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

[pompeyfan]

I’m led to believe the Twitter team only ask the train service controllers for answer regarding stuff like this, so it’s entirely feasible that incorrect information is spread completely innocently

 

[torten]

Given that until recently, the line was lucky to have two servicable units, if they can get at least two, or three operational on the island by May, then they should be ok.

 

[skyhigh]

Covid: Isle of Wight rail overhaul delayed by pandemic

The track and platform upgrades began in January and were expected to take three months.

www.bbc.co.uk

Delay to Island Line reopening announced - Covid cited

‘Unforeseen challenges’ and Covid are cited as reasons for delaying the reopening of the Isle of Wight’s train line. While they’re waiting, they’ll take the opportunity to repaint the stations

onthewight.com

https://twitter.com/PaulCliftonBBC/status/1360194962667823105

- this is the most improtant link

That tweet says "Difficulties of working under Covid restrictions is blamed, both for infrastructure and train building." It implies Covid restrictions are causing an issue with working on the infrastructure, not that the infrastructure is causing any problems.

The tweet in post 973 (https://twitter.com/SW_Help/status/1348850200434135041) says

Hi, there were no initial plans to do this but after further investigation there may be a necessity to lower the track to give enough room for the new units to get through the tunnel. ^RC

The word 'may' in that sentence and the fact that I wouldn't expect a general enquiries Twitter feed to be 100% clued up on infrastructure works means that I'm still waiting for substantive proof they won't fit. I would be very surprised if they don't.

 

[david1212]

To start test running with 484 001 that currently AFAIK has been locked in St Johns building since at least 3rd January logically the plan will be to get St Johns - Sandown operational first. Once that section of infrastructure is fundamentally complete 484 001 can do mileage accumulation and training can start. Further other 484 units can be delivered plus 483 006 and 483 008 sent on the way to Essex and 483 007 to the steam railway. 483 002, 483 004 and 484 009 either have to be removed too or scrapped on site. There may not be much that is useful left on 002 and 004 but 009 was operational as the depot shunter so can yield useful spares.

Shanklin then would follow as work is already in progress and a two train test / training shadow service run.

This leaves St Johns to Ryde Esplanade and the Pier Head as the last sections for infrastructure work.

They managed to run the line (sort of) using just one serviceable 483 at the end of last year, so I suppose they could use the one 484 that's already on the island.

Given that until recently, the line was lucky to have two serviceable units, if they can get at least two, or three operational on the island by May, then they should be ok.

Even when 483 004, 006 and 008 were all on paper in the active fleet it is further back in time that a pair of units was last coupled together. While not the experience SWR or passengers will want crush loaded a 484 unit can move significantly more passengers than a 483.

 

[Chris125]

The word 'may' in that sentence and the fact that I wouldn't expect a general enquiries Twitter feed to be 100% clued up on infrastructure works means that I'm still waiting for substantive proof they won't fit. I would be very surprised if they don't.

I was as sceptical as you, but sadly there's good reason to think it could be true - there were some concerning comments on facebook that gauging was being talked about as an issue when the first unit arrived, but the conspicuous lack of testing beyond St Johns ('paperwork' supposedly, despite a track lowering last year under Rink Road to allow it) really set the alarm bells off. SWR's subsequent tweet didn't come out of the blue.

As everything suggested D78s would be a very tight fit through an awkward S-shaped tunnel it's easy to imagine that new or updated gauging with different data and/or methodology to Vivarail's may have come to a slightly different conclusion - though I doubt there's much in it thankfully.

 

[AndyW33]

This leaves St Johns to Ryde Esplanade and the Pier Head as the last sections for infrastructure work.

Road-rail infrastructure vehicles have ventured through the tunnel several times, and the long-disused and often flooded subway at Esplanade has been filled in and the track relaid over the top. Also at Esplanade TPWS grids have been installed to replace the LT trainstop system used with the tube stock. There are photos of the road rail vehicle pulling a trailer along the track on the pier, with the trailer apparently full of the platform raising prefabricated sections already used at the other stations on the line.

 

[Steddenm]

That tweet says "Difficulties of working under Covid restrictions is blamed, both for infrastructure and train building." It implies Covid restrictions are causing an issue with working on the infrastructure, not that the infrastructure is causing any problems.

The tweet in post 973 (https://twitter.com/SW_Help/status/1348850200434135041) says

The word 'may' in that sentence and the fact that I wouldn't expect a general enquiries Twitter feed to be 100% clued up on infrastructure works means that I'm still waiting for substantive proof they won't fit. I would be very surprised if they don't.

Could it be a case of...



"They will fit in the tunnel, but we need extra storage so...."

(Image shows Gordon from Thomas The Tank Engine in a partially bricked up tunnel, taken from Thomas The Tank Engine, (c) Hit Entertainnent, image taken from metro.co.uk)

 

[DavidGrain]

I don't know the date of this picture but it is obviously not a 483 train. It actually links to a March 2018 article which states that the D stock trains would not fit through the tunnel. Whether or not that statement is true I cannot say and I am just posting this for information.

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

I don't know the date of this picture but it is obviously not a 483 train. It actually links to a March 2018 article which states that the D stock trains would not fit through the tunnel. Whether or not that statement is true I cannot say and I am just posting this for information.

View attachment 92190

IIRC this has been discussed multiple times in this thread.

That was part of a mid-eighties plan to use class 503s retired from Merseyrail.

 

[swt_passenger]

IIRC this has been discussed multiple times in this thread.

Yes, and that photo was attached in post #71, on page 3. It’s pretty much irrelevant really, because the infrastructure has been changed since then anyway...

 

[Journeyman]

Yes, and that photo was attached in post #71, on page 3. It’s pretty much irrelevant really, because the infrastructure has been changed since then anyway...

Yeah, all that proves is that a 503 would have fitted nearly 40 years ago! Much water has passed under the bridge (and through the tunnel) since then...

 

[Chris125]

SWR are doing a 'meet the manager' if anyone wants to ask about the tunnel... https://www.islandecho.co.uk/south-...-invited-to-meet-the-manager-at-virtual-event

Yeah, all that proves is that a 503 would have fitted nearly 40 years ago! Much water has passed under the bridge (and through the tunnel) since then...

I'd be very surprised if much has changed, back then 03079 - slightly taller than a 484 at the time - was successfully squeezed through before it's cab was cut down. The track hasn't been relaid since AFAIK and the arched sections which cause such problems remain unchanged.

 

[DelW]

I'd be very surprised if much has changed, back then 03079 - slightly taller than a 484 at the time - was successfully squeezed through before it's cab was cut down. The track hasn't been relaid since AFAIK and the arched sections which cause such problems remain unchanged.

Do you know whether the problematic area (if indeed there is one) is within a single-span twin-track tunnel section, or a twin single-track tunnel section? If it's in a single-span tunnel, singling it and slewing the track might gain some space, although of course that would mean moving the points to south of the tunnel.

I've never really understood why the tunnel section hadn't ever been singled anyway - I don't think trains have passed each other there on the normal timetable for many years. AFAIK both with the 20/20/20 timetable, and the more recent 20/40 version, trains normally crossed each other between St John's and Smallbrook (and usually nearer Smallbrook in my experience). With the new 30/30 timetable they'll only be crossing at Brading and there's surely no need for the double track between Smallbrook and Esplanade at all, other than to provide flexibility during disruption. I really can't see Wightlink buying an extra Wight Ryder any time soon, to need a 20 minute intervals service.

It'll be interesting to see how long it is before a 484 gets to Esplanade though. Vivarail must have quite a few surplus D78s that will probably end up going for scrap anyway - maybe they could send a spare car to the Island, push it through the tunnel, and see if or where it scrapes something .

 

[swt_passenger]

Ryde tunnel is part side by side single tunnels and part wide double. There’s a few different construction techniques, I did find a YouTube “walk through” a while back but can’t find it now, it certainly isn’t as simple as just “singling” it throughout...

 

[zwk500]

I'd be very surprised if much has changed, back then 03079 - slightly taller than a 484 at the time - was successfully squeezed through before it's cab was cut down. The track hasn't been relaid since AFAIK and the arched sections which cause such problems remain unchanged.

An 03 is a lot shorter than a 73 stock car - important with sharply curved (and reverse curves) tunnels.

 

[DelW]

Ryde tunnel is part side by side single tunnels and part wide double. There’s a few different construction techniques, I did find a YouTube “walk through” a while back but can’t find it now, it certainly isn’t as simple as just “singling” it throughout...

That's why I posed the question as to where the tight section is!

 

[swt_passenger]

That's why I posed the question as to where the tight section is!

Apologies, I misread your post as asking if the whole tunnel was single or double... probs didn’t notice the word “section”...

 

[zwk500]

Ryde tunnel is part side by side single tunnels and part wide double. There’s a few different construction techniques, I did find a YouTube “walk through” a while back but can’t find it now, it certainly isn’t as simple as just “singling” it throughout...

That's why I posed the question as to where the tight section is!

Search for 'Ryde Tunnel' on Youtube and you'll find a decidedly unofficial walk through.

The tightest sections look to be the single-bore portion nearest esplanade.

 

[DelW]

Apologies, I misread your post as asking if the whole tunnel was single or double... probs didn’t notice the word “section”...

No problem. I've edited my post to try to avoid confusion between single-span (twin track) and twin tunnel (single track in each)

 

[Chris125]

An 03 is a lot shorter than a 73 stock car - important with sharply curved (and reverse curves) tunnels.

Of course, but the issues constraining that should be more or less unchanged since the photo - in particular curved platforms and the tunnel's combination of reverse-curves and single/double track arched bores.

 

[zwk500]

Of course, but the issues constraining that should be more or less unchanged since the photo - especially the tunnel's combination of reverse-curves and single/double track arched bores.

My point was that on a very sharp curve a long train will have a problem that won't be shown up with the method shown in the Photo. The 03, with it's very short Cab, will probably be fine as long as it physically can enter the tunnel. Whereas the 73 stock might be able to get into the tunnel on the straight but then when it's shifting on the corners find itself scraping on the corners and middle.

 

[philthetube]

When the 95 stock was introduced on the Northern line a 59 was encased in polystyrene along the length of a couple of cars, not sure how many, to bring it to the profile of a 95 plus the needed clearance for safety.

 

[david1212]

...

I've never really understood why the tunnel section hadn't ever been singled anyway - I don't think trains have passed each other there on the normal timetable for many years. AFAIK both with the 20/20/20 timetable, and the more recent 20/40 version, trains normally crossed each other between St John's and Smallbrook (and usually nearer Smallbrook in my experience). With the new 30/30 timetable they'll only be crossing at Brading and there's surely no need for the double track between Smallbrook and Esplanade at all, other than to provide flexibility during disruption. I really can't see Wightlink buying an extra Wight Ryder any time soon, to need a 20 minute intervals service.

...

I've thought that too. Back to 1967 at peak times six 7-car 485/486 sets were used so logical to leave the track alone and just add third rail.
However by the time the 483's arrived the peak frequency had already been reduced. Now I can not envisage an increase from 30/30 or any short workings. Esplanade will only be one platform and will two be made useable at the Pier Head? Even if 20/20/20 was ever introduced the crossings would be beyond St Johns. Only if 30/30 then a Pier Head - St Johns shuttle in between would the crossings be between Esplanade and St Johns. Otherwise the only benefit is redundancy, I have seen a video where a train ran ' wrong line ' from Esplanade to St Johns.

The facts that in 1967 six 7-car sets were in use and that even if the sets had available eventually the electric supply only allowed a single 483's to run highlights the deterioration of the supply over ~ 50 years.

With initially nine 483 sets were trains of three sets ever run ?

 

[Journeyman]

I've thought that too. Back to 1967 at peak times six 7-car 485/486 sets were used so logical to leave the track alone and just add third rail.
However by the time the 483's arrived the peak frequency had already been reduced. Now I can not envisage an increase from 30/30 or any short workings. Esplanade will only be one platform and will two be made useable at the Pier Head? Even if 20/20/20 was ever introduced the crossings would be beyond St Johns. Only if 30/30 then a Pier Head - St Johns shuttle in between would the crossings be between Esplanade and St Johns. Otherwise the only benefit is redundancy, I have seen a video where a train ran ' wrong line ' from Esplanade to St Johns.

The facts that in 1967 six 7-car sets were in use and that even if the sets had available eventually the electric supply only allowed a single 483's to run highlights the deterioration of the supply over ~ 50 years.

With initially nine 483 sets were trains of three sets ever run ?

I'm not sure 3-set trains ever did operate. In any case, it would have caused problems at Lake, where the platform is only 5 cars long (most 485/486 trains operated in 5 car sets in their last few years).

 

[Chris125]

The facts that in 1967 six 7-car sets were in use and that even if the sets had available eventually the electric supply only allowed a single 483's to run highlights the deterioration of the supply over ~ 50 years.

It's been suggested that the power supply - though undeniably flaky - could still have allowed longer trains if sufficient units were available, certainly the comments by Chris Garnett about voltage drop were debunked.

With initially nine 483 sets were trains of three sets ever run ?

I've not seen much evidence of 6-car trains, but it seems the spare driving motor made 3TIS+3TIS+DM quite a regular sight.

 

[Trackman]

Search for 'Ryde Tunnel' on Youtube and you'll find a decidedly unofficial walk through.

The tightest sections look to be the single-bore portion nearest esplanade.

I saw it the other day, It could be that first curve inside the tunnel.

 

[Gloster]

Why would trains work from St Johns to the end of the pier at any other times than those needed to meet the FastCats? The small number of anglers is not going to justify another train and few are going to travel from St Johns only as far as Esplanade. The chances of Wightlink increasing the FastCat service to every twenty minutes, even just on peak days, are minuscule.

 

[pompeyfan]

Why would trains work from St Johns to the end of the pier at any other times than those needed to meet the FastCats? The small number of anglers is not going to justify another train and few are going to travel from St Johns only as far as Esplanade. The chances of Wightlink increasing the FastCat service to every twenty minutes, even just on peak days, are minuscule.

because people could be travelling on the Hover?

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is no need to complicate the service. Half hourly, all stations, end to end is what the infrastructure work is being done for, and is what makes sense. Replicate, on a smaller scale, the success of the simplicity of Merseyrail.

 

[KendalKing]

Height Comparison
	Height	Length
Class 03	3.72m (12' 3")	7.92m (26' 0")
Class 483	2.88m (9' 6")	15.95m (52' 4")
Class 484	3.62m (11' 11")	18.37m (60' 3")
Class 503	3.48m (11' 5")	17.68m (58' 0")
Class 507, 508	3.58m (11' 9")	19.8m (65' 0")