Steaming back into Ryde?

I wonder how many other places had a similar option but took the seemingly easier route?

As I have already discussed, I don't think many railways really had the choice of using non-corridor stock exclusively. The Bluebell and perhaps the KESR and KWVR in their early days,a, and any line that got going just as the ex-Kings Cross stock was disposed of (the NNR stocked up at that time, for example) but there never was anything like the number of ready to run Mk 1 suburbans compared to the corridor variety.

The IoWSR was unique in that all its operable coaches were of non-corridor pre-grouping origin and there was enough capacity available to suffice until more could be restored. If it hadn't already had the operable coaches it would inevitably had to go for alternative ready to run stuff in the form of Mk 1s. That's why you cannot extrapolate the IoWSR experience to the rest of the heritage railways in the country.

 

I believe that the T68s were considered, but probably not for long!

 

If they have to stand, they have an uncomfortable journey, they consider that not A Good Day Out and so they don't come back = loss of revenue.

Or if it's all compartment stock and they physically cannot fit on and don't want to wait for a later train, they stomp back to the booking office and demand a refund = loss of revenue.

Then, in either case, they wail and gnash their teeth on the likes on TripAdvisor, which may put others off = potential loss of revenue.

It's not always the blindingly obvious we have to consider, Tom. Of all the people on here I thought you would appreciate that, being one of the more level headed and not prone to the self-aggrandising "I'm right and everybody else is wrong" outbursts that come from certain quarters!

And we must never underestimate the GBP's capacity for having a strop if they don't have the 'perfect' day out...

 

I think we all need to develop a better sense of irony! Thee and me included

PH

 

I don't see IOWSR taking over SWT services as being a viable option. It appears to me the electric services are already run on a shoestring and any change would be likely only to increase costs, even volunteer labour couldn't make it work imo.

Would it be a viable option (in lieu of total closure) to maintain the Pier Head to St John's service by rationalising the existing electric equipment and extending steam to St John's to meet it, and abandoning or mothballing the southern part of the line?

 

Indeed - what you don't get is a loss on the day, but an uncomfortable experience could indeed lead to a future loss. Which is why most railways (and certainly the opinion of our new plc Chairman) is to over-provide on seats - as he says, many of our passengers have spent all week standing on their daily commute, and don't want to stand when they come for a day out. Nominally, our 10 compartment SECR thirds (= 20 doors per coach, for those like @flying scotsman123 who are counting!) seat 100 passengers and indeed are colloquially referred to as the "100 seaters" - but that would be quite a crush. If you got 80 passengers evenly distributed, it would feel quite full. The four wheeler LCDR 5 compartment third is similar - nominally 50 seats, but in practical terms it would feel full with 40 people. Inevitably that tends to mean running longer trains than the nominal seat capacity might suggest are needed - I suspect even the IoWSR aren't regularly packing out their five coach trains to 350 every trip!

Tom

 

Actually, trains have been a bit crowded both on account of a busy season and the need to rectify corrosion damage to the underframe of the highest capacity vehicle set off by salt water on the pier all those years ago. It is the very devil to keep a watch on until sudden deterioration happens and this issue has a large bearing on the future of Ryde to Shanklin. Times between stops are short though which is a beau ideal for heritage railways.

L.N.E.R. specialists will correct me, but I understand it was the policy of that company to make very generous provision of carriages in relation to loadings, with the exception of the streamliners which had 100% seat reservation. Thus large motive power was required to lug all the tare weight around.

PH

 

Agreed. For a heritage railway to commence services it needs both motive power and passenger stock and in many cases they had no option but to go with what's available. If the IoW non corridor stick had been replaced with cascaded corridor stick prior to the end of steam, the steam railway would have been in much the same position as many other heritage lines.

 

One of the bigger problems of non corridor coaches on longer lines is the lack of toilets in them as Jo Public will expect them. (yes I know the reason why there are none on the IOWR coaches with the toilets removed from any which contained toilets on the mainland)

 

In theory perhaps but in practice they have a tendency either not to be operable or for the user to need to be in a state of terminal desperation to face them. There are plenty of trains operating on "real" railways running over significant distances which do not have such facilities and the situation is really no different from going out for a drive in a motor car or a ride in a service bus. We are not dealing with long distance non-stop trains, certainly not between Ryde and Shanklin!

PH

 

Corridor access 507/8's on Merseyrail run inter city services Chester - Liverpool, no toilets..... Due for renewal soon, so lookout IOW.

 

I tend to find non-corridor stuff lovely for short runs, but on anything taking longer than about 30 minutes it does start to get very uncomfortable and you begin to notice the lack of facilities. It can also feel rather claustrophobic if the compartment is close to or at capacity. As an experience I would generally put it above a Mark 1, but below the Teaks on the SVR or NYMR or the Maunsells on the Bluebell.

 

My experience is somewhat different. I have found very good on board loos, in some cases better than those on some trains on the "big railway'. As for "plenty" of trains not having loos on the "real" railway, these are in the minority these days surely. Comparing it with a car is nonsense as you can stop and use public conveniences or nip behind a hedge if you're taken short.

 

No "surely" about it in certain parts of the country with newish stock. Can we start playing the ball rather than other players in these discussions?

PH

 

Says the man who told me to get out more.
So for my education, which classes don't have loos? 313, 314, 315, 507 and 508 didn't have any when I last travelled on one but I can't recall any others - LUL excluded.

 

[QUOTE. As for "plenty" of trains not having loos on the "real" railway, these are in the minority these days surely. Comparing it with a car is nonsense as you can stop and use public conveniences or nip behind a hedge if you're taken short.[/QUOTE]
Hmm
if you are misguided enough to use the Southern 313s on the West Coastway you find no toilets for journeys nigh on 2 hours so you can guess what the corridor connection smell like. The trains will not wait for you to use a station toilet.
Not sure the PEP stock will be fit for much further use anyway, I saw the 508s that were at Eastliegh were rotting away behind the removed door footsteps and if you are at a LC watching the 313 go past if you look closely in the sunshine you can see the corrosion bubbles pushing the filler out especially at the bottom of the cabs. They are just about 40 years old now.

Brian

 

378s don't have loos, though they are designed for short journeys in reality - rare is the person who (like my brother in law) regularly uses it for Stratford to Richmond.

 

In response to a comment of yours I fear.
Q.E.D.
I had in mind units used along the south coast whatever their number might be. Never been one for train numbers I fear.

PH

 

Hmm
if you are misguided enough to use the Southern 313s on the West Coastway you find no toilets for journeys nigh on 2 hours so you can guess what the corridor connection smell like. The trains will not wait for you to use a station toilet.
Not sure the PEP stock will be fit for much further use anyway, I saw the 508s that were at Eastliegh were rotting away behind the removed door footsteps and if you are at a LC watching the 313 go past if you look closely in the sunshine you can see the corrosion bubbles pushing the filler out especially at the bottom of the cabs. They are just about 40 years old now.

Brian[/QUOTE]

Had the misfortune to catch a 313 late one evening via the Hertford loop. Not an experience I'm keen to repeat. It's not just on long journeys that people sometimes get caught short and on these occasions an on train loo can be a boon. Anyone who's had kids will know only too well the cry of "I want a wee," usually just after you've left home/station/(insert location of choice).

 

Of course you're sinned against rather than the sinner. Physician health thyself.
It's the 313 units you have in mind but these are not the only units on that route, the others have loos. See burminster's post regarding the delights of travelling the Coastway in a 313.
Even if there is "plenty" of trains on the "real" railway without toilets, that doesn't make it an ideal or even desirable situation there or on heritage railways. IMO working loos are a useful addition to on board services and a heritage railway would be foolish to abolish them on every train, even if only a minority of passengers have need of them.