Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,358
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 19, 2018 20:55:42 GMT
I'm sorry if this comes across as harsh, but you are not the first to think of using DLR stock - at least half a dozen on one another forum at least - and they really are not suitable. All dimensions are in metres. | Height | Length | Width | Floor height | 1938 stock DM | 2.833 | 15.94 | 2.597 | 0.6 | D stock DM | 3.740 | 14.94 | 3.740 | 0.975 | DLR B stock | 3.51 | 28.8 | 2.65 | 1.03 |
And although that absolute width is lower, it's nearly constant all the way up whereas the LU stock has a larger taper and a domed roof. Compare: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DLR_train_49.jpg and commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:London_Underground_Tube_SSL_Comparison.jpgNext time you are on the DLR, sit at the inner end of one of the units going round corners (Westferry to Canary Wharf is good for this) and see how much movement there is between the vehicles to get an idea of how much end throw there is, and then look at how much less bend there is at the articulation point. The trains can navigate sharp corners, but they need a lot of space in which to do so. A good example of this is at Canary Wharf station where the platform edges are not straight at the ends as space has to be allowed for the end throw as trains enter, particularly at the south end. The platforms on the Isle of Wight are approximately level with the floor height of the 1938 stock trains - commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sandown_Station_geograph.org.uk_786087.jpg - the DLR unit floor height is 43 centimetres higher which is more than double the maximum permitted step height on new buildings in the UK (19 centimetres). The only manual driving done on the DLR is the slow speed movement in an emergency (and possibly in the depot, I'm not sure), there is no "coded manual" or equivalent - there is the equivalent of restricted manual and two different ATO modes. When operating normally the PSAs control the doors and the train does the rest, when they're being operated from the front they control the doors and push a button to start the train (i.e. what a Central or Jubilee line driver would describe as full ATO mode). Next time you see a train being operated from the front, look at what the PSA is doing and their posture. The front seats are designed with passengers in mind only - even to press the buttons for doors and starting the PSA has to sit right on the edge of the seat and/or lean significantly far forwards. There is no knee space below the console. This means that, even if the trains physically fit on the network the entire driving position would need to be completely rebuilt to allow a driving position, and install controls that are suitable for high speed running - compare commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DLR_train_control_desk-02.jpg and www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/D%20Stock%20Desk.jpgA change to the software wouldn't be a simple as you seem to think either. Embedded systems are not designed for easy upgrading, especially ones from the early 1990s. Not that this will be a simple upgrade, but more like a complete re-write as the existing software was designed from the ground up to run on a dedicated ATO system? Don't forget you will need to install the hardware and software for AWS at least. If the cab doors issue could be solved by a rule book change (whether this will actually be simple I doubt), don't you think that they would have done that for 1967 stock when they were available, which are known to fit, have cabs, have floors the correct height, etc? Finally, don't forget that you will have to completely rebuild the depot, trim some station canopies, probably move some signals and trackside objects too.
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Mar 21, 2018 16:11:11 GMT
Rail's Nigel Harris: "I understand a laser survey has indicated a D Train would fit - just..."
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Mar 22, 2018 17:14:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by miff on Mar 22, 2018 17:41:51 GMT
In the context of providing new trains a survey, laser or otherwise, is pretty small beer.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,358
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 22, 2018 18:06:15 GMT
In the context of providing new trains a survey, laser or otherwise, is pretty small beer. Especially as a laser can be hired or borrowed, or there are plenty of companies out there who will come and do a survey for you and (the complex bit) process the results. The survey will also have provided other information about the tunnel's condition.
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Mar 22, 2018 21:11:45 GMT
The short answer re DLR stock is no. The different electricity pickup is probably the least significant of the problems - it's too tall, too long, too square, the floor is about 40cm too high, doesn't have cabs or doors anywhere near where cabs would be and the consoles are not suitable for manual driving other than at very low speeds (and even then they're ergonomically horrible). It's also knackered as is, let alone when withdrawn in a few years. For the money it would take to make the trains and line compatible with each other you could probably have new build stock that fits the line as is. Sorry. I dis-agree with some or most of what you say. Dimensions. DLR B stock is shorter (14.4 m) per car than any of 38TS (15.9 m) 73TS (17.7 m) or D78 (18.4 m) (lengths rounded UP to longest car of each type). DLR B stock is also narrower (2.65 m) than 38TS (2.69) and D78 (2.85) stock, and only 2 cm wider at 2.65 m than 73TS. Given that 38TS is the current stock, and the rest of the thread seems to think 73TS does fit and D78 could fit with minor changes, DLR B stock is overall smaller. Is B stock any more "square" to IOW load gauge than D78 is? I'll data mine for the heights but I'll predict B is lower than D78. But in view of the DLR curvature I bet a B stock has a smaller kinematic envelope than D78 and possibly smaller curve throwover than TS. The DLR slow speed manual driving is only imposed by software on DLR where there are no trackside signals. It's a small step to remove that for a line of far less frequency and trackside signals. OK need AWS / TPWS - but you need than anyway for any replacement stock. The driving positions are used for extended CM mode on Fridays evenings and other times, so can't be that much of a human factors issues. Lack of side cab doors is as I said a Rule Book issue, that could obtain an exemption. Platform height is 40 cm too hifh relative to what? They'll have to address height anyway. Knackered B stock? Maybe. So was 1927 stock in 1966 and 1938 stock in 1989. If District Dave forum had existed in 1966 or 1989 people would have made the same comment. And of course 73TS won't be less knackered in 2025 than it is now will it? If industry has a case to convert 40 y old D78 to DMU for unremunerative main lines, something which would have seemed implausible a low number of years ago, then re-using DLR stock is a mere bagatele in comparison. So what I am saying is I have made a suggestion, it might not work, but, I don't think any of the reasons posted about lead to an abrupt 'no' dismissal of it. I did at least check all the dimensions I possibly could before I posted. -- Nick Not sure why the lack of cab doors only requires a rule book change. How would a driver get down to track level to speak to a signaller on a trackside telephone?
|
|
|
Post by AndrewPSSP on Mar 22, 2018 23:28:27 GMT
Just what any other T/Op does. Open the passenger emergency doors and jump out(!)
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Mar 23, 2018 5:10:11 GMT
Just what any other T/Op does. Open the passenger emergency doors and jump out(!) Not safe to leave doors open with passengers on board and dangerous to jump anywhere from that height. Cabs have steps for the purpose.
|
|
|
Post by tjw on Mar 23, 2018 22:05:51 GMT
Step boards are dangerous too, the number of accidents involving staff slipping or stepping through a rotten one is rather considerable. I have spent the odd few hours with shunters going around sidings with a sledgehammer to smash dangerous step boards. N.B. Shunters (under the old rules) would hop on and off moving trains and so would be rather more fussy than a fitter would be about step board condition on brake vans etc.
As for jumping out of stock, when I was younger I could open the (slam door) allow my self to drop closing the door as I fell. Obviously I would only do this with level ground beneath. If you know how to land it is not dangerous to jump. At least when I went to school our P.E. teachers would force us all to jump far greater distances!
As for D Stock what does "just fit" in the context of Ryde tunnel mean. Is it within the width restriction? or to use more modern terminology dynamic envelope? What speed will it be allowed to travel? dead slow or perhaps a bit faster, to keep the sideways movement to a minimum.
These laser surveys seem a lot less fun than sitting on the step board of a brake van shining a bardic on to the edge of an out of gauge load so the fireman could see how close we were to the tunnel wall as we travelled through a tunnel at walking pace.
|
|
|
Post by rapidtransitman on Mar 26, 2018 5:01:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Mar 26, 2018 8:48:41 GMT
Sounds like a run-up article to the closure announcement. I expect the next one to say 'Island Line NOT to close'.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Mar 26, 2018 20:06:10 GMT
Indeed, I expect it to be a certainty that closure has, at high up levels, at least been mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Mar 26, 2018 22:52:12 GMT
These laser surveys seem a lot less fun than sitting on the step board of a brake van shining a bardic on to the edge of an out of gauge load so the fireman could see how close we were to the tunnel wall as we travelled through a tunnel at walking pace. When the Northern was being checked out for the 95 stock a 59 was coated with expanded polystyrene in order to find where there were gauging problems. (I might be wrong about the stock, could have been something else.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,394
|
Post by metman on Mar 27, 2018 6:47:01 GMT
The article isn’t that positive regarding the challenges the island faces is it? I wonder what the outcome will be if the D train is found to be too long for the tunnel and the platform at Ryde Esp. Perhaps an add on order from the Glasgow metro order is possible but to crew operation and to standard gauge? Not sure the costs though.
|
|
|
Post by ducatisti on Mar 27, 2018 8:14:38 GMT
Those numbers quoted aren't good are they? and it's not like there is a big SR electrification project they can piggy back on (25KV OLE anyone? imagine the stock needed to get through the Ryde tunnel under them...) I suspect they are going to rue turning down the previous stock even with all the door problems. Even if it just kicked the can down the road by a few years, it would allow the cost of works to be split across more budget years.
|
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,254
|
Post by roythebus on Mar 27, 2018 8:58:54 GMT
AWS fitment won't be a problem on the island as it is not fitted! It's probably one of the last NR lines not fitted with AWS <dons tin hat an waits for barrage of other lines>.
Replacing the 38 stock on the island is never going to be a quick, cheap or easy fix. The late Fred Ward, one of the island's "characters", had plans, as he usually had, to import 2nd hand Duwag trams from Germany to use on the island's closed railways. Of course that scheme came to nothing, but maybe there's some fairly modern trams in Europe that may be suitable? Maybe even new build trams?
That way the problem of finding suitable replacement secondhand stock won't arise twice every century?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,358
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 27, 2018 12:32:48 GMT
I certainly suspect that a tram manufacturer could easily come up with a vehicle with a 600mm floor height without too much hassle - Croydon trams are 350mm for example, and lower volume orders are more typical. However modern trams tend to be long and square, which is the exact opposite of what the Island Line needs.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 27, 2018 13:00:17 GMT
Worth reading this report which, among other things, suggests that the existing track conditions, whilst adequate for what is effectively a light railway, are far below what would be needed for trams, which are less tolerant of poor track. And it would be difficult to fix, as the conditions relate partly to the way it was built back in the 1860s.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,222
|
Post by rincew1nd on Mar 27, 2018 13:42:38 GMT
I certainly suspect that a tram manufacturer could easily come up with a vehicle with a 600mm floor height without too much hassle - Croydon trams are 350mm for example, and lower volume orders are more typical. However modern trams tend to be long and square, which is the exact opposite of what the Island Line needs. I'm led to believe that Manchester have just ordered another batch of their M5000 (high floor) trams, which have a cab door (alas only on the off-side). They cope with some pretty ropey track, who knows the possibilities if someone is prepared to put their hand in their pocket!
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Mar 27, 2018 21:04:16 GMT
There was a picture on the Southern Electric FB group of the gauging through Ryde tunnel as built, and one of structural limitations imposed on the gauge from a survey not too long ago.
The conclusion was that PEP derived stock would fit. But, that raises the problem of how do you power them and what of the platform heights.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 27, 2018 21:58:29 GMT
The conclusion was that PEP derived stock would fit. But, that raises the problem of how do you power them Classes 313, 507 and 508 all work off the same 3rd rail system as the 483s.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Mar 27, 2018 22:29:44 GMT
The conclusion was that PEP derived stock would fit. But, that raises the problem of how do you power them Classes 313, 507 and 508 all work off the same 3rd rail system as the 483s. That's the other point though; the power distribution system is knackered, as is the track - which presumably includes the third rail. If you put PEP stock there, you'd have to rebuild platforms, relay track and renew substations and distribution equipment, probably put down a new composite third rail to minimise voltage drop. I suppose you could see if a battery conversion were feasible. There are very salient and interesting discussions now on both FB and on LR.
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Mar 28, 2018 1:01:16 GMT
I suspect the actual third rail will be fine, it will be everything else, Substations wiring etc that is the problem, ( may be wrong though
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,394
|
Post by metman on Mar 28, 2018 9:51:34 GMT
Perhaps a home for the Merseyside 507/508 stock then?
The do nothing approach here doesn’t not appear to be an option though!
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,222
|
Post by rincew1nd on Mar 28, 2018 13:05:20 GMT
Given that they were given a thorough refurb a few years back, that could be a good stop-gap until former tube stock is available.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,358
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 28, 2018 13:13:48 GMT
If they fit, why would they want to go back to tube stock?
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,222
|
Post by rincew1nd on Mar 28, 2018 13:17:58 GMT
Reliability, spares availability, desire of management to save face.....
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 28, 2018 15:06:25 GMT
Reliability, spares availability, desire of management to save face..... .......the fact that they are already forty years old, and that sea water getting in the gaps between the steel underframe and the aluminium superstructure will create a giant galvanic cell, which will cause corrosion.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,222
|
Post by rincew1nd on Mar 28, 2018 15:12:42 GMT
...will create a giant galvanic cell... I wonder if we could use that effect to power them? They seem to have coped with what the Irish Sea has thrown at them (and dripped on them under the Mersey) so far, or is the Solent a different kind of water?
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 28, 2018 18:05:59 GMT
The longer this thread runs - the more it looks like VivaRail/D Stock is a favourite to be chosen simply as the least worse short term fix. It also complies with that favourite tradition of politicians of handing over ticking bombs and financial headaches to their successors.
So a laser survey indicates the D trains will fit - tick.
The route range is well within the stated battery charge capacity, so no nasty diesel emissions - tick.
Whilst not cheap, at least they will look newish and being based on redundant stock they are probably going to be a lot less than new heavy rail or tram solutions - tick.
Given the basically uphill to Shanklin route profile, even if the battery runs down, they can pretty much coast down to Ryde using regen braking to keep the lights on and this would mitigate problems with the extant voltage drop off at that end of the route - tick.
Indeed there would be no need to maintain/upgrade power supplies along the entire line perhaps just spending on upgrading the Ryde St John's grid connection to pick up enough charge - tick.
Add a second track at Brading to offer regular 30 minute service but with St Johns acting as the operating base for the line where admittedly a bit of track work would be needed to reinstate the past through connections to both platforms 2 and 3 to offer southbound passengers easy cross platform transfer to the next southbound service allowing the train arriving from the pier head to then enjoy a 30 minute at platform recharge before forming the next southbound service.
That means no need to maintain third rail power anywhere on the pier or through the tunnel - so less of an issue with corrosion to the pier supports or problems if/when the track bed does get slightly flooded.
Switching to Battery D stock units might even create the potential to operate through services over the heritage line to Wooton - shame the route on to Cowes has been lost as that would provide services to a lot more people.
|
|