Steaming back into Ryde?

What will sink Island line is any high costing renewal of superstructure, it loses money, so you have to look at where and why, if fare revenue isnt collected that can be changed, but if the stock is rotting out, and beyond economic repair, then you have to decide on whats best, in the past, there were always suitable options from the scrap road of mainland operators, that isnt an option, now, unless you convert more tube stock, then theres the cost of running the service, for instance, what does it cost to run a 2 car unit 8 miles each way from 6 to 10 each day, and can that be changed, to say 2 hourly outside of the peak, but if reducing loses dont reduce the costs then, if you say close it, you give the bus company a free hand with public transport, is that in the public interest? whats to stop them raising fares once the railway s no more ?
the future must lie with finding a cheaper way to run the line, deisel powered ex LUL 78 stock is an option, with possible single car option for out of peak, and to market the line in the summer, when possible revenue is greater.

 

Are you suggesting they drag the Island into the 21st century by rebuilding railways from the 19th century?

 

A start would be the plan to put back the loop at Brading and remove virtually all of the signalling, with trains passing at Brading and having a 'drive on line of sight' rulebook; effectively two long single line sections with a passing loop in the middle.

 

There is of course a 3rd way, that the government publish closure notices for the Ryde pier to Shanklin Railway, then give it to the IOWSR for £1, The IOWSR, then launch an appeal for funds and voluenteers to rebuild the line, and to as and when they are able to operate a tourist service, simular to what they do on the present line. would that get peoples attension?

 

The problem with battery powered trains is that they need about twice as long to charge as they can run. Unless one can run all day on one charge there would be trains sitting at the terminal charging points instead of carrying people. I believe that the current experiment in the Anglia region is on the basis that the train would spend two-thirds of its time under the wires so charging the batteries for the other third. I may have got the proportions wrong but I think that that is the broad principle.

 

We have been here before several times and I am sorry but this is not the real world however much you want it to be. You appear strangely determined to impose the operation of a public transport service presently losing £3 million per annum on an organisation which is experienced in the totally different world of the heritage railway. And they are expected to pay as much as £1 for the "privilege"!

PH

 

In slightly similar circumstances, I think that the likes of the National Trust insist on a very substantial dowry before they will even think about taking on a liability.....

 

i think some one didnt read my post properly, once closed, there is no requirement to operate a public service , At least not of the frequency that is offered at the moment or all year round, i actually believe that a heritage operation on the Ryde Esplanade to Shanklin section would work very well, and would out shine the present operation to Wotton, and heres why, Ryde is the gateway, Sandown and Shanklin make very good destinations for the leasure market both having attractions and are family friendly , compare this to Wotton, most people go to Haven street just to experience a ride on a steam train,

 

In other words pure "wouldn't it be nice", which was clear from your first posting. IMHO there is no need for a steam train to go to Shanklin, people just go on the IOWSR for a nostalgic ride which they can do perfectly well on the stretch being operated. Whether there is a need for any sort of train to go there is what is going to exercise peoples minds and the answer to the question will be an interesting one.

PH

 

The thinking behind almost everything the heritage movement has achieved so don't knock it.

 

I wonder in Mr H's world what would the preservation world be like? as a body we have worked wonders, Tornado, i bet he would have been one of those who would have said, no don't build it, The many express locos that escaped barry, had we all followed the bible according mr H, , they should have all been not saved , well in many cases its run those or nothing, the IOW,now has 4 large engines that it never had in steam days, ivatts and austerities, should they be using them, of course they should if it saves the sole remaining 02 being worked to hard day in day out, call me a dreamer if you will, but if the chance came up, would any railway say no, we cant afford it, they would take a long term look , and see how it could be done, take the Bluebell, opening to East grinstead, was that not a wishfull thinking not so many years ago?

 

I've been trying to suss out Paul's views on heritage almost since I joined and I'm still no closer! I simply don't understand you looking down in people who dream, when our entire hobby is based on dreaming Paul!

 

You're not the only one. Our hobby is a broad church and will contain many viewpoints but almost none of what has been achieved is a result of not having a dream. Collectively or individually it's the dreamers who set the ball rolling and in many cases keeps it rolling. Where would the IoWSR be if its pioneers hadn't had the dream in the first place and thought "wouldn't it be nice if........"

 

Romanticism is one thing but try to keep a bit of sense. Finish one thing properly before starting another, i.e. extensions. Don't assume that because visitors will pay £20 they will pay £40. If you spend too much on fuel you will by unable to buy the new boilers and cylinders your equipment needs and the new upholstery your customers would appreciate. Nothing can be 100% authentic but do try a bit harder. Realise you can't save everything. There are many other things to add to these but this thread is too wayward as it is!

Recipients of a Roman triumph had someone present to whisper in their ear reminding them of their mortality. A vital function.

PH

 

I tend to regard Paul's views as reasonably consistent in fact. He believes in simplicity of structure, authenticity of presentation, and reduction in both capital and revenue expenditure. Is that right Paul? Of course it is a somewhat conservative (small 'c') position, and if the whole preservation world followed it then it is not unreasonable to assume that there would be no Welsh Highland, no Tornado and far fewer engines rescued from Barry, plus many major lines would be a lot shorter than they are (would the SVR have extended from Hampton Loade or the Bluebell from Horsted Keynes for example?). Have I interpreted correctly?

 

Paul is nothing if consistent but given the highlighted text above, perhaps he could please explain why he does not criticise his beloved IoWSR for ruining inauthentic Austerities and soon, Ivatts. Neither of these belong on the IoW historically and are recreating scenes which never happened on the Island.

 

So are you saying the Bluebell should have finished the EG extension before starting on Operation Undercover? It is quite possible to have more than one project on the go, especially if they are funded by two separate organisations and Lottery grants are involved. I still can't fathom why you have not gone in to heritage railway management as you seem to have all the answers.

 

Don't be silly! They shouldn't have started the East Grinstead extension, and operation undercover shouldn't have been needed as all the carriages fitted in the original shed in 1971 when it was built, and they should have stopped collecting then!

Thank goodness the rest of us don't think that way.

Daniel

 

I understood your post and this one, and to an extent I agree that some sort of limited heritage operation would work on the Ryde - Shanklin line. Having said that I believe the IWSR could only provide this as an occasional 'one afternoon a month in the summer' sense by running one of our trains on to their infrastructure. I think there would be quite a market for this, for a time, at least whilst the novelty lasts.

What I do not agree with is the railway taking on the whole stretch, because I think you have not understood just how small the railway is. I said earlier I am one of about fifteen drivers...how many track staff do you think we have? I think they do a great job on the five miles we have, ably assisted by working gangs for vegetation clearance, fencing etc but how would they cope with another eight miles? How would our station maintainers cope with another half dozen stations?

Then we come to the pier...because this needs some serious money, in the same league as the Bluebell tip removal...millions to secure it long term. Where would this come from?

You could not even properly run straight away! The track in the platforms is ballasted up for the tube trains, meaning an unacceptable gap; there are no run round loops for loco working instead of multiple units; then we would need to qualify our staff on the signalling control system.....

People have been talking of the Bluebell extension, which in some ways is a good parallel because the pre extension BB was a five mile line and the extension is seven miles and included a big bill for one part, whereas the IWSR would be eight miles and include the pier. However Bluebell's was a project that was done by a much larger (members, staff, budget etc) organisation IN STAGES over two decades. You are advocating a substantially smaller railway does a proportionally bigger extension overnight!

I just don't think this is a sustainable idea.

 

Agreed. Paul has a very narrow view and seems to believe that "one size fits all" in the heritage world. I think many of us are of the opinion that it doesn't. Whilst some challenges will be common to all heritage railways, they each have aspects unique to themselves and thus unique solutions.