|
Post by edwardfox on Jul 6, 2011 19:34:43 GMT
I'm just curious as to why train services on the Isle of Wight always seem to be provided by old London Transport stock - starting with "Standard" tube stock in 1967 (built 1921-3) followed by the 1938 tube stock in 1989. The Island Line now apparently has its eye on 1973 stock from the Piccadilly Line. No apparent interest in the 67TS
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2011 19:39:04 GMT
There are tunnel clearance issues at Ryde hence they need small stock. It's cheaper to use old LU stock, and it does the job already, so there you go. They actually have trainstops and tripcocks in use there!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2011 20:24:49 GMT
There was talk of 67ts going out, but there would need to be too much modification done to the electrical/control circuits, especially since 67ts never had conventional tripcock equipment as it were!
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 6, 2011 20:55:03 GMT
There was talk of 67ts going out, but there would need to be too much modification done to the electrical/control circuits, especially since 67ts never had conventional tripcock equipment as it were! Do they really use tripcocks on the IoW? I understand the clearance issues came about beacuse the floor in Ryde Tunnel was raised to stop the flooding that was common in there - it had not been a problem for the steam trains but the third rail didn't like it. I have also read that some stocks were deemed unsuitable because their traction equipoment is not fully enclosed, and would be damaged by the salt sea spray on Ryde Pier (remember the problems Voyagers, with their roof-mounted equipment) had on the sea wall at Dawlish?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2011 20:56:43 GMT
I remember reading that trainstops were added to the lines to make use of the redundant tripcocks on the 38ts.
67 would need a deadman's fitted!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2011 21:03:17 GMT
Yes, Ryde tunnel had its trackbed raised to stop the flooding. The line has signals, but does NOT have AWS/TPWS so trainstops are fitted at certain locations!
Indeed, 67ts was refused for that reason, and the necessary mods to have that system fitted were not cost effective.
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Jul 6, 2011 22:06:04 GMT
Reference to the salt damage from spray on Ryde Pier was discussed many years ago I seem to recall...the Standard Stock had the advantage of the equipment being behind the cabs. Of course the original Down line that was also used by the Ryde shuttle has long gone so I suppose the exposure is not as great now as it could have been.
Wasn't the clearance in Ryde tunnel tight anyway in steam days? As an aside I first traversed the Ryde to Ventnor and Cowes lines in 1965!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2011 22:07:45 GMT
It was, and the cabs of the steam locos were cut down for this, and so to with coaching stock adapted too, in some way.
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Jul 6, 2011 22:20:28 GMT
Thanks..I know that the trackbed was raised after steam had finished. There were also 05001 and a couple of 03 shunters used on p/way work, the latter of which I appears to have had ad cut-down cabs. However that is under correction!
I am pretty certain that some years before the 1938 Stock was eventually procured that it was thought that 38TS would not be suitable because of the underfloor equipment. A few years ago after a long absnce I visited the island via Ryde hoverport and was amazed to see the amount of external corrosion in the cars, especially around the doors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2011 23:06:41 GMT
The other reason the 67TS were rejected, was because 43 years intensive service through the centre of London on one of the busiest lines has taken it's toll on those units. As for the 73TS, I've heard that the 72TS will move as it is due for replacement sooner.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2011 6:42:07 GMT
72ts is probably more suitable as its one of the more conventional trains unlike the 73ts. Making it simpler to maintain
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jul 7, 2011 6:51:31 GMT
Yes, I'd agree, but would the 72s run in 3 or 2 car formation?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2011 8:22:52 GMT
I suppose they'd decide closer to the time, the 72TS also seem more suitable from a passenger point of view as they have the mix of transverse and longitudinal seating, similar to the 38TS unlike the 73TS, which is fully longitudinal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2011 11:58:19 GMT
No island locos sent over in the SR era or after needed major modifications. The LSWR O2 class locomotives that ran the lines on the island underwent no modification apart from having thier coal bunkers enlarged in the late 1920s. The Brighton 'Terriers' also had thier bunkers enlarged. This was done purely for operational reasons to enable the locos to stay in traffic longer between visits to the sheds to coal up again. The Brighton E1 tanks had no modification at all for island use. The E4 that was sent over in 1949 needed the footsteps modified as they were out of gauge. It also had the chimney reduced in height. In reality it was a failure anyway and proved to be no better than the O2s already there. As far as I am aware no coaching stock sent over in the steam era needed any modification to fit.
BR Standard class 2MT 2-6-2T locomotives were proposed as replacements for the O2s in 1965 and one, 84015, made it to Eastleigh. However the plan to modify it to Island loading gauge was not carried out as the decision had been made to electrify. 84015 was cut up at Eastleigh a short while afterwards.
The reason tube trains were decided on was that the Island lines, having been built to a smaller loading gauge in the first place, had only seen elderly, pre-grouping, coaching stock. Modern coaches, even short underframe BR Mk 1 suburban stock, wouldn't fit under the bridges. Second-hand Standard stock would and would save enough money for the Ryde to Shanklin line to survive. Had this option not been pursued there was a real possibility that the Island would have lost all of its railways as that was what Beeching had originally planned.
What replaces the 1938 tube stock remains to be seen. The current plan is to keep it running until 2017! It will almost be a shame to see it finally go although I am sure it is well past saving now. The moral of the tale is get over there and enjoy it while you still can!
Whatever replaces it will be the first passenger carrying rolling stock to be used on the Island Railways that was built this side of the Second World War........ In 2011 that is a truly remarkable record!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2011 13:43:14 GMT
And if it is the 1972TS, Metro Cammell will live on on the Island line.
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Jul 7, 2011 22:36:34 GMT
Not forgetting that the current island stock has additional luggage accommodation, as has the '72 stock.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jul 7, 2011 23:17:00 GMT
*73 stock, surely?
The 72ts may have simpler equipment, but why would anyone stumping up the money to prop the railway up want to shoot themselves in the foot? The 72ts was a quick rehash of something designed in the mid 60s. Their reliability compared to the 73ts currently is woeful, and in terms of technology the 73ts is surely half a generation newer, despite only a nominal year apart in designation. The 73ts has received a far higher quality refurbishment, and to LTs credit is just as passable as a modern train as the '9x stocks are. To put it another way, why would you buy an Escort if you could buy a Focus of similar spec at the same price? On top of that, I've heard a few motormen comment that the 72ts is a pig for driving/braking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2011 3:57:43 GMT
I used to drive the 72 stock on the Northern and then the Jubilee line in the early 80s and found them to be a fast train to drive. The skill was stopping them in the wet, with the rheo brake making weird and wonderful noises as the wheels began to pick up and slide on the wet rails. You needed to treat the brake very gently in the wet (same went for C stocks as well). Some drivers would cut the dynamic brake out by putting the reverser key into reverse. This would give you an ep only brake which was easier to control in the wet. And before you ask yest there were instances of drivers forgetting to put the key back into forward. Happy days!
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jul 8, 2011 4:20:15 GMT
Was the ep brake instantaneous? I think tubeprune mentioned once about the transition between braking methods, even when dropping the handle, causing a second or so's lost application? I could be mis-remembering an half heard convo though.
Also someone mentioned earlier about coaching stock on the IOW having to be modified to fit the gauge? This did indeed occur; the 'birdcage' sets sent over from the former SE&CR had the birdcages cut off.
|
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,256
|
Post by roythebus on Jul 8, 2011 7:44:27 GMT
To confirm what Glyn says about the old loco hauled stock, and what Ben says above, to my knowledge none of the stock was modified for island use apart from fitting Westinghouse brakes and birdcages being removed. The 05/03s weren't cut down for island use either.
As far as I know there aren't any trip cocks or train stops in use on the island.
Rheo braked stock would indeed be fun in the wet, especially approaching somewhere like Smallbrook in the wet!
I had a quick trip on the 38 stock a few weeks ago and it seems to be in fine condition, a tribute to the staff at Ryde for doing a splendid job keeping it going. This must surely be the oldest stock in daily use in Europe by now.
As you may know, there's now 2 Ivatt tanks on the steam railway, one of which is under restoration for future use. The IWSR found the original Eastleigh drawings for the mods needed for Island use and these will be used for the rebuilds. I reckon the Ivatts are the most modern locos ever to be on the island!
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Jul 8, 2011 8:08:55 GMT
*Slip of the finger, I meant '73 stock.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,310
|
Post by Colin on Jul 8, 2011 12:32:09 GMT
I've always thought a trick was missed when the 83ts were withdrawn from the Jubilee - yes, I know there was a plan to use some on the Picc; but surely there would have been enough 83ts available? Oh well, back to reality - 73ts would surely be the better option. Looking even further forward, the 92ts will only be fit for the scrap man when it gets withdrawn, and as for the 95ts/96ts; I wonder what they'll be like come 2035/6 and time for withdrawal. By then 72ts/73ts will be 63/64 years old so if neither of those stocks work.........well it's the 09ts......and by then (2049) the 72ts/73ts will be well into their 70's!! Ok, the 38ts is now 73 years young but I somehow suspect they were engineered to last whereas today's stuff really is only made to last 40 years and not a day longer.
|
|
|
Post by 1018509 on Sept 10, 2011 10:05:57 GMT
< snip.>As far as I know there aren't any trip cocks or train stops in use on the island.< snip> I have only travelled on the island Line once so far, standard stock or 38 I don't recall although I lean towards standard. I'm not sure about trips and trainstops but I do remember I was in the leading car as the train slid past a stop signal, there was a rush of air (deadman or trip or both, I don't remember) and the train pulled up in a heap. I do remember seeing the driver jump down from the cab make a quick phone call and then set back to the signal post. All done very quickly, efficiently and, anywhere else, dangerously I would have thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2011 20:11:13 GMT
The 72ts may have simpler equipment, but why would anyone stumping up the money to prop the railway up want to shoot themselves in the foot? The 72ts was a quick rehash of something designed in the mid 60s. Their reliability compared to the 73ts currently is woeful, and in terms of technology the 73ts is surely half a generation newer, despite only a nominal year apart in designation. The 73ts has received a far higher quality refurbishment, and to LTs credit is just as passable as a modern train as the '9x stocks are. To put it another way, why would you buy an Escort if you could buy a Focus of similar spec at the same price? On top of that, I've heard a few motormen comment that the 72ts is a pig for driving/braking. Got to agree with this. The 72s have taken less punishment than the 67s but they still look and feel worn out, and would IMO need at least a cosmetic overhaul before being moved down to Wight. Better to take the 73s.
|
|