1938 Tube stock/Class 483 Shoe Beams

[ted672]

I've just got round to watching MetromanAlex's video on the last days of the 483s on the Isle of Wight. While watching, I noticed (again) that the shoe beams on one of the inners bogies had been removed. Can someone provide an explanation of why this was done, please?

[sachild]

Watching this video raises some interesting questions for me:

1. How were they allowed to run in service without contrasting passenger door colours? I thought this is mandatory.
2. Even more strange is how a train in 2021 could run without door chimes for when the doors are closing, which i thought is unheard of these days due to safety issues?

[jswallow]

For both of those points, the trains had grandfather rights due to their age. They didn’t need to have either thing.

[quex]

Nov 26, 2021 17:18:06 GMT jswallow said:

For both of those points, the trains had grandfather rights due to their age. They didn’t need to have either thing.

I'm not so sure. Plenty of mainland rolling stock older than the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulation of 1998 were modified to meet it, in terms of livery and door chime.

The 483s were reliveried and refurbished in 2007, well after the 1998 regulations came into force.

[Chris M]

Nov 26, 2021 19:07:48 GMT quex said:

Nov 26, 2021 17:18:06 GMT jswallow said:

For both of those points, the trains had grandfather rights due to their age. They didn’t need to have either thing.

I'm not so sure. Plenty of mainland rolling stock older than the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulation of 1998 were modified to meet it, in terms of livery and door chime.

The 483s were reliveried and refurbished in 2007, well after the 1998 regulations came into force.

Only "interoperable railways" are required to meet the RVAR and PRM-TSI (the equivalent for the mainline). The Island Line is specifically exempted from the Railways Interoperability Regulations - see section 2.2 of this document.

[rincew1nd]

Interesting there are two things on that list of exemptions that no longer exist; The Abbey Light Railway and Southport Pier Tramway.

[MoreToJack]

There’s a fair few errors and omissions! At a cursory glance the American Adventure also no longer exists, whilst Crich Tramway Museum/National Tramway Museum is listed twice.

[Tom]

If somewhere is omotted from the list, is that not a deliberate omission?
Are the heritage railways and other attractions required to apply for exemption, and thus an omission is a reflection that they haven't applied for (or been granted) an exemption?

[100andthirty]

Pedantically, Interoperable Railways - all UK railways except those on the exemption list - are only required to comply with the TSI-PRM*. RVAR was retained solely for non interoperable railways.

* TSI has now become National Technical Specification Notice since BREXIT.

[rincew1nd]

So we've done doors, what about the shoe beams?

[Dstock7080]

Nov 28, 2021 17:18:39 GMT rincew1nd said:

So we've done doors, what about the shoe beams?

My pure guess would be the bogie without a beam was a trailer one, as it was presumed four motor bogies would be too powerful for a 2-car train?

[fish7373]

Only has 2 traction motors per motor cars the 38s LT PILOT 2 cars had 4 motors  unless the motor car has been modified to run with one motor  

[t697]

Perhaps someone will know; Were they fitted with traction power buslines end to end when converted for IoW, following old Southern practice? That could have reduced the number of required shoegears.

[fish7373]

Nov 28, 2021 19:16:15 GMT Dstock7080 said:

Nov 28, 2021 17:18:39 GMT rincew1nd said:

So we've done doors, what about the shoe beams?

My pure guess would be the bogie without a beam was a trailer one, as it was presumed four motor bogies would be too powerful for a 2-car train?

Had some one check and All bogies on a 483 have traction motors on them.

[metman]

As far as I was aware the 1938 stock bogies and subsequent 1959/62 stock bogies were of an asymmetrical design with the bogie designed to provide maximum adhesion for the single traction motor. The O, P, Q38 and R stock bogies had the same concept.

[brigham]

The 1938 stock bogies were indeed of the 'maximum traction' type, but unlike their tramway-type equivalents, had equal-size wheels.

The difference in adhesive weight was instead provided by mounting the pivot point closer to the driven axle.

[A60stock]

Nov 26, 2021 20:25:47 GMT Chris M said:

Nov 26, 2021 19:07:48 GMT quex said:

I'm not so sure. Plenty of mainland rolling stock older than the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulation of 1998 were modified to meet it, in terms of livery and door chime.

The 483s were reliveried and refurbished in 2007, well after the 1998 regulations came into force.

Only "interoperable railways" are required to meet the RVAR and PRM-TSI (the equivalent for the mainline). The Island Line is specifically exempted from the Railways Interoperability Regulations - see section 2.2 of this document.

Strange that the door chime is an exemption as thats a matter of passenger safety these days. It makes no difference where the railway is located!

[joshua]

Nov 29, 2021 22:07:36 GMT metman said:

As far as I was aware the 1938 stock bogies and subsequent 1959/62 stock bogies were of an asymmetrical design with the bogie designed to provide maximum adhesion for the single traction motor. The O, P, Q38 and R stock bogies had the same concept.

 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_483#/media/File:Bogie_of_a_British_rail_class_483_at_the_IOWSR.jpg
I found an image of a 1938 tube stock/British Rail Class 483 bogie.

[iandjm]

Nov 28, 2021 22:28:45 GMT t697 said:

Perhaps someone will know; Were they fitted with traction power buslines end to end when converted for IoW, following old Southern practice? That could have reduced the number of required shoegears.

Hi. The class 483s did indeed have a bus line connecting all shoes on a 2 car unit. Hence it only having two operational shoe beams at the outer ends of the unit. The extra shoe beam was refitted onto one of the trailing end bogies when the tripcocks were reinstated.