|
Post by wimblephil on Feb 26, 2018 18:00:29 GMT
According to a reply posted in response to a question on this tweet, the Vivarail team don’t seem to think any work will need doing to the tunnel in order for Class 230 to fit...
[a href=" "] [/a]
Discuss... !?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Feb 26, 2018 18:38:15 GMT
I think it would be a close fit but little work would be required to make them fit longitudinally if it is a little tight!
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Feb 26, 2018 21:18:18 GMT
Are there any existing designs of diesel trams? Arguably the Parry People Mover is a tram, so yes...
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 26, 2018 21:25:36 GMT
I found a few very grainy photos showing up on a google search for IOW pre tube rolling stock which shows examples of steam hauled Mk1 type slam door coaches on the Ryde pier so they must have made it through the tunnel. However they look like they are the shorter 57 foot long version of the MK1 stock so about 3 feet shorter than D Stock units.
The real test of whether they would fit is of course the Kinetic envelope taking into account bogie locations and resulting overhangs which might arise at speed on the significant curves within the Ryde tunnel. Whilst we might hope that people will have checked carefully before devoting any great effort to assess the use of Class 230 stock, even SNCF have been known to get things badly wrong and as a result they have been busy sawing bits off many regional station platforms.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 21:32:18 GMT
I found a few very grainy photos showing up on a google search for IOW pre tube rolling stock which shows examples of steam hauled Mk1 type slam door coaches on the Ryde pier so they must have made it through the tunnel. However they look like they are the shorter 57 foot long version of the MK1 stock so about 3 feet shorter than D Stock units. The real test of whether they would fit is of course the Kinetic envelope taking into account bogie locations and resulting overhangs which might arise at speed on the significant curves within the Ryde tunnel. Whilst we might hope that people will have checked carefully before devoting any great effort to assess the use of Class 230 stock, even SNCF have been known to get things badly wrong and as a result they have been busy sawing bits off many regional station platforms. I'm sure steam-hauled "Mk1" slam door coaches never ran on the Isle of Wight. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by ted672 on Feb 27, 2018 8:25:06 GMT
The Isle of Wight Steam Railway has a collection of stock that ran on the island, the most recent of which dates from 1924. I believe they are shorter and slightly narrower than later mainline stock.
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Feb 27, 2018 9:08:08 GMT
Metropolitan rigid 8-wheelers were the first Ex-Underground stock to run on the Isle of Wight, as far as I recollect.
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Feb 27, 2018 11:13:44 GMT
It mustn't be forgotten that the track level through Ryde Tunnel was raised at electrification, so prior to the Standard stock taller vehicles would have been able to be used, possibly also wider and longer (although not as large as mainland mainline stock) and not fouled the tunnel.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,387
|
Post by Chris M on Feb 27, 2018 11:26:08 GMT
Prior to electrification, the tunnel was a limiting factor on the length of stock but the principle height restriction was a bridge at, iirc, Brading. This bridge is still extant and would need addressing if full height stock were to run on the line. How difficult and/or expensive this would be I don't know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2018 0:11:05 GMT
I think the D stock is the only option at this time... however there are a lot of maybes no-one has committed anything yet... the track work is not in great condition, signalling is out dated, tunnel height as well, the network on the island is also not very disabled friendly anyway, still stuck in the past.
I have a feeling they will hang on to what we have down here till time arises that they don't have to make so many changes. Island line has lacked a lot of investment over the years, the Pier is in need of a lot of investment and repairs... so its a big job, plus also talk of extensions ect... who knows... but its more talk less action.
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Mar 1, 2018 4:09:23 GMT
It mustn't be forgotten that the track level through Ryde Tunnel was raised at electrification, I'm curious why one would raise the track in a tunnel. There must be something that I'm missing.
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Mar 1, 2018 4:30:21 GMT
I'm curious why one would raise the track in a tunnel. There must be something that I'm missing. High water table, risk of flooding.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 1, 2018 6:41:59 GMT
I'm curious why one would raise the track in a tunnel. There must be something that I'm missing. High water table, risk of flooding. Steam engines could cope with a bit of paddling, but third rail electrification is a different matter!
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Mar 1, 2018 7:07:39 GMT
Steam engines could cope with a bit of paddling, but third rail electrification is a different matter! Hmm, I wasn't aware of the drainage problem and for some unknown reason, I was thinking of overhead electric, not third rail (which should have been obvious). You also have the possibility of water getting into the traction motors. (goes off to look up more info about the tunnel)
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Mar 9, 2018 2:15:07 GMT
According to a reply posted in response to a question on this tweet, the Vivarail team don’t seem to think any work will need doing to the tunnel in order for Class 230 to fit... D78s might just fit through the tunnel - the portals at either end should be ok, but the tunnel also features a tight reverse curve with a combination of single and double track bores so it could be a very tight fit. Worth remembering that larger electric stock has been proposed before - ex-Merseyrail 503s were seriously considered back in the 80s, they even did a gauging run with a wooden mock-up. I found a few very grainy photos showing up on a google search for IOW pre tube rolling stock which shows examples of steam hauled Mk1 type slam door coaches on the Ryde pier so they must have made it through the tunnel. The Island only ever used pre-grouping carriages, with 57ft the standard length due to clearance issues - the SECR vehicles, even with the 'birdcage' lookout removed, were at the limit of the loading gauge IIRC. Prior to electrification, the tunnel was a limiting factor on the length of stock but the principle height restriction was a bridge at, iirc, Brading. This bridge is still extant and would need addressing if full height stock were to run on the line. How difficult and/or expensive this would be I don't know. I'm not sure about Brading's, but those in Ryde are tight and in particular the arched bridge carrying Smallbrook Lane. I'm curious why one would raise the track in a tunnel. There must be something that I'm missing. The tunnel emerges in a former dock below the height of some high tides, so water ingress is an issue with pumping required at times - when the line was electrified they removed the track and improved the drainage. While headroom was reduced, comparing an original construction drawing with a modern structure gauge suggests just 6 inches or so less than the original 14ft - staff could still visit the buffet at Pier Head with 05001!
|
|
|
Post by davethewomble on Mar 9, 2018 13:57:16 GMT
It is a sad situation that the only hope of 'new' stock the island line seems to have is of someone else's hand-me-downs.
Would it be cost prohibitive to add a few extra cars to the next order of deep level tube stock, maintaining the economies of having the production line set up for a sizeable order? Or would there be commercial/political impediments to a joint order?
I presume the (multi)million pound question is whether there is enough traffic potential for the island line that might be attracted to a revamped service with modern stock that could presumably remain in service for many years, to justify the investment?
|
|
|
Post by ted672 on Mar 9, 2018 14:09:08 GMT
If the train service was more frequent, I'm sure it would generate more traffic. As it is, the current 20/40 service is hardly an incentive to use it when waiting time is potentially longer than the journey by bus. Sadly the entrepreneurial spirit of the Victorian age that led the lines to be built is lacking in this risk-averse world.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,387
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 9, 2018 16:09:04 GMT
The problem with an add-on to the next deep level tube stock order is that that could be a decade away and it's not certain that the 1938 stock can hold out that long.
With a bit of targeted investment in the railways on the island - 15 minute service, restoration to Ventnor, expanding the Ryde tunnel to take full-size stock - then the whole thing could offer a lot more benefit. However, the way that cost-benefit analyses for new rail projects in this country are calculated means that many of the benefits cannot be considered, combined with a very conservative estimate of the benefits that can be considered and a pessimistic view of the costs means that there is no way that such will get past the bean counters in an age of austerity (and I shall refrain from commenting further on that last word for I don't know that I could keep within the forum rules if if I didn't).
|
|
|
Post by ted672 on Mar 9, 2018 16:54:52 GMT
It's rather sad indictment of the way these matters are considered solely by accountants. The current speculation around some of Dr Beeching's cuts being reversed should show that accountant's don't rule and that taking a punt is sometimes ultimately worthwhile.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 9, 2018 17:42:21 GMT
Accountants don't - or shouldn't - rule. But they would be failing in their professional duty if they failed to tell you of the financial risks of a particular course of action.
In the Isle of Wight case, as in any other, such assessment should also take account of the potential cost of the "do-nothing" option, which includes the possibility that the trains or infrastructure becomes unusable, and the costs involved in whatever the consequences of that would be (whether it is a "distress purchase" of whatever is available to replace it, or closure resulting in increased road traffic and/or damage to the island's economy)
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,387
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 10, 2018 0:00:55 GMT
To at least some extent though accountants are servants to their political masters who tell them what value should be applied to certain factors, and what things should and should be considered. For example TfL benefit-cost analyses take into account different factors than do ones produced for NR and so will produce different results.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 10, 2018 8:05:25 GMT
The elephant in the room is of course property values on the IoW. I suspect there are some who would be very happy to see the whole thing degrade to a point where for "safety reasons" the railway closes permanently and they can set about selling off some VERY valuable real estate. The lack of investment in this line over many years may not be entirely accidental especially when you weigh up the investment which would be needed to provide the line with a decent long term future especially with the vast sums politicians are happy to waste on projects like the Croxley extension which will never carry a passenger.
I spent a few hours last night working through several pre and post electrification videos of the route on YouTube. Two things were evident
On bridge clearances - the cab ride view does indeed show road over-bridges before and after Brading station and that the line here was at one stage dual track. A very substantial increase in clearance through the arched bridge could be achieved simply by slewing the alignment to occupy the centre of the arch rather than the current position hard up against one side to leave space for the second long gone track. A similar solution is possible even with the more modern concrete beam bridge on the other side of Brading station as it slopes slightly to one side and at the moment the line occupies the lower side of the span. If we accept full size stock would need the tunnel track floor/ballast height to be lowered then it is not beyond the wit of Network Rail to arrange for all three changes to be achieved during a brief out of season shut down.
On loco hauled workings the top of the chimney is noticeably higher than even the roof vents on the coaching stock. As one of those locos is still present on the IoW Heritage line then a few minutes with a tape measure would confirm how far the chimney was above rail head level. This should show what could be achieved by simply reversing whatever track raising took place in the tunnel, and importantly indicate if that would be sufficient to accommodate former D Stock trains.
The current situation is particularly sad as once the bean counters kill off Island Line it will never come back. The impact is very clear in Ventnor where the steam hauled arrivals were particularly well patronised indeed seemingly exceeding numbers alighting at Sandown and Shanklin. Since the line through to Ventnor closed, even more visitors took to hiring vehicles or bringing their own vehicle over by ferry to chronically clog up roads which were never designed to handle the sort of traffic they now endure. Loosing the railway in Ventnor had a significant impact on access for groups who did not drive. Delays on the narrow roads means bus services struggle to make progress with timetables duly eligible as works of fiction. You only need to wait 40+ minutes from scheduled arrival time before you give up on the bus too. At least the train service provide visitors with reasonable confidence they would make their ferry booking. Chris neatly summed it up "a bit of targeted investment" is needed, and needed now.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Mar 10, 2018 16:14:40 GMT
I was looking at the current route today and I would guess that the route to Ventnor appears lost to development. Regarding the existing route and improvements to it the following occurred to me;
Could capacity be increased by bringing the second platform back into use at Shanklin?
Could the section between north of Brading and Sandow be doubled?
Could a 20 min service be provided with these changes?
How many D trains would be needed for the line and in what formations?
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Mar 10, 2018 22:14:10 GMT
Long term investment never won any politician re-election. It seems like many would sooner shrug their shoulders and say "uneconomic"/"too difficult"/"elfun saftea" instead.
The lack of entrepreneurship is hardly surprising, even though the line is run by a private company and we are continually told that private firms are more able to take risks etc!
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Mar 11, 2018 6:52:27 GMT
Long term investment never won any politician re-election. It seems like many would sooner shrug their shoulders and say "uneconomic"/"too difficult"/"elfun saftea" instead. The lack of entrepreneurship is hardly surprising, even though the line is run by a private company and we are continually told that private firms are more able to take risks etc! And the consultation (sorry, link not to hand) paper a few months ago made clear that the way that the line is leased to the franchisee (SWR, was SWT) is a disincentive to investment, especially late in a lease period.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,387
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 11, 2018 9:53:08 GMT
The lack of entrepreneurship is hardly surprising, even though the line is run by a private company and we are continually told that private firms are more able to take risks etc! The way the mainline railway was privatised and the actions of the DfT since have resulted in a combination of public and private that is the worst of both worlds. Public sector micromanagement, rigidity and funding restrictions combined with a private sector that faces no competition and has almost no freedom to innovate but is still massively risk averse. Customer service falls between the two stools.
|
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,255
|
Post by roythebus on Mar 13, 2018 22:35:43 GMT
Proposals are in hand to reinstate the passing loop at Brading to enable a 20 minute service. At the moment trains can either pass at Sandown or Ryde, hence the 20/40 minute intervals. Whether there would be enough serviceable 38 stock trains to run an enhanced service is a moot point. A major hurdle to re-opening to Ventnor is the upkeep of the tunnel which I understand now has high voltage grid cables running through it, and the trading estates built at Wroxall and Ventnor.
Maybe Island Line lost a chance at gauging the line for bigger stock when the class 33 visited the IWSR last year? But then that was only available for 4 days over the weekend.
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Mar 14, 2018 8:47:18 GMT
Surely some withdrawn tube stock must become available within the next decade? It isn't exactly a major fleet that is required. A single train would be a great help.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 14, 2018 9:01:41 GMT
Surely some withdrawn tube stock must become available within the next decade? . The "New Tube for London " should have seen new trains start to be delivered from 2022, but the timescale has already slipped. It would in any case be the most worn out trains which would be replaced first, so it would have been some time later before anything serviceable became available And it is doubtful the exiting IOW stock will last even until 2022 let alone a decade.
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Mar 14, 2018 9:14:49 GMT
Assuming the new trains enter service from 2025, the trains that will be released (probably 1972 stock) will be approaching their mid 50’s and as norbitonflyer alludes to, they will not exactly be in a great condition.
|
|