Class 484 replacing class 483 on the island line: progress updates

[Matt Taylor]

Yes, one car from 484003 has moved to the island today, the other is expected next Tuesday - after that only 005 left to ship

Expected on the 1740 sailing from what I hear.

 

[Bob Price]

Not mine but 484004 passing Truckells Bridge on the 24th August.

 

[Bob Price]

484 spotted on the Ryde Railcam today venturing down the pier. Is this a first?

 

[fgwrich]

Not mine but 484004 passing Truckells Bridge on the 24th August.

Surprised to still see a fair amount of jointed track - I thought some of it at least would have been replaced with CWRR by now.

Few photos of 484003 over on Twitter currently at Ryde Pier Head (under it's own power). I do believe that is the first one past Esplanade.

 

[45669]

Contrary to some reports, it hasn't failed. They're doing evacuation training.

I've just checked Realtime Trains and it says that train services start on Sunday the 19th September. The first down train is 2D05 at 06.45 from Pier Head. I hope they've got that right, or is it just wishful thinking?

 

[E759]

Contrary to some reports, it hasn't failed. They're doing evacuation training.

I've just checked Realtime Trains and it says that train services start on Sunday the 19th September. The first down train is 2D05 at 06.45 from Pier Head. I hope they've got that right, or is it just wishful thinking?

Through journeys from the Mainland to Smallbrook Junction via the Cat are showing in NRE Journey Planner so someone has either confidence or is being overly optimistic!

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

484 spotted on the Ryde Railcam today venturing down the pier. Is this a first?

Link to the Ryde Railcam

13:48 Arrives at Ryde Esplanade.

14:30 Departs Ryde Esplanade towards Ryde Pier Head.

14:34 Stops just outside Ryde Pier Head.

16:44 Proceeds to Ryde Pier Head.

16:57 Returns to Ryde Esplanade.

17:06 Departs and immediately stops, allowing people to see it through the fence.

17:08 Departs towards Ryde St John's Road.

 

[Bob Price]

A YouTube video popped up of the evacuation exercise the other day on Ryde pier.

 

[swt_passenger]

Would they also do an evacuation exercise with the new stock somewhere on the ordinary overland route but well away from a station, or is this something that has been specifically required for the pier?

 

[Gloster]

Would they also do an evacuation exercise with the new stock somewhere on the ordinary overland route but well away from a station, or is this something that has been specifically required for the pier?

I have a very vague, and so probably wrong, recollection that they did such an excercise with the first set while it was still at Long Marston. Whether that is valid, as I don’t think they had a juice rail there, is another matter.

 

[ScottGallagher]

Would such an exercise have been conducted with the old stock when introduced in 1989 or that have been the old days so to speak?

 

[Rick1984]

I can't access the video. What is the evacuation process?
I can't imagine you could walk passengers down the tracks

 

[DelW]

I can't access the video. What is the evacuation process?
I can't imagine you could walk passengers down the tracks

A timber walkway has been built alongside the track, presumably during the upgrade as I don't remember seeing it in previous years. The test in the video used a short wooden ladder to climb down onto it from the train.

IIRC the 483s still had their central doors in the cab fronts, so presumably the evacuation plan for those was to bring up a second unit and transfer passengers to that. Since in recent time there was regularly only one unit available, that might have been problematic.

 

[Goldfish62]

A timber walkway has been built alongside the track, presumably during the upgrade as I don't remember seeing it in previous years. The test in the video used a short wooden ladder to climb down onto it from the train.

IIRC the 483s still had their central doors in the cab fronts, so presumably the evacuation plan for those was to bring up a second unit and transfer passengers to that. Since in recent time there was regularly only one unit available, that might have been problematic.

I read somewhere recently, forget where, that the cab front doors were not used for evacuating from the 483s.

 

[DelW]

I read somewhere recently, forget where, that the cab front doors were not used for evacuating from the 483s.

In which case, I wonder how evacuating the 484s differs from the 483s? Maybe there was always a walkway of some sort along the pier section, and the recent test was just a matter of getting down from the greater floor height of the 484.

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

The extra width of the 484 would reduce the space available if passengers are walking alongside the track.

 

[Dstock7080]

The extra width of the 484 would reduce the space available if passengers are walking alongside the track.

just 24.6cm ?

 

[Thumper1127]

Through journeys from the Mainland to Smallbrook Junction via the Cat are showing in NRE Journey Planner so someone has either confidence or is being overly optimistic!

According to RTT services don’t start now until 4th October.

 

[Taunton]

Have there been any of the various D-stock reuses around the country that have started service remotely to schedule?

 

[berneyarms]

Have there been any of the various D-stock reuses around the country that have started service remotely to schedule?

I think you can rephrase that question to have there been any new stock or refurbished/reworked old stock that have started service remotely to schedule?

 

[DavidGrain]

Have there been any of the various D-stock reuses around the country that have started service remotely to schedule?

Berneyarms beat me to the answer. My local TOC has a lot of Class 196s in store, none of which have gone into passenger service yet. Last time I was on a train going past the depot, it seemed as if every track was full of them such that they have had to move some to another depot which is not due to get an allocation, just to store them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Berneyarms beat me to the answer. My local TOC has a lot of Class 196s in store, none of which have gone into passenger service yet. Last time I was on a train going past the depot, it seemed as if every track was full of them such that they have had to move some to another depot which is not due to get an allocation, just to store them.

Fundamentally until we move away from tendering things to the lowest bidder with tight delivery schedules this will keep on happening, whether it's tarted-up D78s or brand new 80x. It is a systemic problem caused by "the race to the bottom".

 

[A0wen]

Fundamentally until we move away from tendering things to the lowest bidder with tight delivery schedules this will keep on happening, whether it's tarted-up D78s or brand new 80x. It is a systemic problem caused by "the race to the bottom".

There is only one word to answer that - balderdash.

I don't, for example, believe the Siemens Desiros were ever the cheapest units available, yet they were procured for various TOCs.

To claim it's a "race to the bottom" is hyperbolic nonsense. A simplistic slogan, easily parroted usually by people who don't know what they're talking about.

And BR had no shortage of stock which didn't enter service as planned despite being designed and built by railwaymen - see class 313s, HSTs. And it wasn't that long ago that the BR designed class 321s had to be stood down en masse from Silverlink as it was then - cracks in the bogies IIRC.

 

[samuelmorris]

I think recent years' experience has genuinely brought some surprises about just how protracted and expensive the introduction of converted old stock can be though, which may change some minds moving forward. New fleets are always expected to be a nuisance to introduce, but the D-Trains and 769s have certainly not been the quick wins they were advertised to be.

 

[bramling]

There is only one word to answer that - balderdash.

I don't, for example, believe the Siemens Desiros were ever the cheapest units available, yet they were procured for various TOCs.

To claim it's a "race to the bottom" is hyperbolic nonsense. A simplistic slogan, easily parroted usually by people who don't know what they're talking about.

And BR had no shortage of stock which didn't enter service as planned despite being designed and built by railwaymen - see class 313s, HSTs. And it wasn't that long ago that the BR designed class 321s had to be stood down en masse from Silverlink as it was then - cracks in the bogies IIRC.

I’d say the bigger issue is that the bonanza of new (and to a lesser extent repurposed) trains seems to be stretching resources too far. Too much has been collectively attempted in a short space of time.

It doesn’t help that some of the new fleets weren’t really needed - the 350/2 replacement being a case in point.

Not sure how much of this applies to the IOW though, as if the D stock conversions weren’t an option then goodness knows what would have happened with the Island fleet, especially with the 38 stock reaching the point where they weren’t really fit for purpose. Who knows if they could have been kept going with sufficient further spending, but it does seem they were on their last legs.

 

[Taunton]

I think it's a poor excuse to blame "race to the bottom", and looking at some of the prices paid we are anyway a long way from The Bottom. But each one seems to have separate excuses, sometimes multiple ones. It seems almost standard now for manufacture and delivery to be fully completed before the first one turns a wheel in revenue service. In the airline world, if an airliner gets delivered on the Friday it's in full moneymaking service on the Monday, not people standing round saying "Ooooh, nasty", or "Gosh, never thought of that" for months if not years.

I don't think we can deride the D78 trains as "tarted up", they were perfectly serviceable when withdrawn in London and some even regret their replacements. There are plenty of older units still running all day on the Underground. Quite why they could not have been picked up from Acton and dropped down at Ryde the next week, green handrails and all, is not really apparent. Bonding the centre negative shoe to the running rail earth is a well-known one day task.

 

[A0wen]

I’d say the bigger issue is that the bonanza of new (and to a lesser extent repurposed) trains seems to be stretching resources too far. Too much has been collectively attempted in a short space of time.

It doesn’t help that some of the new fleets weren’t really needed - the 350/2 replacement being a case in point.

Not sure how much of this applies to the IOW though, as if the D stock conversions weren’t an option then goodness knows what would have happened with the Island fleet, especially with the 38 stock reaching the point where they weren’t really fit for purpose. Who knows if they could have been kept going with sufficient further spending, but it does seem they were on their last legs.

Well there were only 2 re-purposings - the D trains and the 769s.

You *could* argue that instead of the 769s, more Stadler class 755s could have been introduced, but I suspect they were more expensive and haven't been introduced without problem and they'd have been non-standard in the fleets which have taken the 769s.

On the D trains, there have been 2 specific uses (Marston Vale and Island Line), for which alternative rolling stock really wasn't practical - all those options had been explored. And a couple of small fleets were needed and reasonably quickly. Both those lines had previously been the homes of some of the most time-expired rolling stock in the UK, so continually cascading so they ended up with the dregs wasn't exactly a good strategy.

I think it's a poor excuse to blame "race to the bottom", and looking at some of the prices paid we are anyway a long way from The Bottom. But each one seems to have separate excuses, sometimes multiple ones. It seems almost standard now for manufacture and delivery to be fully completed before the first one turns a wheel in revenue service. In the airline world, if an airliner gets delivered on the Friday it's in full moneymaking service on the Monday, not people standing round saying "Ooooh, nasty", or "Gosh, never thought of that" for months if not years.

There is a bit of a difference, not least it takes many years to get a civilian aircraft type approved for use. Then you've got the whole training issue to consider. It's why Boeing went down the 737 Max route - because a new aircraft would have taken at least 10+ years to develop, would have required full re-training of all the type approved pilots to fly it a combination of which would probably have bankrupted both Boeing and a few airlines along the way.

I don't think we can deride the D78 trains as "tarted up", they were perfectly serviceable when withdrawn in London and some even regret their replacements. There are plenty of older units still running all day on the Underground. Quite why they could not have been picked up from Acton and dropped down at Ryde the next week, green handrails and all, is not really apparent. Bonding the centre negative shoe to the running rail earth is a well-known one day task.

Because leaving 40 year old running gear in situ would have been less efficient - part of the re-tractioning was to make the units more efficient and use less energy. If you're not happy for airlines to use 40+ year old Rolls Royce or GE jet engines and not happy for bus operators to run coaches with Leyland 600 or 680 engines or even your own car to continue to use a Ford Pinto or Austin A series engine, why are you happy for the rail industry to still use 40 + year old technology and incur the cost of doing so?

 

[BayPaul]

I think it's a poor excuse to blame "race to the bottom", and looking at some of the prices paid we are anyway a long way from The Bottom. But each one seems to have separate excuses, sometimes multiple ones. It seems almost standard now for manufacture and delivery to be fully completed before the first one turns a wheel in revenue service. In the airline world, if an airliner gets delivered on the Friday it's in full moneymaking service on the Monday, not people standing round saying "Ooooh, nasty", or "Gosh, never thought of that" for months if not years.

I do find it amazing that this seems to be the case in the rail industry - for almost every new build fleet. I'm in the shipping industry, where very complicated vehicles, often one of a kind, are routinely* delivered on time, to spec, on budget with crew already trained (crew training normally happens whilst the ship is still owned by the shipyard, and then on passage from the yard to the home port), and the ship enters service a few days after delivery. No doubt there is a good reason why this doesn't happen for trains, but as an outsider looking in it is difficult to see what it is.
*There have been a couple of high-profile exceptions recently - Caledonian MacBrayne's Glen Sannox is a good example of what happens if you let politics mix with shipbuilding (perhaps it helps explain the issues for trains, and recent deliveries from Flensburger shipyard, but since delays to Honfleur and WB Yeats led to the collapse of the yard, it perhaps just underlines the point.

 

[hermit]

A timber walkway has been built alongside the track, presumably during the upgrade as I don't remember seeing it in previous years. The test in the video used a short wooden ladder to climb down onto it from the train.

Yes, workmen have been laying down the walkway over the last few weeks. I thought they were carrying out preliminary work for the forthcoming refurbishment of the pier, but it looks as though it was merely to provide an evacuation route.

 

[trebor79]

Because leaving 40 year old running gear in situ would have been less efficient - part of the re-tractioning was to make the units more efficient and use less energy. If you're not happy for airlines to use 40+ year old Rolls Royce or GE jet engines and not happy for bus operators to run coaches with Leyland 600 or 680 engines or even your own car to continue to use a Ford Pinto or Austin A series engine, why are you happy for the rail industry to still use 40 + year old technology and incur the cost of doing so?

Hmm, but the efficiency improvement with a new electric traction package is going to be nowhere near that from a 40 year old IC engine to a modern IC engine. Especially on a relatively low speed route like Island Line.
A more pragmatic solution might have been to introduce a couple of unrefurbished D stock trains whilst the "new" trains were being built and tested.