Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,397
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 14, 2018 12:44:26 GMT
The 1967 stock were not deemed suitable for the line, apparently due to the lack of cab doors - a feature also found on the 1972 stock - so it seems unlikely that the stock would be suitable even if it were in good enough shape. Its the 1973 stock that they would most want, but currently that's not expected to be available until the 2030s at least and as good as it is/was I don't think the 38s can be expected to be still running 90-100 years after it was built.
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Mar 14, 2018 12:56:09 GMT
Wonder if they would take some 1992 stock? However, as has been mentioned, will the 38’s last until they become available?
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Mar 14, 2018 13:14:56 GMT
If the trains are to continue running on the pier they need to be protected on the underside because of the salt water.
The 1938 stock was considered to be better than 1959 stock which was an option.
Given the problems with the 1992 stock falling apart over the years I very much doubt anyone will want them.
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Mar 14, 2018 13:19:44 GMT
If the trains are to continue running on the pier they need to be protected on the underside because of the salt water. The 1938 stock was considered to be better than 1959 stock which was an option. Given the problems with the 1992 stock falling apart over the years I very much doubt anyone will want them. Supply them with duct tape . . .
|
|
|
Post by miff on Mar 14, 2018 13:24:29 GMT
The 1967 stock were not deemed suitable for the line, apparently due to the lack of cab doors Why does that make them unsuitable? Thanks, if anyone knows.
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Mar 14, 2018 14:20:37 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. They may possibly be in better order than the existing IOW stock. Is there no Departmental stock which could be pressed into service?
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Mar 14, 2018 16:09:07 GMT
The 1967 stock were not deemed suitable for the line, apparently due to the lack of cab doors Why does that make them unsuitable? Thanks, if anyone knows. Main line drivers may need to leave the cab to use trackside telephones or to remove items from the track.
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Mar 14, 2018 18:42:54 GMT
Just on the note of 72TS, I think that they are going to be one of the latter fleets to be replaced by DTUP. I think that the 73TS will be first (and thus the first stock for SWR to get 'dibs' on) - based on the lack of upgrades being done to them, and also this tweet which says that TfL aim to order the "new Piccadilly Line fleet" in 2018/19
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,397
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 14, 2018 18:49:35 GMT
If they aim to order the stock in 2018/19 they should get their skates on an issue a notice for expressions of interest (or whatever the proper name is) with a specification, etc.
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Mar 15, 2018 2:58:44 GMT
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. While all Ryde St Johns-Ventnor overbridges allowed for a second track, only Ryde-Smallbrook and Brading-Sandown were actually doubled in later years. Only two overbridges therefore gained a second track; Smallbrook Lane which has rather restrictive clearances, and the other south of Brading which IIRC was rebuilt with a flat deck when doubled; perhaps to avoid the same issue? Not sure that would help - the tunnel combines a reverse-curve with a single and double track arched roof, so a narrow chimney has clearance that a wide, long and high carriage roof doesn't. Clearly returning those lost inches of headroom wouldn't hurt, but that may compromise the drainage system.
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Mar 15, 2018 3:18:30 GMT
If they aim to order the stock in 2018/19 they should get their skates on an issue a notice for expressions of interest (or whatever the proper name is) with a specification, etc. Already done and I have been told by a railway journalist that the order will be placed in May.
|
|
|
Post by humbug on Mar 15, 2018 8:49:11 GMT
I've heard mid-May 2018 also; whether this happens is dependant on the funding being in place by then.
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Mar 15, 2018 8:51:36 GMT
Has the design of the new stock been finalised, or is that part of the ordering process?
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 15, 2018 9:40:15 GMT
I am getting a bit confused - are we talking about an order in May 2018 for rolling stock for the Island Line or for the DTUP?
I guess both could apply if the Island Line goes VivaRail and Kahn's recent comments about still needing a driver means they can freeze the DTUP design and order a batch for Piccadilly services.
As for funding DTUP was there not some discussion about TFL aiming to set up a sale and leaseback for some Overground or Elizabeth Line stock with one of the existing mainline ROSCO firms to free up funds to buy replacements for the deep tube lines.
Is Island Line a freestanding TOC or are they part of SWT? Nowadays, on mainline rail it seems that the scope for improvements or replacements for rolling stock seems to be limited to whenever franchises are up for renewal.
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Mar 15, 2018 10:44:41 GMT
I am getting a bit confused - are we talking about an order in May 2018 for rolling stock for the Island Line or for the DTUP? I guess both could apply if the Island Line goes VivaRail and Kahn's recent comments about still needing a driver means they can freeze the DTUP design and order a batch for Piccadilly services. As for funding DTUP was there not some discussion about TFL aiming to set up a sale and leaseback for some Overground or Elizabeth Line stock with one of the existing mainline ROSCO firms to free up funds to buy replacements for the deep tube lines. Is Island Line a freestanding TOC or are they part of SWT? Nowadays, on mainline rail it seems that the scope for improvements or replacements for rolling stock seems to be limited to whenever franchises are up for renewal. I took it to mean the DTUP, but I am willing to be corrected!
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 15, 2018 10:47:16 GMT
was there not some discussion about TFL aiming to set up a sale and leaseback for some Overground or Elizabeth Line stock with one of the existing mainline ROSCO firms to free up funds to buy replacements for the deep tube lines. There was - it was the class 345s I think Is Island Line a freestanding TOC or are they part of SWT? The franchises were merged at renewal in 2007 (they were both managed by Stagecoach at the time) and it is now part of the SWR franchise. Unlike the situation on the mainland, the franchise includes maintenance of the infrastructure. Unlike the rest of the SWR franchise, there was no firm undertaking as to what future rolling stock would be used on the island. However, as the 1938 stock will be 86 years old by the end of the franchise in 2024, the "do nothing" option will surely become prohibitively expensive.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,397
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 15, 2018 11:59:01 GMT
Is Island Line a freestanding TOC or are they part of SWT? It's part of SWR (South Western Railway, operated by First) who took over the franchise from SWT (South West Trains, operated by Stagecoach) last year. The Island Line was a separate franchise from privatisation in 1996 until 2007 (operated by Stagecoach), at which point it was merged with the south western franchise (also operated by Stagecoach) which was retained/won (depending on how you classify it) by Stagecoach. Although part of the larger franchise since 2007 the "Island Line" brand (introduced by Network South East iirc) has remained. Nowadays, on mainline rail it seems that the scope for improvements or replacements for rolling stock seems to be limited to whenever franchises are up for renewal. This is due to a combination of franchise agreements, the lead time for new trains and how the budgeting works with value, deprecation, pay back, etc.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 15, 2018 14:23:09 GMT
It's always been a mystery to me why the Island line was electrified in the first place. The nearest existing electrified line was (and still is) less than five miles away but there is almost no chance of them ever being connected (and the raised floor of Ryde Tunnel would prevent through running anyway). Surely a higher priority would have been the Portsmouth-Southampton route, but that was not electrified until 1990.
And it's not as if there was a shortage of diesel units in 1967 - the Modernisation Plan meant most DMUs were less than twelve years old, and the Beeching cuts meant many of them were redundant. The entire fleet of "yellow diamond" dmus (273 cars), (built in 1955) had gone by 1969, as had the hundred cars of classes 112 and 113 (built in 1960). These types were selected for withdrawal because of their non-standard coupling codes, but that would not have been a problem on the island!
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Mar 15, 2018 15:30:09 GMT
It's always been a mystery to me why the Island line was electrified in the first place. The nearest existing electrified line was (and still is) less than five miles away but there is almost no chance of them ever being connected (and the raised floor of Ryde Tunnel would prevent through running anyway). Surely a higher priority would have been the Portsmouth-Southampton route, but that was not electrified until 1990. IIRC British Rail opted for standard stock vehicles early on, either fitted with bus engines (to be maintained by the local bus company, Southern Vectis) or push-pulled by a locomotive. However according to Brian Hardy's 'Tube Trains on the Isle of Wight' the minister came down on the side of the local authorities who favoured electrification - supposedly similar in upfront cost to diesel traction, but cheaper in the long run. Conventional mainland rolling stock doesn't fit - hence why short bodied, low-roofed LBSCR and SECR carriages survived to the end of steam.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 15, 2018 16:19:16 GMT
It's always been a mystery to me why the Island line was electrified in the first place. The nearest existing electrified line was (and still is) less than five miles away but there is almost no chance of them ever being connected (and the raised floor of Ryde Tunnel would prevent through running anyway). Surely a higher priority would have been the Portsmouth-Southampton route, but that was not electrified until 1990. IIRC British Rail opted for standard stock vehicles early on, either fitted with bus engines (to be maintained by the local bus company, Southern Vectis) or push-pulled by a locomotive. However according to Brian Hardy's 'Tube Trains on the Isle of Wight' the minister came down on the side of the local authorities who favoured electrification - supposedly similar in upfront cost to diesel traction, but cheaper in the long run. Conventional mainland rolling stock doesn't fit - hence why short bodied, low-roofed LBSCR and SECR carriages survived to the end of steam. How short? The "lightweights" (but not the 112/113s) were built on "short" 56 foot frames. There were also these - about 40 feet long and less than 12 feet high. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Waggon_and_Maschinenbau_Railbus_on_North_Norfolk_Railway_(23397970065).jpg A total of 22 were built, of five different designs, in 1958, but Beeching made them redundant and they were all withdrawn around 1967
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,397
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 15, 2018 16:48:23 GMT
the position of the bogies (in terms of centre and end throw) and the roof profile matter as much as the length and absolute height.
|
|
|
Post by ducatisti on Mar 15, 2018 17:53:43 GMT
It's always been a mystery to me why the Island line was electrified in the first place. The nearest existing electrified line was (and still is) less than five miles away but there is almost no chance of them ever being connected (and the raised floor of Ryde Tunnel would prevent through running anyway). Surely a higher priority would have been the Portsmouth-Southampton route, but that was not electrified until 1990. the southern, and to an extent the Southern Region were experts at bending the laws of space, time and accountancy. There was probably a lump of budget somewhere they would have had to give back otherwise. Also, the Southern were not great fans of diesels where they didn't have to.
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Mar 15, 2018 20:21:48 GMT
I have to think if Vivarail say a D train will fit they have probably checked it out.
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Mar 15, 2018 20:29:44 GMT
The pre-grouping bogie coaches were 54ft long and relatively compact, both narrow and low-roofed. It's not just that the Standard Stock cars avoided gauging issues, but a significant quantity were available and going for scrap - this made a large fleet affordable, the early years seeing up to 7 7-car sets working the busiest Summer Saturdays.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Mar 15, 2018 23:33:39 GMT
If the D stock fits it seems a far more likely probability. Its not just the stock thats knackered but the electrification infrastructure, supposedly. Why bother holding on for other electric trains if you can get BEMU's cheaper, and avoid the hideous cost of updating electrical installations. It would even allow any extension to be slightly cheaper.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Mar 15, 2018 23:37:10 GMT
The pre-grouping bogie coaches were 54ft long and relatively compact, both narrow and low-roofed. It's not just that the Standard Stock cars avoided gauging issues, but a significant quantity were available and going for scrap - this made a large fleet affordable, the early years seeing up to 7 7-car sets working the busiest Summer Saturdays. A flight of fancy here, but, given the Southern Railway's experience with electrification, one wonders whether they ever considered it for the IOW network at the time of the update and rebuild in the 1930's. There would have been suitable stock from the Met at roughly a similar time. What an interesting alternative history that would be.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Mar 18, 2018 23:31:16 GMT
Thinking outside the box.
There's much debate above about vehicle height / width / length, Ryde tunnel, Brading bridge etc.
How does ex-DLR stock fit with all this?
There is the current tender for new DLR stock (but (??) not ordered yet) that'll be here before deep tube.
Could that be adapted?
OK it don't have 'proper' cabs, but it does have consoles for manual driving; just partition that area off? It's pick up shoes are different configuration but I doubt that's a show stopper. Does not have cab side doors, but is that really a big problem these days all that needs is a rule book change, not impossible to do. Is the articulated vehicle envelope within IOW gauge?
Probably need platform edge changes but whatever does go over there will almost certainly drive some infrastructure changes somewhere, almost every new stock type on any railway needs that, even minor, so I'd discount that as a blocking point too.
-- Nick
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Mar 18, 2018 23:34:22 GMT
;o))
Another option is re-gauge** IOW and use the soon to be replaced (2020) Glasgow subway cars.
** reckon easier that attempt to re-gauge the cars.
;o))
On a more serious tack, the new Glasgow cars might be capable of taking standard gauge wheelsets, in which case there is your ready made add-on order. Yes, it too needs PTI adjustment, but they'll last 40-50 years hence good investment.
-- Nick
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,397
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 19, 2018 0:15:41 GMT
Thinking outside the box. There's much debate above about vehicle height / width / length, Ryde tunnel, Brading bridge etc. How does ex-DLR stock fit with all this? There is the current tender for new DLR stock (but (??) not ordered yet) that'll be here before deep tube. Could that be adapted? OK it don't have 'proper' cabs, but it does have consoles for manual driving; just partition that area off? It's pick up shoes are different configuration but I doubt that's a show stopper. Does not have cab side doors, but is that really a big problem these days all that needs is a rule book change, not impossible to do. Is the articulated vehicle envelope within IOW gauge? Probably need platform edge changes but whatever does go over there will almost certainly drive some infrastructure changes somewhere, almost every new stock type on any railway needs that, even minor, so I'd discount that as a blocking point too. 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.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Mar 19, 2018 18:15:01 GMT
Thinking outside the box. There's much debate above about vehicle height / width / length, Ryde tunnel, Brading bridge etc. How does ex-DLR stock fit with all this? There is the current tender for new DLR stock (but (??) not ordered yet) that'll be here before deep tube. Could that be adapted? OK it don't have 'proper' cabs, but it does have consoles for manual driving; just partition that area off? It's pick up shoes are different configuration but I doubt that's a show stopper. Does not have cab side doors, but is that really a big problem these days all that needs is a rule book change, not impossible to do. Is the articulated vehicle envelope within IOW gauge? Probably need platform edge changes but whatever does go over there will almost certainly drive some infrastructure changes somewhere, almost every new stock type on any railway needs that, even minor, so I'd discount that as a blocking point too. 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
|
|