Steaming back into Ryde?

Moving on from analysing Paulh's views and back to what martin1656 suggested, any talk of "wouldn't it be nice" for the IOWSR to do something IF Island Line closed, let us remember that it is the predicted capital spend required to keep Island Line open that has caused this Forum (though, not from anything I have seen the actual operators, DfT or local authorities - yet) to talk of closure. Fort any type of continued operation, it would therefore seem considerable money would still need spending. Even if the £40 million on here were excessive by a factor of 4, and the heritage sector could make the renewals for a quarter of the network price, you are still talking £2.5 million.

Whilst preservation does like to believe it can do things cheaper than the national network, it would have to admit it also has to do them slower. From my own memories of Island Line and a quick look at Google Earth, there doesn't seem to be any major bridges or structures - other, of course, than the Ryde tunnel (which I believe had major work done just a few years back) and of course Ryde Pier.

Of course, it does all depend what needs doing for the present Island Line to remain running as it is now - track work and renewal of electrical systems (and rolling stock) would seem the obvious requirements. If a bulk of the quoted renewal costs were actually for Esplanade to Pier Head, then the remainder may be more affordable (and the costs relating to the Pier may well be the responsibility of the Pier owners and involve much worked need to enable the Pier to remain in any sort of use).

The simple fact is we don't know but any debate (and I realise this is a "forum" for debate) must remember that any version of these costs based on the information we have would be a big ask for any heritage line - but not impossible!

Where I would suggest paulh is missing a trick is potential usage of the line. As he says, at the moment, the IOWSR market is those going for a steam train ride for its own sake. A longer journey from one place to another still provides this opportunity. Why restrict yourself to the pure "visitor" market if there is an opportunity to serve an "A to B" market as well? Let me be clear - a steam railway can only go somewhere at a price and speed which those who only wanted to get to that place would be unlikely to be interested in, but enabling people to combine a nostalgic steam train ride with getting to a destination where they can spend some time and then return provides an attractive package in itself, attracting those who may not have either the time or inclination to do just a train ride for train ride's sake as well as the existing passengers.

Whether it is worthwhile depends on costing the extra operating and infrastructure costs, the terms of access to the extra journey length and an assessment of demand. This would reveal whether it was desirable. Then the matter of how it is resourced would need looking at, but it may be possible to provide an extended service with similar resources deployed differently (I am sure that some will have managed to detect an under-current of actual experience in my comments - as a for instance, the expanded Whitby service on the NYMR runs fewer miles on 2 of the 3 timetables, and needs fewer footplate crews at times because of a timetable recast).

However, the BIGGEST caution I would advise is that, interesting though it is for members of a railway internet forum to discuss "what ifs", the IOWSR itself must not appear to be officially seeking closure of Island Line in order to expand. That would put it in a very bad place with the local population and authorities and a poor negotiating place if it were decided that Island line should close in its present form. Worst of all, a belief that the IOWSR were "champing at the bit" to take over the line could only encourage a belief that the present operation could be closed without ill effect.

Steven

 

Agreed, except that the Bluebell project was actually 4 decades, not two! The original work (which was primarily legal and property in nature, rather than anything recognisably "railway preservation") was started in the mid 1970s; the final culmination was 2013. The size of organisations is also germane, since to a certain extent, the bigger the organisation, the more capacity it has both in fundraising and skills / labour resources: the Bluebell is currently a bit short of 11,000 members (admittedly it wasn't that size back in the 1970s); whereas I believe the IoWSR is roughly six or seven times smaller in membership.

The other thing to consider is the strain put on rolling stock availability. To operate a five mile line, the IoWSR generally needs one engine and one rake of carriages, stretching to two at galas, peaks etc. So a fleet of about four engines available for traffic and about 10 carriages suffices, though even that can be tight at times. If you tried to run to Ryde to Shanklin, you would probably need the current availability on the Ryde- Wooton section, but then double the number (i.e. a regular two train service) on Ryde - Shanklin - that's roughly three engines and three sets of carriages in traffic on every operating day; probably 7 or 8 locos and maybe 20-30 carriages would need to be serviceable to allow for routine maintenance. That in turn means a huge extra workshop capacity and throughput, even if the vehicles were available.

Could one organisation operate both lines? I'm sure one could, but it would be a radically transformed IoWSR to make it happen. In particular, it is not something that could happen overnight - it would need a long period of ramping up the availability of locos, carriages and volunteers. If you were asked to take it on overnight, for the nominal £1 fee, you would collapse in a heap before the first season was halfway through. And that is assuming the terminus was St John's - assuming responsibility for Ryde Pierhead would, I suspect, make Imberhorne tip look like a child's sandpit.

Tom

 

If the comments of IoWSR volunteers on here is representative, not much danger of that!

Tom (IoWSR member, but not volunteer)

 

Any comments on here are the views of individuals, the views of the IWSR have been expressed by the General Manager and are available on the website and in the press.

I would like to make clear that whilst I am an IWSR volunteer my comments on this website are entirely my own views and are no reflection on the organisation. For what it is worth I would like to see island line continue and the steam line extend to St. John's Road existing side by side.

 

For anyone on the mainland, the ferry crossing would make it both time consuming and expensive to regularly volunteer on the IOW. Is this likely to limit the number of potential volunteers?

 

The opportunity for a better rail system on the Island was lost during the closures in the mid 60s with the loss of the through line to Ventnor and the lines to Newport and Cowes. At least all of the major population centres would have been served.

Closure of Island line would be in my opinion a disaster for the IOWSR, does anybody really think that it would be gifted the closed line in its entirety? No the continued existence and operation of Island line is vital for both the Island and for the IOWSR. A slow controlled expansion of activities first to St Johns and then possibly to Esplanade would be long term aspirations for the Steam Railway.

 

Gary, i actually agree with you, but will the council and people who sit in offices miles away on the mainland? to them its a - on a balance sheet, the ideal situation, would be to to keep island line as part of the network, but with a local management who operate it and have re engined surface tube stock running on diesel power, and agreements to shared operation, from esplanade to Small brook, and a direct connection between the lines, the operating company could then hire the 03,or 05 and some wagons for when it needs to maintain the PW, and at the same time, the route could be gauged so that an IOW steam loco can run between esplanade and Sandown, just a gauging run, to clear things for future events. then very occationally , in the off season, when times are slack, a gala type operation could be held, shared between both lines, a DMU from pier head to wotton, and A Terrier and 4 wheelers to Sandown, Calbourne and an ivatt on display in ryde yard, engineering shops open, that sort of thing?

 

Martin it would be "nice" for any of that to happen, I think that the intension is for Island line to become a community railway which should remove some of the Network Rail requirements. As an example we are hiring a tamping machine during the winter to do a full line tamp, you would think that the obvious thing to happen is that it would tamp Island line during its visit. Well no, it will not be because the owning company are not Network Rail approved. So another approved Tamping Machine will have to make the expensive trip over to the Island with no doubt a much higher hire charge to do the same job. Removing these restrictions will start to make Island Line a little more viable.

As for steam hauled trips on Island line I think that is something we would all like to see, but we will all have to be patient and wait to see what is going to be proposed for the future of Island Line.

 

to a degree thats my point, by working together , how much could be saved by both lines? and shared access would be the best of all worlds, take a tamper, if the NR requirement wasnt so strict, it doesnt need to be as island line has a 45 mph max speed limit i beleave, then by sharing the costs your railway would have got a better deal. When Network South east ran the line, i think the plan was for Smallbrook to be a tempory platform only with your services running into Ryde SJ in a few years, if they would have been allowed to have done so,

 

Actualy gary, theres one thing i overlooked, Shared access works both ways, have you started on the ryde pier tram yet, you might well need it, and a trailer car with destination blinds reading all stations to Wotton ,on one side, and havenstreet, Ashey, Ryde St Johns, Ryde Esplanade and pier head on the other in fact thats the answer, build a batch of them, for island line use

 

If two standard gauge railways, a few yards apart, both with professional railwaymen in the team, both regulated by ORR, can't agree to share a bit of on-track plant that they both need, there is probably scope for improvement. Or some smacked bottoms.

IOW Council's response to the last NR RUS is here http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...ltation responses/i/isle of wight council.pdf and their enthusiasm for rubber wheeled trams is palpable. Sadly, IOWSR does not have a rubber wheeled steam engine so, unchecked, that will be that. Rubber wheeled trams would require a legal closure, with all the emotion and cost that goes with it. There is no reason that IOWSR and the CRP shouldn't take on the Island Line franchise and subsidy that goes with it. By way of comparative numbers, Stagecoach pays NR £600,000 per annum in track access fees (including traction current) for 8 miles, while Wensleydale leases their 22 miles from NR for £20,000 on a repairing lease agreement. That is NOT to say that IOWSR would be £580,000 cheaper than NR if it ran the whole job - merely that there is some financial wriggle room for the bit on terra firma. I find it hard to believe that £600,000 is not enough to renew a 1967 sub-station, but NR moves in mysterious ways its arithmetic to perform.

In 2011 the Australians sank £5 million into their pier after it frightened their inspector more than usual and he closed it. Structural engineers are notoriously enigmatic about what things cost, and what you get for your money, but it seems now to be fit for 38 stock. A helpful Civil Engineer would be able to calculate the incremental cost of raising the limit to take a pair of Terriers top'n'tailed out to Pierhead. If a steam train at the Pier attracts only 10,000 new passengers to Wightlink every year, they are £100,000 up on receipts without having to run a single extra sailing or spending a penny on marketing. The business formula that worked for Whitby might work for Ryde too. Why shouldn't it?

I would cheerfully buy a Wightlink ticket to watch Gary's face when his beautiful green babies get splashed by a big wave.

 

Just to clarify about the pier, do not forget that there are actually 3 piers, the vehicle pier, the tramway pier and the railway pier. It was the vehicle pier that frightened Wightlink, since the repairs it has a 10mph speed limit and a £1 charge. I dread to think how much the railway pier is likely to cost !

 

Thanks Gary. Ryde is a far away place of which I, quite learly, know little! I will go away and practice pier counting!

 

Quite on the contrary, the rolling stock storage should have come first. By no means the only place this is true of.

PH

 

thanks Bean-counter, thats what i was trying to point out , that as good as it is, and its still one of my favourate preserved line, it is very much a trip from nowhere to nowhere via Havenstreet. the only marketable thing the railway has is its a historic steam railway using historic vehicles, if it were able to go from somewhere, such as Ryde to a place of interest to the family market, you should be able to attract a larger client base, which would mean more money to invest in the railway.

 

This shows how even a sensible heritage railway professional can fall victim to "wouldn't it be nice"(sorry Stephen!) which is an affliction most enthusiasts suffer from at one time or another, not excluding myself when younger. The cure is exposure to just how many extra local people actually would use the service in relation to the extra costs incurred. As in a number of other aspects I quite accept that the NYMR may well be an exception.

Paul H

 

But the NYMR isn't an exception, SVR and WSR both have people regularly using it as a service, when GWSR gets to Broadway it is expected we will act the same, so why not IoWSR?

 

In other words no different from a large number of other similar lines. However, being is on an island (yes indeed!) it means, a few locals apart, "the client base" is that brought to the island by ferry or hovercraft and nothing else. If they want to travel on a steam train they already have the opportunity but if they don't they won't. The future of the Ryde to Shanklin service is a delicate matter and won't be assisted by "Gricers in Wonderland" over-romanticising.

As with andrewtopliss I would emphasise these are my personal views.

PH

 

That conveniently ignores the fact that the site for Operation Undercover didn't become available until quite recently in the life of the Bluebell so they really never had the option to do it before extending to EG. Perhaps you could suggest where else on Bluebell land to could have been built.