"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...

AFAIR another reason for the continuing use of older tube stock is
that the motors and underfloor equipment on newer types would need
extra protection against salt spray at Ryde Pier, the alternative
being truncation of the service away from the sea.

Teflon coating of some sort, perhaps?

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
Charles Ellson wrote:

AFAIR another reason for the continuing use of older tube stock is
that the motors and underfloor equipment on newer types would need
extra protection against salt spray at Ryde Pier, the alternative
being truncation of the service away from the sea.


Yet the busiest sector of the Island Line - by far - is the one between
Ryde Pier and Ryde Esplanade.

Have they thought of perhaps running some sort of shuttle service from Ryde
Pier Head to Ryde Esplanade, allowing passengers to transfer to other
rolling stock? My guess is that this would not really be feasible, however.

A long ways off, I know, but what's the deal with building an underwater
connection between the Island and mainland?

On Thu, 07 May 2009 11:02:19 +0100
rail wrote:
Despite Polson's Petulant Whining� rebuilding as a light railway with street
running to avoid the tunnel is an option that has been considered in the
past.

Can't see that happening myself. It would cost a fortune not just to build
the new section but to convert the entire line to OHLE and no doubt 'Elf N
Softies would stick their ore in about that. And thats before they have to
find the trams from somewhere. I doubt there are many scrap value 70 year old
trams for cheap sale like their were tube trains

B2003

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
wrote:


Unfortunately, both the LUL A62 and ex-BR Class 313 stock are too tall
for the tunnel at Ryde St John's Road, whose tight clearances define the
structure gauge for the Island Line.

Fair enough. But would it actually be feasible to bring in 67Ts stock or
would too many modifications indeed be required? If that is the case, I
noticed that some of Victoria Line trains' current make ups consist of 72Ts
stock. Would there be enough of them for the Island Line's requirements?

And what about the 83Ts, which used to run on the Jubilee, as an option?
Those actually might be good for the Island line, because I believe that
they required guards.

In message
wrote:

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
Charles Ellson wrote:

AFAIR another reason for the continuing use of older tube stock is
that the motors and underfloor equipment on newer types would need
extra protection against salt spray at Ryde Pier, the alternative
being truncation of the service away from the sea.


Yet the busiest sector of the Island Line - by far - is the one between
Ryde Pier and Ryde Esplanade.

Have they thought of perhaps running some sort of shuttle service from Ryde
Pier Head to Ryde Esplanade, allowing passengers to transfer to other
rolling stock? My guess is that this would not really be feasible, however.

There used to be a tramway shuttle that did exactly that back in the dim and
distant. The tracks were between the railway line proper and the roadway out
to the pierhead.


A long ways off, I know, but what's the deal with building an underwater
connection between the Island and mainland?



Cost, more cost, oh, and cost. Furthermore there is a sizeable and
vociferous group of islanders who don't want it. Did I mention the cost?

When the Channel tunnel was finished there was a serious proposal to build a
cross-Solent tunnel utilising one of the redundant TBMs and the then pool of
experienced labour that would have come available. It never happened,
probably due to the cost :-) One version of the proposal envisaged reusing
the Fareham-Gosport line.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

In message
wrote:

On Thu, 07 May 2009 11:02:19 +0100 rail wrote:
Despite Polson's Petulant Whining� rebuilding as a light railway with
street running to avoid the tunnel is an option that has been considered
in the past.

Can't see that happening myself. It would cost a fortune not just to build
the new section but to convert the entire line to OHLE and no doubt 'Elf N
Softies would stick their ore in about that. And thats before they have to
find the trams from somewhere. I doubt there are many scrap value 70 year
old trams for cheap sale like their were tube trains


Probably cheaper than trying to rebore the tunnel but whether an economic
case could be made is anybody's guess. Mind you by the time they run out of
suitable tube stock there may well be some cheap trams available

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

"rail" wrote in message
...
In message
wrote:

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
Charles Ellson wrote:

AFAIR another reason for the continuing use of older tube stock is
that the motors and underfloor equipment on newer types would need
extra protection against salt spray at Ryde Pier, the alternative
being truncation of the service away from the sea.


Yet the busiest sector of the Island Line - by far - is the one between
Ryde Pier and Ryde Esplanade.

Have they thought of perhaps running some sort of shuttle service from
Ryde
Pier Head to Ryde Esplanade, allowing passengers to transfer to other
rolling stock? My guess is that this would not really be feasible,
however.

There used to be a tramway shuttle that did exactly that back in the dim
and
distant. The tracks were between the railway line proper and the roadway
out
to the pierhead.

Something like the Hythe Pier Railway? Why don't they do that, if corrosion
is going to be such a concern on newer models?

wrote:
"Tony Polson" wrote in message
.. .
wrote:


Unfortunately, both the LUL A62 and ex-BR Class 313 stock are too tall
for the tunnel at Ryde St John's Road, whose tight clearances define the
structure gauge for the Island Line.

Fair enough. But would it actually be feasible to bring in 67Ts stock or
would too many modifications indeed be required? If that is the case, I
noticed that some of Victoria Line trains' current make ups consist of 72Ts
stock. Would there be enough of them for the Island Line's requirements?


Aren't these the types that have alloy panels on a steel frame?


And what about the 83Ts, which used to run on the Jubilee, as an option?
Those actually might be good for the Island line, because I believe that
they required guards.


Haven't they been scrapped yet?

wrote in message ...
On Thu, 07 May 2009 11:02:19 +0100
rail wrote:
Despite Polson's Petulant Whining� rebuilding as a light railway with
street
running to avoid the tunnel is an option that has been considered in the
past.

Can't see that happening myself. It would cost a fortune not just to build
the new section but to convert the entire line to OHLE and no doubt 'Elf N
Softies would stick their ore in about that. And thats before they have to
find the trams from somewhere. I doubt there are many scrap value 70 year
old
trams for cheap sale like their were tube trains

B2003

Melbourne's W2 and SW2s would have been a source at one time, but Heritage
listing has prevent further sales.

DW down under

wrote in message
...
"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
wrote:


Unfortunately, both the LUL A62 and ex-BR Class 313 stock are too tall
for the tunnel at Ryde St John's Road, whose tight clearances define the
structure gauge for the Island Line.

Fair enough. But would it actually be feasible to bring in 67Ts stock or
would too many modifications indeed be required? If that is the case, I
noticed that some of Victoria Line trains' current make ups consist of
72Ts stock. Would there be enough of them for the Island Line's
requirements?

And what about the 83Ts, which used to run on the Jubilee, as an option?
Those actually might be good for the Island line, because I believe that
they required guards.

None left.