In message ,
writes

Longer term save money pumping the tunnel dry and return to the street
route used by the original pier trams.

The original route could be problematic - it passed through the middle
of a private house! See second photo down at:

http://www.insula.vecta.btinternet.c...agePlaces.html
--
Paul Terry

In article ,
(Paul Terry) wrote:

This proposal didn't include using the St John's Road tunnel,
though, where I think there wouldn't be enough clearance for a
tram's overhead gear - although I wouldn't have thought it beyond
the wit of engineers to use battery power plus a system for
automatically lowering the overhead gear (as on the Rome trolleybus
network).

Space for the overhead line isn't the problem. Single deck trams are much
taller than tube trains.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 08/07/2011 00:37, Neil Williams wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 22:50:24 +0100, wrote:
loops and much simpler signaling. Longer term save money pumping the
tunnel dry and return to the street route used by the original
pier trams.

Isn't the tunnel the only reason for the need for tiny trains?

Trams might well offer a solution, especially if they could be run by
Southern Vectis as part of their bus network.

Neil

Will the new trains have guards or will they be one-man operation?

In message ,
writes

Space for the overhead line isn't the problem. Single deck trams are much
taller than tube trains.

There's quite a bit of clearance above the height of a tube train:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/richard...s/z/in/photost
ream/

In fact, at one stage BR class 503s from Merseyside were going to be
used on the line. Here's a rare picture of clearance trials:

http://www.gscalecentral.co.uk/f/dow...?file=1;127888

However, the length of the 503s proved to be a problem, as there is a
tight S-bend in the tunnel, hence the adoption of tube stock (plus, the
aluminium-bodied stock was much better able to cope with salt spray on
the pier).

If the tram proposal does go ahead (which I think is unlikely), it is
more likely to adopt street running, as the proposal for the Ryde Relief
Road would take traffic away from the Esplanade (which is currently the
main road through the town).

--
Paul Terry

"Paul Terry" wrote in message

In message ,
writes

Space for the overhead line isn't the problem. Single deck trams are
much taller than tube trains.

There's quite a bit of clearance above the height of a tube train:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/richard...s/z/in/photost
ream/

In fact, at one stage BR class 503s from Merseyside were going to be
used on the line. Here's a rare picture of clearance trials:

http://www.gscalecentral.co.uk/f/dow...?file=1;127888

However, the length of the 503s proved to be a problem, as there is a
tight S-bend in the tunnel, hence the adoption of tube stock (plus,
the aluminium-bodied stock was much better able to cope with salt
spray on the pier).

But they haven't used aluminium-bodied tube stock on the IoW. I seem to
remember reading that these might have more bimetallic corrosion
problems than steel-bodied stock, which is why they still have some of
the last steel-bodied LU stock.

In article ,
(Paul Terry) wrote:

In message ,
writes

Space for the overhead line isn't the problem. Single deck trams are
much taller than tube trains.

There's quite a bit of clearance above the height of a tube train:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/richard...z/in/photostre
am/

Is that enough for a modern tram though?

In fact, at one stage BR class 503s from Merseyside were going to
be used on the line. Here's a rare picture of clearance trials:

http://www.gscalecentral.co.uk/f/dow...?file=1;127888

However, the length of the 503s proved to be a problem, as there is
a tight S-bend in the tunnel, hence the adoption of tube stock
(plus, the aluminium-bodied stock was much better able to cope with
salt spray on the pier).

Ho-ho! Aluminium-bodied stock has never been used on the island though
there was a bit of aluminium in the 1934 Standard stock. I understand that
electrolytic corrosion on the pier (all ali-bodied stock has some steel in
it) was the reason why no stock withdrawn since the 1938 steel-bodied
stock has been used on the Island.

If the tram proposal does go ahead (which I think is unlikely), it
is more likely to adopt street running, as the proposal for the
Ryde Relief Road would take traffic away from the Esplanade (which
is currently the main road through the town).

Wow! Would that be the second new road on the island in 70 years? I still
use my parents' 1940s 1" OS map of the island. Apart from the railway
closures and the Newport bypass there has been surprisingly little change.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message ,
writes

In article ,
(Paul Terry) wrote:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/richard...z/in/photostre
am/

Is that enough for a modern tram though?

Not for the large Croydon-type, but they come in many sizes and the
low-floor ones are often under 3m (excluding overhead). But low-floor
would mean rebuilding platforms along the line, and there's never been
enough money for any serious work on the island line.

Ho-ho! Aluminium-bodied stock has never been used on the island

Ah, thanks to you (and recliner) for correcting faulty memory.

--
Paul Terry

In message , Graham Harrison
writes

Is some/all of the Victoria Line stock going to Eastleigh for
scrapping? I ask because I caught a glimpse of one carriage on a low
loader going through Eastleigh.

I passed another this morning, just before Heathrow, going west down the
M4. I guess it could have been heading for Eastleigh via the M25 and M3.
--
Paul Terry

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
news
In message , Graham Harrison
writes

Is some/all of the Victoria Line stock going to Eastleigh for scrapping?
I ask because I caught a glimpse of one carriage on a low loader going
through Eastleigh.

I passed another this morning, just before Heathrow, going west down the
M4. I guess it could have been heading for Eastleigh via the M25 and M3.

According to the Eastleigh works website, some 67 stock is there for
storage...

Paul S