Isle of Wight Steam Railway

Oh no not further WIBN!

 

Thanks

 

I just turn my phone 90° to a landscape position and it appears.

 

Thanks that works

 

From the web

The Brighton Belle will be great when it eventually gets back on the mainline.
But agree battery opration might be better for limited use of 483s in Epping and IoW

 

If its what your theoretical deep pocket perhaps lottery winner funder wants why not, his money not the railways. I never suggested it would be a sensible standalone business proposition and I suspect we can both point to many many other WIBN in the heritage sector, indeed the whole sector is a case of WIBN if you think about getting a capital return long term.
B

 

Au contraire, height should be fine.

IWSR platforms appear roughly comparable to St Johns/Brading/Sandown which, thanks to some 60's cost-cutting, remain little changed from the steam era - any step should be minimal.

The issue with Island Line going forward is the platform height - 1100mm/3ft6in - needed to give 484s level boarding.

 

WIBN in the 1950 was understandable No-one knew any better This does not hold good seventy years later People ought to realise a bit better now just what is involved.

 

Were there no modifications made when things went over to 'tube trains' the first time then? I know Havenstreet is a step up into the carriage, but I'd not thought it was low enough to step into a 38

 

At Smallbrook, the Island Line platform certainly seems very low in comparison to the IOWSR one.

 

Thanks so much- for years I’ve been wondering how on earth people ever knew the post numbers. Now I wish there was an equally simple way (someone please tell me if there is) to navigate to the given post number if a link wasn’t given.

 

Can you also tell us how to easily type a degree symbol as well?

Tom

 

Brading was left unchanged from the steam days at first I believe, and there was a small step down, So in theory, the 483 should if its decided to make use of it, either by battery, or as hauled stock be ok are the two match wagons moved to Havenstreet staying, if they are, can the couplers be made compatible to the Ward type as used on the 38's

 

The IOWSR has already got a couple of ex LT hopper wagons with Ward type couplers, which could be used to move 007 as necessary - discussed further up this thread.

What use does the IOWSR have in mind for the two match wagons recently arrived though? Would seem strange to move them there just to scrap them, unless the IOWSR are wanting some of the parts.

 

Depends on your point of view. I've lost most of my interest in the railway I used to support because the management (I loose the term loosely to cover both Trust and Plc, not picking out individuals) seem to be only interested in running a tourist line rooted in the late 50s /early 60s, with absolutely no interest in improving what is on offer by expanding the breadth of coverage - I'm sure that in their eyes what I'm talking about WIBN. Well to unlock my wallet a bit of WIBN has to be part of a project.

 

Deleted

 

I don't think the match wagons are ours! Plus the other hopper

 

Aside from Pier Head and Esplanade, nothing obvious - the relevant Silsbury & Maycock book describes approval for various changes to contain costs, including a maximum 9 inch difference in carriage/platform height and cutting the budget for altering platforms/raising track by a third.

The step down is clear in photos of Standard Stock, but as seen below 483s have a higher floor - it seems NSE raised their bodies by 2-3 inches if the dimensions I've found are correct.

https://expresstrains.smugmug.com/Isle-of-Wight/4VEC-3TIS-ex-Standard-stock/i-5wg8G8N/A

The step boards on the steam stock are a useful way of comparing platform heights, and Havenstreet looks pretty consistent with Brading, St Johns, Sandown etc - 484001 is quite useful too, it clearly sits much higher at Shanklin than elsewhere.

 

Also the 38TS are fitted with Wedgelock, not Ward couplings.

Regards,

Dan

 

From what I've read, the IOWSR are getting the one in better condition of the 3 available.
If the plan it to just let the IOWSR's 483 sit and rot, why not let the EOR (ITTG?) have it as they have plans to actually have it move. The one sitting in a siding (from what you've said before, there is only space for a cab in the museum) would only need a dab of filler and a paint job as it would be for display only, not for use.