Steaming back into Ryde?

I can oblige you, PH, although I take no pleasure in doing it! I defend my position on two grounds; firstly, steam trains out on the pier, especially the rather gorgeous non-Mk 1 version as peddled by IOWSR, could rank with the Brocken as a European tourism "must-do"; neither of us can conclusively disprove the business case as it impacts on the island economy. It was the defining USP of the "old" island railway and would be genuinely unique (in the world) if revived. Secondly, having dealt with all the players, IOWSR Board and Chief Officers are in my opinion very professional and competent and geared up to run small tourist railways without hemorrhaging red ink . Investors, social or hard cash, would back them as credible. The others, with respect, are huge, or remote, or intellectually clunky, or all three. Just how seriously can SWT/NR "Deep Alliance" take the island when they have SWML and West of England to maintain and massive capacity problems to address. IOWSR is the only resource of home grown railway talent and Terriers are not that much heavier than '38 stock (and should appeal to you as "small engines"!). The pier is a huge liability but it might also be the tourism sleeping giant that IOW needs to compete for visitors. Ribblehead is not so different financially and that is now politically untouchable. There is £2 million a year subsidy up for grabs and I cannot see how IOWSR could be any worse than the Byzantine Puzzle Palace that runs it now. And now I am going to hide in my air raid shelter!

 

Is their a £2 million subsidy up for grabs? It is my understanding from an IOWSR director today that at present SWT have to absorb any loses.

 

I think people are overcomplicating this - the simple solution is for Island Line to operate as a single track through Ryde, using the far side of the Island platform.

The IWSR can have a run-round loop using the current through platforms.

The island platform can be accessed by a path under the overbridge and beyond the headshunt used by the IWSR to run-round. Arches and openings exist for this.

Chris

 

I do not quite understand this, the section would work as two parallel single lines, one IWSR, one Islandline. This is as it used to be many decades ago!

 

That is right, in the winter, Smalbrook box was locked out and the section to Ryde ran as two separate lines, the only problem i see in providing disabled access to platfors 2&3, as the section to be crossed is going to be non electrified, can you have a gate and boarded crossing ? , that would allow a connection to be maintained with the Island line directly into platform 2 so what you could have is the island line trains use platform 3, but where they would take the siding route into 3, then the point could be locked, or controlled from the box, giving access to platform 2, the run round between platforms 1 and 2 could then be nearer the bridge. nearer the station, that way you have a way to transfer plant, or if needed a way to use platform 2,

 

Yes G-F-G I had thought better of you and you do need to find sanctuary from people wielding heated pokers after the manner of the Bishop of Bath and Wells! Just come to the island and see for yourself how close high water spring tides come to the rails. The go to Havenstreet and inspect the work that has had to be done to rectify corrosion caused to carriage underframes by seawater. No sensible person would wish to return to the situation which brought about this damage if they didn't have to, which they don't.

There is also the small matter of the maintenance and restoration of passenger stock which is all a minimum of ninety one years old. All of it has wooden mouldings which require highly skilled labour. A further four or five bogie carriages cannot be magicked into existence by waving a magic wand from afar, muttering the fell incantation "wouldn't it be nice" and vanishing into a cloud of wishful thinking.

PH

 

I understand there would have to be a proper crossing, ie some sort of platform extension across the track to convert 1 and 2 into terminus platforms, hence why you might need to extend the platform south to provide a full train length once the headshunt is taken into account. I have not been for some time though so this is my understanding, not necessarily definitive.

Another thing, I believe the Brading loop proposal removes the need for St Johns Road Signal Box, so do not assume it will be there to control anything! As I said from an Islandline perspective the whole thing from Brading to Pierhead would be as one long single line section. The depot entry and exit could be controlled from a new installation within the depot, it would only be one set of points and only operated once per morning and once or twice per evening.

 

Watching a video on u tube on the island line. I see trains use platform one at Ryde and before entering the tunnel they cross over to the other right hand side of the line to enter the right hand tunnel. Is there any reason why this happens and can island line trains still use the left hand tunnel without to much work required by network rail. The other issue would be who would cover the cost of the left hand tunnel being used for both directions. With out this happening steam won't get back to Ryde.

 

I don't see the problem - keep the current platforms, have the headshunt the far side of the bridge, and run the access to the island platform around that.

There are suitable openings in the overbridge for this path and it would be little if any further to walk than going via the footbridge.

Both tunnel bores are used, but only one platform at Esplanade - they only use the crossover in the Down direction.

Chris

 

My understanding is that Smallbrook to Esplanade is double track and is worked as such, it is usual for the 2 sets in use to pass on the double track section.

 

Isnt there a footbridge between platforms 1 and 2? and if The steam railway have plans at some stage to run further into esplanade, then why build a further barrier, as how to at some stage thy might have to think again, how to get disabled acess to platforms 2 and 3

 

I have not been for ages Chris, so would depend on what can be fitted in, I cannot say for definite, but I believe we could not put in a track level crossing (gated or not) as new.

 

The path would run around the end of the headshunt, beyond the bufferstops - no crossing is needed and it could provide a level or lightly ramped route suitable for the disabled.

Chris

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmtran/145/145wec14.htm

It appears in the text of the opening summary. It is a bit historic, but unless an extra 200,000 pax have suddenly turned up, or they've made ASLEF's very expensive front end redundant, it won't have changed much. If SWT isn't getting it direct, they will be getting it another way. Stagecoach are a very well run business but they aren't given to altruism. Even IOWSR website says so "
The railway continues to attract considerable subsidy to remain operational" in the timeline section. However, it also says they 38 stock is now home owned, so that will have taken a slug of leasing cost piracy out.

And my apologies to PH, aka the baby eating Bishop of Bath & Wells. I am so not into red hot pokers, wherever they end up. I hate the sizzling noise. But the coaches, with their delicate mouldings, did used to get wet, in fact they were famous for it. I have been to Haven Street, I think the coaches are simply drop dead gorgeous, the disabled conversion is breathtaking and sympathetic, and I have been a fan of Lord Walker of Paintshop's brush strokes since the 1980s. I just think that one unified organisation, led by IOWSR and the current CRP, would work better.

 

Island Line has since become an integral part of the South Western franchise run by SWT, which I don't believe receives any direct subsidy - some lines are profitable, others like Ryde-Shanklin are loss-making. It's not a question of altruism, it's part of the franchise agreement and they factor the costs into their bid.

Chris

 

So, presumably, there would be an adjustment to the treasury premium due from them in the event of Island Line closing

 

For a bit of light relief, cast your mind back 100 years ago, or thereabouts:

"Somewhat disillusioned by these failures to contain, if not reduce, the [Isle of Wight Railway] Company's expenses, the Board sought to increase the revenue by advertising the pleasures of holidaying on the Isle of Wight throughout the Midlands and North of England as well as in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Attempts were also made to persuade hoteliers to extend the tourist season by offering attractive terms for early and late holidays. Revenue was increased as a result, but critical attention was drawn to the lack of modern heating and lighting in the carriages, and the strictly limited power of the engines, with the notable exception of Brading and Bonchurch [n.b. typical Isle of Wight 2-4-0Ts]. More powerful engines, modern rolling stock and some track doubling was necessary if the line's full potential was to be realised, but at an estimated cost of £31,000 any such action appeared unlikely in the foreseeable future, although hopes of finding a cheaper alternative were raised in April 1908 when Siemens Brothers offered to survey the line with the intention of electrifying passenger services. The Board hastily accepted the offer and in November 1908 received the following report:-

£65,000: Overhead traction wires for the mainline and essential sidings, five electric engines and existing carriage stock modernised.

£73,000: Overhead traction wires for all lines, five electric engines and existing carriage stock modernised.

£87,000: Third rail traction for all lines and six multiple unit trains, each accommodating 308 passengers and luggage. Savings in working were estimated as £9,000 to £11,000 per year with trains being crewed by drivers and guards only, the maximum running speed increased to 35mph, an additional passing loop installed at Wroxall and the track layout simplified at Ventnor.

This confirmed the Board's fears that all modernisation schemes were totally beyond the Company's means and consequently it was reluctantly agreed to make the best use of existing resources."

(From D.L. Bradley, "A Locomotive History of the railways on the Isle of Wight")

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!

Tom

 

[QUOTE="paulhitch, post: 1040466, member: 3745"
Now the weary anticipation of "wouldn't it be nice to run steam trains along the pier again."

PH[/QUOTE]
Can we pleeeese but only on one condition, we tie PH to the sleepers just before high tide, then we can have a forum vote on what gets him first, the sea, or the engine

 

Look, its fine to dream. I cycled part of the Meon Valley the other day and spent a long time musing about how much better a preserved line it would have made that the Alton and Winchester. However, my daydream was just that, and I cant turn the clock back, some realism has to be had.

Ryde Pierhead would be a unique spectacle as G-F-G says, and may well attract additional visitors to the island, though I think if it were to be as effective as the Hartz it would have to be part of a broader effort to restore steam to all parts of the island line and beyond to areas that long since ceased to have trains. In other words I feel that on its own (i.e. just an extension of the IOWSR from Smallbrook to Pierhead) it would not have sufficient "draw". If it were one part of a steam railway system linking Ryde with Shanklin, Ventnor, Cowes and Newport (the better part of the old system) THEN we would be talking about something with enough "draw". This could only be achieved with government money, and sustained with a grant to run (diesel probably) trains that provided a transport function alongside the vintage steam (rather like the Hartz and other German lines). It isn't going to happen at present.

If "draw" cant be shown then the IOWSR would be better off not going to the Pier unless someone else is paying.

There is a case for finding alternative ways to run or reinstate railways for communities that does not involve the byzantine network rail etc structure. Politically I think we are still some distance from seeing that actually happen though. Working to pave the way for such schemes is perhaps one of the next "mission impossible" tasks for heritage railways to take on.

 

Can we pleeeese but only on one condition, we tie PH to the sleepers just before high tide, then we can have a forum vote on what gets him first, the sea, or the engine [/QUOTE]

Don't be like that - at least Paul actually thinks about the big issues facing the movement - I may not always agree with his conclusions, and he is far from the only one on here who does think about such things, but it is all too rare in a wider sphere to find those who even understand the questions, let alone have an angle on possible answers!

Steven