IOWSR trains to Ryde. Although some involved in SWR are actually IOWSR members, there is little sentiment here because a win-win for both sides was wanted.

The previous operators talked a good story but they didn't agree their ideas with the ORR, who have other and more restrictive views. It's as simple as that.

 

[A0wen]

No, the ORR are firmly in the frame on this one.

They dislike steam locos uncoupling and coupling on the DC electrified Network, they dislike preserved railways running on or adjacent (without physical barriers) to electrified lines and they don’t allow wooden bodied coaches to be used for passenger service on the national network.

To sort out steam running to Ryde St Johns Road at a reasonable cost to both SWR and the IOWSR has, so far, proved impossible. But its time will come again, possibly after some “regime change” at the ORR. Until then, the current arrangements at Smallbrook will have to do for both parties.

The proximity of the DC rail has to be considered an issue - of the railways which do connect where there is 3rd rail in place these are well segregated (East Grinstead) - physically separated with a connecting line, so engine run arounds are nowhere near the live rail or Alton, where again the platforms are separated. The Swanage example is a bit different as they are looking to run onto the national network, but are being limited in the stock and AIUI will use a DMU so no running around or staff needing to be in proximity to the 3rd rail. The interesting one will be if the Uckfield line is ever electrified because at present the heritage and national trains run side-by-side with no concerns.

 

[Roast Veg]

There are some concerns, at the Spa Valley they have to manually lock all the doors before departure from Groombridge. It is fortunate I suppose that future electrification will have to specify fencework at Eridge, since they are already there.

 

[DarloRich]

considered dangerous by the ORR, according to reports?

Could you provide a copy of the reports for us to read?

So, what valid reasons are there from ORR?

I don't know what the vaild reasons are. Why not contact the OR and ask them

They dislike steam locos uncoupling and coupling on the DC electrified Network, they dislike preserved railways running on or adjacent (without physical barriers) to electrified lines and they don’t allow wooden bodied coaches to be used for passenger service on the national network.

good!

 

[paul1609]

Why are wooden carriages operating to Ryde alongside electric trains considered dangerous by the ORR, according to reports? There were other factors as well such as a need for a loop at St Johns Rd for running round.
An 0-4-4T worked wooden stock through the London Underground on shared tracks, several times without death or fire, so how can wooden stock in the open air for all of 1 mile on a dedicated line, be a 'safety' issue?

At St Johns, there is already a crossover south of the station. Sat view seems to show a line running between the Works and platform. This ends north of the station and would need reconnecting, plus a new crossover. However, there is a crossover at Esplanade. This would require locos to run for less than a mile there to run round but, would save on the high cost of track alterations at St Johns Rd so, probably a net gain. So, what valid reasons are there from ORR?

Of course the line is not connected at Smallbrook Junc. but the IOWSR obviously would have planned for that anyway.

The use of droplight windows has recently been highlighted following fatalities at Balham and Bath. All the heritage railways have been advised to revisit the risk assessments with some suggested mitigation.
I wouldn't like to have to sign off a new risk assessment for using heritage rolling stock alongside an electrified line and with limited clearance as the Isle Of Wight.

 

[Brush 4]

Reports are in the magazines. Perhaps they are liars.

What ORR don't like is one thing but, if LUL were fine about steam hauled wooden stock on 4th rail shared track in tunnel, I don't see how ORR reasoning can be valid in any way, as a much higher 'risk' has been taken several times in London, without mayhem and disaster.

 

[paul1609]

Reports are in the magazines. Perhaps they are liars.

What ORR don't like is one thing but, if LUL were fine about steam hauled wooden stock on 4th rail shared track in tunnel, I don't see how ORR reasoning can be valid in any way, as a much higher 'risk' has been taken several times in London, without mayhem and disaster.

I'm a long standing member and ex director of the K&ESR, one of the carriages was on loan from us and we have one on loan from LUL. I understand that this was the last time that the carriages will be allowed to run in the tunnels and that any possible future event will be on one of the "country" branches.

 

[pdeaves]

I understand that this was the last time that the carriages will be allowed to run in the tunnels and that any possible future event will be on one of the "country" branches.

I believe this is for signalling rather than fire-/crashworthiness reasons.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

There are some concerns, at the Spa Valley they have to manually lock all the doors before departure from Groombridge. It is fortunate I suppose that future electrification will have to specify fencework at Eridge, since they are already there.

I don't think there is room for a fence between the Southern and SVR tracks at Eridge....

But subject for another thread one day.... maybe Southern will get bimodes down to Uckfield....?

 

[Cowley]

It is all too easy for peeved, sentimental enthusiasts to blame the regulatory body. The issues here were neither straightforward nor cheap to resolve. S.W.R. did not seem to have a similar viewpoint to their pre-decessors.

May I politely suggest that you find out a little more about the person you’re dismissing before deploying your standard answer Paul?
I don’t think you always do the IoWSR a great service you react like this.

 

[paul1609]

I believe this is for signalling rather than fire-/crashworthiness reasons.

Originally it was for signalling reasons but: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...lth-safety-govia-thameslink-gtr-a9008101.html
Think about the risk assessment for introducing a new service with antique wooden coaches with droplight windows closing on electric units at 70 mph (45 +25 mph).

 

[bluegoblin7]

It is very much for signalling reasons - heritage trains are not compatible with LUL's new in-cab automatic signalling.

The operation of wooden coaches on LUL has always been very heavily controlled and mitigated. The tunnel runs had two trained and licensed stewards in every compartment to ensure droplight remained closed, whilst later above-ground runs had one. Specific instructions were/are in place in the event of any incidents requiring detraining. The nature of LUL's 'conventional' signalling system (of which all rolling stock operating in traffic hours on LUL must be compatible with) is fail-safe and will stop trains within signal overlaps in the event of a SPAD in (almost) all cases.

Indeed, all wooden-bodied heritage trains have also had at least one non-passenger carrying vehicle either side of the rake in the event of any "70mph" collision (figure to be taken with a pinch of salt, average speeds for the tunnel runs were slower whilst on the Met main linespeed is 60mph and the heritage trains were not limited to 25mph). And let's remember that all those runs were also over fourth-rail electrified track.

All trips also ran without incident between the first in 2013 and the 'last' in 2019.

But... LUL is a very different beast to the national network, something that many often fail to understand. It has its own rulebook and procedures and, indeed, ways of operation. The very fact it has run wooden bodied stock through tunnels should explain that, likewise how it can run steam locomotives which aren't (nationally) mainline registered.

I'm not sure it's a hugely helpful comparison within this context. Isn't there a mainline registered charter rake (Queen of Scots?) that contains wooden bodied stock? And, of course, the open-balcony end vehicle (granted not wooden) on the Royal Scotsman rake? They would seem more relevant comparisons.

 

[Paul Hitchcock]

May I politely suggest that you find out a little more about the person you’re dismissing before deploying your standard answer Paul?
I don’t think you always do the IoWSR a great service you react like this.

May I politely suggest you read the railway's official statement regarding this issue on their website. I am in no way any kind of spokesperson for the I.O.W.S.R.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Yes, the railways' official statement is pointing to the same issues.

The decision to retain the DC electrification is the key point here, as is the ORR requirements in respect of that and operating on/adjacent to the National Network.

If the line wasn't electrified and not regarded as a part of the National Network, it would have been much easier to get steam into Ryde.

My long term hope is that a solution involving the down platform siding (re-instated as a de-electrified loop) is funded but that requires some substantial track and signalling works between Smallbrook and the seaward side of Ryde St Johns Road, none of which can be afforded by either party. It will also require some derogation to standards for operating over this stretch of line or re-designating the Island Line out of the National Network.

 

[paul1609]

It is very much for signalling reasons - heritage trains are not compatible with LUL's new in-cab automatic signalling.

The operation of wooden coaches on LUL has always been very heavily controlled and mitigated. The tunnel runs had two trained and licensed stewards in every compartment to ensure droplight remained closed, whilst later above-ground runs had one. Specific instructions were/are in place in the event of any incidents requiring detraining. The nature of LUL's 'conventional' signalling system (of which all rolling stock operating in traffic hours on LUL must be compatible with) is fail-safe and will stop trains within signal overlaps in the event of a SPAD in (almost) all cases.

Indeed, all wooden-bodied heritage trains have also had at least one non-passenger carrying vehicle either side of the rake in the event of any "70mph" collision (figure to be taken with a pinch of salt, average speeds for the tunnel runs were slower whilst on the Met main linespeed is 60mph and the heritage trains were not limited to 25mph). And let's remember that all those runs were also over fourth-rail electrified track.

All trips also ran without incident between the first in 2013 and the 'last' in 2019.

But... LUL is a very different beast to the national network, something that many often fail to understand. It has its own rulebook and procedures and, indeed, ways of operation. The very fact it has run wooden bodied stock through tunnels should explain that, likewise how it can run steam locomotives which aren't (nationally) mainline registered.

I'm not sure it's a hugely helpful comparison within this context. Isn't there a mainline registered charter rake (Queen of Scots?) that contains wooden bodied stock? And, of course, the open-balcony end vehicle (granted not wooden) on the Royal Scotsman rake? They would seem more relevant comparisons.

Sorry my second paragraph was referring to running heritage trains between Smallbrook junction and Ryde St Johns not LUL.

 

[Muzer]

Yes, the railways' official statement is pointing to the same issues.

The decision to retain the DC electrification is the key point here, as is the ORR requirements in respect of that and operating on/adjacent to the National Network.

If the line wasn't electrified and not regarded as a part of the National Network, it would have been much easier to get steam into Ryde.

My long term hope is that a solution involving the down platform siding (re-instated as a de-electrified loop) is funded but that requires some substantial track and signalling works between Smallbrook and the seaward side of Ryde St Johns Road, none of which can be afforded by either party. It will also require some derogation to standards for operating over this stretch of line or re-designating the Island Line out of the National Network.

How would the run-round work? Or T&T?

I imagine it would also need signalling work but it wouldn't surprise me if the signalling system is on borrowed time and will need replacing soon...

 

[Clarence Yard]

The down platform siding was originally a down platform loop so I would approach from Smallbrook, run over a re-instated crossover to access this third platform, which would be de-electrified and made a loop again. Hook the loco off, run forward onto the down line and then back through the station to eventually back onto the stock. Hook up and you are ready to go.

Obviously there would also have to be connections onto IOWSR metals at Smallbrook. Anybody got a few million in their back pocket?!

 

[clagmonster]

I think it could be done a little more simply than that.

When the loop at Brading is constructed, there will be no requirement for Island Line electric trains to pass each other in Ryde. Hence, you could get away with single line running through Ryde. Thus I would make the down platform siding into the electrified single line, handing the current running lines through St. Johns Road station to the steam railway. These could then be de-electrified and would provide a run round. This method would have the advantage that the steam railway trains would not need to cross over the electrified lines, so there would be no interaction between electric and steam trains (though I would leave a connection in at St. Johns, even so it would be rarely used).

If desired for electric line capacity, it would be possible to have a loop at Ryde Esplanade, but I can't see this being necessary.

You would still have to get round the issue of the steam hauled stock with opening windows running alongside the BR metals between Smallbrook Jn and Ryde St. Johns Road. LUL clearly have mitigated this, as have the Spa Valley.

You would also have the issue of running alongside the electrified line. This could be mitigated by having the third rail at the side of the line furthest from the preserved line and given protective wooden kickboards. Again, LUL clearly manage running over the fourth rail so it is achievable. I'd advocate carrying short circuiting bars in both the guard's van and on the footplate of locos should trackside access be needed and obviously a form of communication with the Island Line signaler.

 

[philthetube]

Sorry my second paragraph was referring to running heritage trains between Smallbrook junction and Ryde St Johns not LUL.

Maybe LUL could be persuaded to run the Island line.

 

[jumble]

It is very much for signalling reasons - heritage trains are not compatible with LUL's new in-cab automatic signalling.

The operation of wooden coaches on LUL has always been very heavily controlled and mitigated. The tunnel runs had two trained and licensed stewards in every compartment to ensure droplight remained closed, whilst later above-ground runs had one.

We were very happy on the one central London steam in an Ashbury compartment trip that we did that the stewards did not ensure anything of the sort
The droplights remained open the whole trip although no one was allowed to stand up.
It was a great experience. Nice not to be treated like a child

 

[Meerkat]

Thus I would make the down platform siding into the electrified single line, handing the current running lines through St. Johns Road station to the steam railway.

i think someone has previously said that this isn’t practical as it would make the Island Line trains accessible only via the footbridge - very non PRM

 

[clagmonster]

That is a fair point, Meerkat. At present, the only access to Shanklin bound trains is via the footbridge, although I suppose you could go up the pier and back. Not particularly friendly as it is, especially for passengers unable to use the footbridge who come from the Pier or Esplanade to St. Johns Road.

I suppose the solution is to provide an accessible bridge, but then of course the costs start mounting up. Said bridge would be a worthwhile project in its own right however, even without any steam.

 

[Chris125]

...re-designating the Island Line out of the National Network.

To some extent isn't that already true, hence why PRM-TSI and the like never applied to the Island? https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/2555/rogs-exclusion-approved-list.pdf

i think someone has previously said that this isn’t practical as it would make the Island Line trains accessible only via the footbridge - very non PRM

Not a problem - if the IWSR terminates in the current through platforms the headshunt would be just beyond the overbridge; just build a path that goes around the buffers to Platform 3.

A new run-round/platform before the station looks more straightforward overall though.

 

[hermit]

Every time I use the unlovely footbridge at St Johns (at least once a week) it bugs me that it is twice as high as is necessary to clear the trains. Wherever it came from, it seems to have been built to comply with a requirement to be high enough to clear overhead electric lines. Now that it has been confirmed that third rail is to continue, I hope that we can have a new one.

 

[Chris125]

Every time I use the unlovely footbridge at St Johns (at least once a week) it bugs me that it is twice as high as is necessary to clear the trains. Wherever it came from, it seems to have been built to comply with a requirement to be high enough to clear overhead electric lines. Now that it has been confirmed that third rail is to continue, I hope that we can have a new one.

I think it's more likely to do with signal sighting, any lower and it would risk obscuring the semaphore just beyond it. Hopefully the replacement, which must be coming given it's condition, can be back alongside the overbridge.