|
Post by brigham on Jan 7, 2021 8:53:08 GMT
Have to admit that Vivarail certainly jumped into unknown territory!
I wonder why LU couldn't supply overhauled withdrawn stock to the IOW? They've done it twice before.
I suspect that the Island Line didn't approach them, and Vivarail did.
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Jan 7, 2021 9:08:28 GMT
I wonder why LU couldn't supply overhauled withdrawn stock to the IOW? They've done it twice before. The 1938 Stock into 483s were rebuilt and modernised by NSE Eastleigh works
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Jan 7, 2021 10:09:17 GMT
At the time D78 withdrawal was being planned I'm not sure plans for the IoW line upgrade were far enough advanced to be confident that Surface Stock would be able to fit. Once it was, I too wondered whether a simpler refurb retaining most of the D78 existing kit would be effective. Anyway, I hope the re-tractioning and other changes prove reliable.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,763
|
Post by Chris M on Jan 7, 2021 13:26:34 GMT
For a long time the received wisdom was that the IoW would be getting withdrawn 1973 stock. I think their replacement on LU was still a short-term thing when the D stock were withdrawn.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2021 14:58:41 GMT
I wonder why LU couldn't supply overhauled withdrawn stock to the IOW? They've done it twice before. The 1938 Stock into 483s were rebuilt and modernised by NSE Eastleigh works The 1938s at Eastleigh had far more work done them than at first planned because of the implications following the King's Cross fire. Alan Hawes, the then project manager for them (in 1988/89 - and sadly no longer with us) explained all at an LURS meeting at the time. He also said that the 1959/62 Stock would not be considered (in a few years hence) because of all the money that had to be spent on the IoW 1938s.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2021 15:01:00 GMT
The 1973s were indeed considered as subsequent replacements but that was at the time the 2012 Tube Stock was planned to replace them on the Piccadilly Line. They (the IoW) would still be waiting for the 1973s of course.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jan 24, 2021 17:07:23 GMT
and then there were 4.
Rather stealthily - well under cover of the lockdown and awful weather - the penultimate Transport for Wales class 230 set has now been delivered.
It may however be collecting dust in Wales for quite a while, as a lot of drivers would need to be trained before they can enter revenue service. TFW would need to be really lucky if that is completed in time for the May Timetable change, with December 2021 probably the most likely point where they take over the Wrexham Bidston service.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Jan 24, 2021 19:55:22 GMT
Unlikely to be "gathering dust in Wales" as they are maintained at Birkenhead North in England.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Jan 24, 2021 20:19:55 GMT
Why does it require a new public timetable for the new trains to be introduced? Can't they just progressively take over current paths?
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jan 25, 2021 11:53:29 GMT
As the trains have already demonstrated they are perfectly capable of trundling around in tests from Long Marston, there is no physical reason why the trains could not be introduced now as they have been cleared for passenger use, but there are a load of practical considerations which usually means significant fleet changes are done at the major timetable changes.
Between now and then, all potential train crew will need to be trained and sign the new rolling stock - a major task in normal times made more challenging by complying with COVID rules. Drivers will also need to become familiar with the combination of rapid battery accelleration and regenerative braking system on the new trains and with 3 car units replacing current 2 car units it may meen drivers will need to learn new stopping marks. Doubtless Network Rail will have to asses whether this new rolling stock has any impact on track infrastructure like level crossings especially remotely monitored crossings on the route.
Presumably at least once the new stock will have to do a gauging run along the normal route and all potential diversions just in case they unexpectedly clout stuff. They will also confirm their performance characteristics along the route to confirm whether they are able to fit in the slots currently included in the timetabling.
I suspect the 230s may well justify a revised timetable as they should be quicker off the mark than the current Class 150s and may potentially open up extra paths along the Borderlands line.
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Feb 12, 2021 14:05:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 12, 2021 15:25:22 GMT
Meantime the second class 484 unit was spotted on low loaders headed for the Bombardier test track in Derby. So it seems VivaRail are still managing some output despite the COVID impact on production at Long Marston. I recall seeing a YouTube video last year where someone from VivaRail explained that only the first three 2 car Class 484 units for the Island line would be built at Long Marston with the remaining 2 units being produced after their move to a new base at Southam. I rather suspect the hassle of relocation has also been an important factor in any delay with these units. However as IoW government only issued listed building planning consents for major platform works along the route last month - that is probably another reason why the re-opening date is slipping. If anyone is interested in following progress there is an informal Facebook page and Youtube has a couple of recent unofficial drone flights over parts of the line. These show the entire trackbed at Shanklin has been lifted and dug down extensively to allow the track to be reinstated to afford level access to the taller Class 484 units. The webcam at the Ryde end of the line has thus far shown nothing material is happening at this stage. However tackling the more major works needed at the south end of the line was the plan from the outset. Hence only a few new barriers have thus far appeared/been blown over at the pier station and occasional groups have been spotted wandering around in Hi Viz. To facilitate level boarding the recent planning approvals indicate the platforms at Ryde Pier and Esplanade stations will be raised rather than tracks being lowered. This sort of makes sense as at times the lower elements of the pier can get very wet. It does however imply some fairly steep or very long ramps will need to be installed for access from the street at both stations. Initially there was also reference to platform extenders being needed for the curved section of Esplanade Station. I wonder if that has now been dropped or why they just don't move the stop boards and access barriers along to only use the reasonably straight section of the platform which was built to accommodate 7 coach standard stock trains so the straight bit should probably be long enough to berth a 2 car Class 484.. Over at Ryde St Johns and the depot, it looks deserted and the Class 484 unit is nowhere to be seen. It is however rumoured to be locked away inside the shed - meantime all the old 483s have been evicted and parked up gathering rust on tracks outside. I am rather surprised that none of the potential new owners have arranged to get their trains moved off site, if nothing else to protect them from the weather. Perhaps the likely delay in reopening the line is actually what someone in the Government was referring to recently when they suggested it was too early to book a summer holiday...
|
|
|
Post by ted672 on Feb 12, 2021 17:21:33 GMT
I am rather surprised that none of the potential new owners have arranged to get their trains moved off site, if nothing else to protect them from the weather. I think the new owners were hoping to use the return trips of the trucks bringing the 484s to the island to transport the 483s to their new homes, thus saving considerable costs.
|
|
|
Post by quex on Feb 12, 2021 17:52:02 GMT
To facilitate level boarding the recent planning approvals indicate the platforms at Ryde Pier and Esplanade stations will be raised rather than tracks being lowered. This sort of makes sense as at times the lower elements of the pier can get very wet. It does however imply some fairly steep or very long ramps will need to be installed for access from the street at both stations. At Esplanade the "concourse" is actually at the old height, for "full-size" rolling stock. There is a ramp down from this height to the current platform level. Raising the platform height will actually remove the need for the current ramp, and in doing so make for a bit more space on what is quite a narrow platform (especially when passenger's luggage is taken into consideration).* *Notwithstanding that the platforms on the Island were, even in the days of steam, always a bit low in comparison to modern mainline standards.
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Feb 13, 2021 15:27:43 GMT
I am rather surprised that none of the potential new owners have arranged to get their trains moved off site, if nothing else to protect them from the weather. I think the new owners were hoping to use the return trips of the trucks bringing the 484s to the island to transport the 483s to their new homes, thus saving considerable costs. This, and at least one group has struggled to raise enough cash to even cover the costs of moving the cars off the Island. This does not bode well for any long term prospects even if that initial sim is achieved.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 17, 2021 17:00:23 GMT
Some photos of the upgrade work being carried out now on the Isle of Wight - Island Line can be seen on Southwestern Railway website here www.southwesternrailway.com/destinations-and-offers/island-line/island-line-upgradeThus far the work has mostly been at the southern end of the line with raising the platforms mostly using prefabricated sections placed onto the existing platform surface so they match the boarding height of the new trains. At Shanklin it looks like they have dug out the ballast to achieve levell access by lowering the track. Work is also underway to raise the platform height at the connection to the IoW Heritage line at Smallbrook Junction. There is also a webcam overlooking Ryde Esplanade station which shows deliveries of ballast have begun. Finally one of the SWR photos shows work underway to upgrade the fairly ancient power supply equipment.
|
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,275
|
Post by roythebus on Feb 22, 2021 7:41:00 GMT
I understand that SWR have hired in some p'way wagons and a diesel shunter from the IWSR to help with the track work.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 3, 2021 20:07:21 GMT
A trawl on Flickr reveals the fourth Class 484 set is now down at Eastleigh for mileage/test running on third rail. So just one more Class 484 set to outshop from VivaRail. Seems rather fitting there is a London Transport livery class 20 in the consist. www.flickr.com/photos/sparrowhawk7/51000237727/in/dateposted-public/Hopefully it won't be too long before they are ready to be shipped to the island.
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Mar 7, 2021 17:33:57 GMT
I understand that SWR have hired in some p'way wagons and a diesel shunter from the IWSR to help with the track work. Did you hear this recently? Discussions about a temporary connection at Smallbrook to allow this were reported, but a change in their work programme scuppered it.
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Mar 8, 2021 8:49:30 GMT
Temporary connection..? You mean that there's no connection between the lines of the two operators on the Isle of Wight? Is everyone in the rail industry obsessed with maximum inflexibility?
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 8, 2021 10:54:10 GMT
Inevitably any decision about creating a temporary connection between the operators on the Isle of Wight will reflect the input of bean counters.
In the past there was indeed a connection to what is now the IoW Steam Railway, however that connection was lifted when the route which formed a line branch to Cowes was closed.
IOW Steam Railway now operates a section of that former route to Cowes as a heritage railway.
In our risk averse world, a section of plain line is going to be cheaper and indeed safer to operate over, especially when compared with retaining a rarely, if ever, used set of points and trap points and related signalling protection which would of course require regular inspection and maintenance.
In reality it is not about "ensuring inflexibilty" as currently the IOSW route sadly goes pretty much nowhere. It is simply the result of risk and reward evaluation.
Sadly given the amount of subsequent route encroachment it is unlikely the route to Cowes will ever be reinstated. Meantime if it is really helpful to arrange and exchange any rolling stock between the routes, then it is probably cheaper and safer to do so by road.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Mar 8, 2021 13:41:49 GMT
A simple one word answer to brigham's question is "Yes"
It has been so ever since true railwaymen with years of experience were brushed aside by accountants, politicians, self anointed and self appointed armchair 'experts' with crayons, and theorists none of whom have never actually done the job themselves
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,763
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 8, 2021 16:06:08 GMT
In our risk averse world, a section of plain line is going to be cheaper and indeed safer to operate over, especially when compared with retaining a rarely, if ever, used set of points and trap points and related signalling protection which would of course require regular inspection and maintenance. For an infrequently used connection, some (but not all) of the cost could be eliminated by having an unsignalled connection that was usable only with a possession on both lines. Something where Points at both ends of the connection were set for the straight ahead route unless a ground frame lever was operated might avoid the necessity for separate trap points too. With physical access to the ground frame lever(s) requiring two keys (possibly as simple as two padlocks), one kept in the relevant IOWSR box and the other in the relevant Island Line box there would be no chance of any movement over the connection not authorised by both railways. Another possibility would be two adjacent stretches of straight plain line (one for each railway), and a removable temporary traverser that sat above these lines - stock would be driven (or winched) from one line onto the traverser's rails, those rails would move laterally to line up with the other line and the vehicle would then be driven or winched down to the destination system's rails. This would be more time consuming (as it's unlikely more than one loco, carriage or multiple unit car could move at once) but probably cheaper than any sort of points. How much of the cost either of these would eliminate I don't know. I also don't know whether it would make it affordable and justifiable, but I suspect not.
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Mar 8, 2021 17:42:11 GMT
In our risk averse world, a section of plain line is going to be cheaper and indeed safer to operate over, especially when compared with retaining a rarely, if ever, used set of points and trap points and related signalling protection which would of course require regular inspection and maintenance. For an infrequently used connection, some (but not all) of the cost could be eliminated by having an unsignalled connection that was usable only with a possession on both lines. Something where Points at both ends of the connection were set for the straight ahead route unless a ground frame lever was operated might avoid the necessity for separate trap points too. With physical access to the ground frame lever(s) requiring two keys (possibly as simple as two padlocks), one kept in the relevant IOWSR box and the other in the relevant Island Line box there would be no chance of any movement over the connection not authorised by both railways. Another possibility would be two adjacent stretches of straight plain line (one for each railway), and a removable temporary traverser that sat above these lines - stock would be driven (or winched) from one line onto the traverser's rails, those rails would move laterally to line up with the other line and the vehicle would then be driven or winched down to the destination system's rails. This would be more time consuming (as it's unlikely more than one loco, carriage or multiple unit car could move at once) but probably cheaper than any sort of points. How much of the cost either of these would eliminate I don't know. I also don't know whether it would make it affordable and justifiable, but I suspect not. Sheringham is an example of a preserved railway being linked by a level crossing to the national network. It can only be used on a very limited number of occasions each year. It is not signalled and there are no gates.
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Mar 8, 2021 20:32:53 GMT
Sheringham is an example of a preserved railway being linked by a level crossing to the national network. It can only be used on a very limited number of occasions each year. It is not signalled and there are no gates. So is Epping! As far as I am aware, so far this has only been used once (in each direction)
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Mar 8, 2021 21:09:59 GMT
So is Epping! As far as I am aware, so far this has only been used once (in each direction) with the recent track rationalisation and installation of heavy buffer stops I doubt anything will be possible now.
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Mar 9, 2021 8:34:05 GMT
So is Epping! As far as I am aware, so far this has only been used once (in each direction) with the recent track rationalisation and installation of heavy buffer stops I doubt anything will be possible now. Oh! Another example. There's no problem installing a connection; the PW and signalling techniques are long established. It's a matter of will. In the case of different operators, it invariably seems as though 'my pink half of the drainpipe' mentality comes into play.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 9, 2021 10:56:37 GMT
with the recent track rationalisation and installation of heavy buffer stops I doubt anything will be possible now. Oh! Another example. There's no problem installing a connection; the PW and signalling techniques are long established. It's a matter of will. In the case of different operators, it invariably seems as though 'my pink half of the drainpipe' mentality comes into play.
And cost!
Even if it is not signalled, Network Rail will bill the 3rd party to the tune of several thousands of pounds each year for the simple privilege of having such a connection. The Island line is not going to be any different even if the actual day to day infrastructure maintenance is the responsibility of the TOC.
On the mainland this can be a price worth paying principally because it allows the visiting engines and engineering plant to come in as well as facilitating deals like the one the Bluebell has done with Balfour Beatty to test / get staff familiar with some start of the art Tamping machines. However on the island such opportunities don't exist and putting one in for 6 months simply isn't cost effective compared to a low loader shuttling between Havenstreet and Sandown.
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Mar 10, 2021 8:24:30 GMT
In other words, putting one in isn't cost-effective compared to Road Transport. Now where have I heard THAT before?
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Mar 10, 2021 16:25:21 GMT
In other words, putting one in isn't cost-effective compared to Road Transport. Now where have I heard THAT before? I am not sure that that is a valid argument for something which may not be used for the next ten years once these works were completed.
|
|