How could Island Line be improved? Could a 32/28 minute frequency work? Any other suggestions?

[greenline712]

Moderator note: Split from

Island Line Class 484 Reliability

After a highly splendid recent trip to the Isle of Wight, utilizing the Island Line frequently I have became quite knowledgeable about the Class 484s. On my trip during between the 22nd and 25th February 2024. Meanwhile apart from them being extremely charming and well designed (At least for the...

www.railforums.co.uk

It's maybe a strange question, but if the loop is only just in the wrong place .... what about operating a (say) 28/32 minute timetable frequency??

I agree it isn't pretty, but if it begats a reliable timetable, and one that permits all trains to reach Pier Head ....
As one train runs a rounder every 60 minutes, there should be no impact on the other train, and it's close enough to a regular timetable not to annoy casual passengers.

Or am I barking mad??!!

 

[Gloster]

My opinion is that the main problem is that the turn-round times at each end are now longer than before and effectively mean that there is virtually no recovery time. If a train is delayed the delay can only be caught up by the odd half-minute here and there: the old units allowed a quick turn-round at each terminal which could save a couple of minutes or so each time. Now you get a minute or so, except with the short turn-round at Esplanade, when you can catch up a bit more.

 

[whoosh]

It's maybe a strange question, but if the loop is only just in the wrong place .... what about operating a (say) 28/32 minute timetable frequency??
I agree it isn't pretty, but if it begats a reliable timetable, and one that permits all trains to reach Pier Head ....
As one train runs a rounder every 60 minutes, there should be no impact on the other train, and it's close enough to a regular timetable not to annoy casual passengers.

Or am I barking mad??!!

I think that's pretty much what happens, however the Shanklin to Ryde Pier Head train has 4 minute turnarounds at each end.
To fit in with it at the passing place, the other one isn't exactly half-hour opposite, and can only go as far as Esplanade, having a 4 minute turnaround there. It has a longer, 10 minute turnaround at Shanklin.

In short, there isn't time for the second train to go to Pier Head and get back to the passing place in time. It has to terminate short at Esplanade.

It all looks an ill thought out mess to this onlooker I'm afraid.

 

[TomatoKetchup]

It's maybe a strange question, but if the loop is only just in the wrong place .... what about operating a (say) 28/32 minute timetable frequency??
I agree it isn't pretty, but if it begats a reliable timetable, and one that permits all trains to reach Pier Head ....
As one train runs a rounder every 60 minutes, there should be no impact on the other train, and it's close enough to a regular timetable not to annoy casual passengers.

Or am I barking mad??!!

I agree! A 28/32 Min frequency would be fine even for tourists or locals, because no one turns up to an Island Line station expecting a train at a set frequency, we check timetables anyway. If all trains run to the Pier Head, no one will complain. This way turnaround times are reasonable, all trains would pass at Brading and all trains run to the Pier Head. There we go, that's the solution. However, the timetable people will not do it because they're lazy, let's be real.

 

[Gloster]

I agree! A 28/32 Min frequency would be fine even for tourists or locals, because no one turns up to an Island Line station expecting a train at a set frequency, we check timetables anyway. If all trains run to the Pier Head, no one will complain. This way turnaround times are reasonable, all trains would pass at Brading and all trains run to the Pier Head. There we go, that's the solution. However, the timetable people will not do it because they're lazy, let's be real.

Brilliant, you’ve solved it! Why not sort out world poverty now? You still have the main problem: there is effectively no recovery time so that as soon as you get a delay, which can be caused by something as simple as a mobility scooter needing to get on and off at intermediate stations, it takes a long time to get back to timetable.

 

[Meerkat]

So what are the cheapest ways of speeding things up - improvements to the stock or the infrastructure or a bit of both?
Wasnt there going to be a crossing improvement that would increase the speed limit?

 

[DelW]

It's maybe a strange question, but if the loop is only just in the wrong place .... what about operating a (say) 28/32 minute timetable frequency??
I agree it isn't pretty, but if it begats a reliable timetable, and one that permits all trains to reach Pier Head ....
As one train runs a rounder every 60 minutes, there should be no impact on the other train, and it's close enough to a regular timetable not to annoy casual passengers.

I agree! A 28/32 Min frequency would be fine even for tourists or locals, because no one turns up to an Island Line station expecting a train at a set frequency, we check timetables anyway. If all trains run to the Pier Head, no one will complain. This way turnaround times are reasonable, all trains would pass at Brading and all trains run to the Pier Head. There we go, that's the solution. However, the timetable people will not do it because they're lazy, let's be real.

I don't think that works ...? Or at least, not if having all trains going to Pier Head.
You have a northbound train at Brading, which has 32 min to to get to Pier Head and back to Brading - fine.
But the next train now has only 28 min to get to Pier Head and back - which doesn't work.
I think it only works if you turn alternate trains back at Esplanade, which is how it seems to be functioning now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So what are the cheapest ways of speeding things up - improvements to the stock or the infrastructure or a bit of both?
Wasnt there going to be a crossing improvement that would increase the speed limit?

Not sure I'd bother. The half hourly service was more about half hourly ferries which post COVID don't exist. I'd just return to the 20-40 timetable which works. The plan should be that the 20 minute gap is either side of the ferry, so one would arrive and depart about 10 minutes before the ferry and one would arrive and depart about 10 minutes after, giving people plenty of time to get to/from it and reducing stress.

 

[Meerkat]

Not sure I'd bother. The half hourly service was more about half hourly ferries which post COVID don't exist. I'd just return to the 20-40 timetable which works. The plan should be that the 20 minute gap is either side of the ferry, so one would arrive and depart about 10 minutes before the ferry and one would arrive and depart about 10 minutes after, giving people plenty of time to get to/from it and reducing stress.

Is the ferry hourly even in thE summer and unlikely to ever return?
be a good idea to have a plan of what could be done.

 

[Nogoohwell]

How about running 3 diagrams instead of two?

Therefore giving a clear 30 minute changeover at pier head?

 

[43096]

How about running 3 diagrams instead of two?

Therefore giving a clear 30 minute changeover at pier head?

If they’re not going to bother running 4-car sets - presumably that is why they bought 5 sets - then that would seem sensible.

 

[CarrotPie]

How about running 3 diagrams instead of two?

Therefore giving a clear 30 minute changeover at pier head?

That means you can only run one 4-car set, tops. It also puts even more pressure on the (seemingly poor) availability of the units, not to mention needing more crew.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

I don't think that works ...? Or at least, not if having all trains going to Pier Head.
You have a northbound train at Brading, which has 32 min to to get to Pier Head and back to Brading - fine.
But the next train now has only 28 min to get to Pier Head and back - which doesn't work.
I think it only works if you turn alternate trains back at Esplanade, which is how it seems to be functioning now

You'd make a good timer, if I may be so bold. Have just had another look at this based on the timings in the WTT (section WJ) for 1987, which was 485/6 operated, and nothing was planned to stop at Smallbrook jn in those days. But same (TT) applied during 483 days, which (I guess?) was the starting point for the 484 plan, which also included stops at Smallbrook? I have no idea about that latter point, other than the following comments being a best (educated) guess on my part?

As things stand today, the crux of the TT problem is the passing point location that will (or not) allow a two train service to operate the entire 8 mile route from Ryde Pier to Shanklin, which is (now) single track, except (please correct me if I'm wrong) from South of Esplanade platform to Smallbrook Jn, and again a loop that encompasses Brading platforms (both).

Taking the WJ WTT timings in to account, and allowing for the passing point to be at Brading station only, assuming (in todays set up) the signalling allows an UP train to arrive and stop one minute before the down train arrives, and both could then depart at the same time in their respective directions (not just crossing on the double track section south of Brading as was the case with the 20/40 interval service in past times), then a 30 min interval service should still work, with a 7 min turn round at Shanklin, and a 5 min turn round at the Pier.

The 'BUT' in this scenario, is Smallbrook Junction, or should I say, the station stop dwell time at Smallbrook Junction, which from the IoWSR perspective is a must. This stop was not part of the timetable in 1987, Smallbrook still only being a passing point, but in todays world a Down train stopping at Smallbrook will add (realistically/legally) in timings terms, add at least one minute in the down direction trains, which will then add an additional minute in to the departure time (from Brading) of UP trains, which after then stopping at Smallbrook themselves, will then be (at least) 2 mins later by the time they arrive at St.Johns, which by the time they then arrive at the Pier will be too late to meet the well established (legal) turn round times that have been long agreed by ASLEF and the TOC's, hence the timetable being too tight/legally unworkable at the Pier end.

So in essence, in the winter period, it may be possible for a two train/30 min interval service to operate with some reliability(?), but when station stops are required at Smallbrook Junction, then the service may need to be adjusted whereby only one train per hour runs to/from the Pier, and as such needs to be tail-doved to work with Wightlinks Ferries. Just thinking aloud here!

 

[Gloster]

You'd make a good timer, if I may be so bold. Have just had another look at this based on the timings in the WTT (section WJ) for 1987, which was 485/6 operated, and nothing was planned to stop at Smallbrook jn in those days. But same (TT) applied during 483 days, which (I guess?) was the starting point for the 484 plan, which also included stops at Smallbrook? I have no idea about that latter point, other than the following comments being a best (educated) guess on my part?

As things stand today, the crux of the TT problem is the passing point location that will (or not) allow a two train service to operate the entire 8 mile route from Ryde Pier to Shanklin, which is (now) single track, except (please correct me if I'm wrong) from South of Esplanade platform to Smallbrook Jn, and again a loop that encompasses Brading platforms (both).

Taking the WJ WTT timings in to account, and allowing for the passing point to be at Brading station only, assuming (in todays set up) the signalling allows an UP train to arrive and stop one minute before the down train arrives, and both could then depart at the same time in their respective directions (not just crossing on the double track section south of Brading as was the case with the 20/40 interval service in past times), then a 30 min interval service should still work, with a 7 min turn round at Shanklin, and a 5 min turn round at the Pier.

The 'BUT' in this scenario, is Smallbrook Junction, or should I say, the station stop dwell time at Smallbrook Junction, which from the IoWSR perspective is a must. This stop was not part of the timetable in 1987, Smallbrook still only being a passing point, but in todays world a Down train will add (realistically/legally) in timings terms, add at least one minute in the down direction trains, which will then add an additional minute in to the departure time (from Brading) of UP trains, which after then stopping at Smallbrook themselves, will then be (at least) 2 mins later by the time they arrive at St.Johns, which by the time they then arrive at the Pier will be too late to meet the well established turn round times that have been long agreed by ASLEF and the TOC's, hence the timetable being too tight/legally unworkable at the Pier end.

So in essence, in the winter period, it may be possible for a two train/30 min interval service to operate with some reliability(?), but when station stops are required at Smallbrook Junction, then the service may need to be adjusted whereby only one train per hour runs to/from the Pier, and as such needs to be tail-doved to work with Wightlinks Ferries. Just thinking aloud here!

There is still a loop at Sandown. It is pneumatic points, I think.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

There is still a loop at Sandown

Yes quite so, sorry! That was pertinent to the 20/40 min interval service, a result of the Sandown to Brading singling in '89. But with a more recent (SWR desired) 30 min interval service, everything South of Brading becomes a single line, one train in steam effectively, set up, which then by default makes the TT unworkable (in legal TT planning terms) at the Ryde end, hence (my previous) comments the loop (at Brading) is, TT wise, too far south ideally.

Was (very) privileged to have a few rides up front on LT's Standard stock units on the Island over the years (with former steam men), and one does get a different perspective from that angle. If a certain Driver Sturgess (from 02 days) was still alive, I suspect any TT tightness would not have caused him any concern, but (in his case) I speak from distant hearsay, and from a time when the phrase 'making up time' was left to a driver's discretion!

 

[Gloster]

Yes quite so, sorry! That was pertinent to the 20/40 min interval service, a result of the Sandown to Brading singling in '89. But with a more recent (SWR desired) 30 min interval service, everything South of Brading becomes a single line, one train in steam effectively, set up, which then by default makes the TT unworkable (in legal TT planning terms) at the Ryde end, hence (my previous) comments the loop (at Brading) is, TT wise, too far south ideally.

Was (very) privileged to have a few rides up front on LT's Standard stock units on the Island over the years (with former steam men), and one does get a different perspective from that angle. If a certain Driver Sturgess (from 02 days) was still alive, I suspect any TT tightness would not have caused him any concern, but (in his case) I speak from distant hearsay, and from a time when the phrase 'making up time' was left to a driver's discretion!

I have only been south of Esplanade once since the new trains came in, but my recollection was that that we used the left-hand platform at Sandown in each direction, even though it was a one train service; at Brading we used to western one in each direction. Presuming my recollection is correct, if you either upgraded the Sandown signalling to proper motor points you could run in and out of the platform at higher speeds. If you put the points permanently out of use, you could also run in and out at speed: this might cost less (but paperwork, paperwork) but you would lose flexibility. Both would gain a minute or two on end to end times.

 

[Deepgreen]

It's maybe a strange question, but if the loop is only just in the wrong place .... what about operating a (say) 28/32 minute timetable frequency??
I agree it isn't pretty, but if it begats a reliable timetable, and one that permits all trains to reach Pier Head ....
As one train runs a rounder every 60 minutes, there should be no impact on the other train, and it's close enough to a regular timetable not to annoy casual passengers.

Or am I barking mad??!!

You're thinking of the D78s' old stamping ground!

 

[Big Jumby 74]

I have only been south of Esplanade once since the new trains came in, but my recollection was that that we used the left-hand platform at Sandown in each direction, even though it was a one train service;

When I was there during the singling work in 89, Sandown signalling remained as was, in so far as UP was UP and DOWN was Down (you know what I mean) within station limits, and so remained as was before essentially, a loop, and is likely(?) still the same today? I don't know, not been over there for a decade and some. In SWR terms the work has been done, and they aren't liable to change it now anytime soon I guess in the current (£) climate?

As for saving worthwhile (TT) time by timetabling all trains through the down platform at Sandown (given all trains call at same), nothing of note to be gained TT wise either way, if you know the road...!

 

[Gloster]

When I was there during the singling work in 89, Sandown signalling remained as was, in so far as UP was UP and DOWN was Down (you know what I mean) within station limits, and so remained as was before essentially, a loop, and is likely(?) still the same today? I don't know, not been over there for a decade and some. In SWR terms the work has been done, and they aren't liable to change it now anytime soon I guess in the current (£) climate?

As for saving worthwhile (TT) time by timetabling all trains through the down platform at Sandown (given all trains call at same), nothing of note to be gained TT wise either way, if you know the road...!

I was thinking that if you could put the loop at Sandown fully out of use, you could avoid the speed restriction imposed on trains running over pneumatic points, which are what I think are installed there. Recollection is that the restriction is 15 mph (although I never operated a box supervising them, so am not certain), so you would gain a minute or two by slowing down later and being able to take full advantage of the units acceleration when restarting.

EDIT: this is purely my opinion, based on observations and local knowledge, of what is, at least in part, the root cause of the service’s unreliability, and how to mitigate it. Solving problems with the 484 won’t help much if you don’t sort out the basic problems of the timetable.

 

[DelW]

I was thinking that if you could put the loop at Sandown fully out of use, you could avoid the speed restriction imposed on trains running over pneumatic points, which are what I think are installed there. Recollection is that the restriction is 15 mph (although I never operated a box supervising them, so am not certain), so you would gain a minute or two by slowing down later and being able to take full advantage of the units acceleration when restarting.

IIRC the problem is north of Brading only, as Brading > Pier Head > Brading takes longer than Brading > Shanklin > Brading, and it's the northern section that is difficult to do reliably in 30 minutes. So any time-saving effort needs to be between Brading and Ryde pier.

 

[CarrotPie]

IIRC the problem is north of Brading only, as Brading > Pier Head > Brading takes longer than Brading > Shanklin > Brading, and it's the northern section that is difficult to do reliably in 30 minutes. So any time-saving effort needs to be between Brading and Ryde pier.

Increase the speed limit between Brading and Smallbrook?

 

[DelW]

Increase the speed limit between Brading and Smallbrook?

Yes, and/or between Smallbrook and St John's, but how much work that might entail I've no idea. Some of the track in that area is (or at least was) notoriously bouncy, it used to be amusing to stand at one end of a 483 aisle and watch a full coachload of passengers bouncing up and down in their seats in unison.

 

[Backroom_boy]

Yes, and/or between Smallbrook and St John's, but how much work that might entail I've no idea. Some of the track in that area is (or at least was) notoriously bouncy, it used to be amusing to stand at one end of a 483 aisle and watch a full coachload of passengers bouncing up and down in their seats in unison.

Close Smallbrook and have the IOWSR use the second track to St. John? Would cost several million to fully separate the two railways at SJ though.

 

[CarrotPie]

Close Smallbrook and have the IOWSR use the second track to St. John? Would cost several million to fully separate the two railways at SJ though.

That's been suggested, but having wooden-bodied rlling stock running next to a third rail line...

Not to mention CDL and shortening IL's single-track section!

 

[Railsigns]

if you either upgraded the Sandown signalling to proper motor points you could run in and out of the platform at higher speeds.

Those points were converted to power operation as part of the recent signalling upgrade.

 

[MarkyT]

Those points were converted to power operation as part of the recent signalling upgrade.

Were there any changes to speed limits through the points converted?

 

[Railsigns]

Were there any changes to speed limits through the points converted?

There weren't.