Steaming back into Ryde?

Then we must disagree Iam afraid. By the way it is some while since I last visited the GWSR. When did you last go to the IOWSR?

 

I believe the KWVR also gets used by locals as a means of transport.

 

I think I went aged 3, but I can't remember. Quite what that has to do with anything I've no idea though...

 

you say "if they dont they dont" have you not ever thought about the impact of what seing or hearing a steam engine at Ryde Esplanade could do, for the railway? families that may have never concidered taking a ride may well do do, i wonder what the people at Minehead say having something that attracts passing trade to their bottom line is? as Gary has already said, it is the railways plan to , when they can , aim to operate to Ryde Esplanade one day.

 

I suspect almost every railway that has at least one end in a significant town has a few people who use it as a "service" (I know we do, with a few people using the railway to get to EG to do their shopping). But that is a different order of things than explicitly running a railway as a service - which apart from anything else, probably requires daily, or at least weekly, running, and early starts / late finishes - something not many lines achieve. I suspect attempts to run a heritage service but for a clientele primarily interested in just getting from A to B (with convenience and price to match their aspirations) would be doomed to failure.

Tom

 

In the days of local area management you may have found that happens. You'll probably get chance to smack some bottoms these days. (Please don't say you'd enjoy it!)

I understand that NR's 'management charges' for the new Whitby platform 2 came to more than that (and the whole project was managed by the NYMR ) so you might get the fuses changed for that amount!

 

I did actually say compare likely income with calculable costs!

I suspect that the IOWSR's location being on an island may actually assist in offering both a steam train ride and the ability for it to take you somewhere attracting extra custom. People visiting the island will have limited time at their disposal, and hence being able to combine the steam train with going somewhere - or even being able to get on the steam train without having to go and seek it out - makes including a ride on the IOWSR in a visit to the island easier.

The market I am talking about is "tourist travel" - not locals and not running every day - unless the local authority is paying! If locals find that by being members, use of the line is financially attractive, fine - but I bet they won't and it probably wouldn't be! This is a means of extending the attractiveness to the existing clientele and thereby increasing income. As I am sure Paul has himself pointed out, just hoping that by extending and running a longer distance, you can take more from the same number of people doesn't work, as incremental fare increases rarely match incremental distance and hence cost increases!

Steven

(We do have certain offers for local residents on the NYMR, but tend not to be flattened in the rush!)

 

Unless someone draws up a realistic business plan for the proposals, we are all largely guessing. Even with a BP, it is still largely guesswork but, at least you have a basis on which to base your guess. I actually think that Ryde - Shanklin would probably be a better option than the present line because it would at least give destinations. The NYMR has certainly found that people use the Railway for that purpose in taking the train to Whitby for the day and not simply going for a train ride for the sake of it. I think that the same applies to the Swanage Railway where the railway also forms part of a day out package to a destination and not just a train ride.

 

very well put steve, paul is beginning to sound like a stuck record, i'm sure that he thinks he's right, but should take the blinkers off maybe he's fearful of change?

 

Hardly fearful of change as an advocate of LRT the better to serve communities such as Sandown by going closer to the town centre. However I am intensely sceptical about views which demonstrate only a sketchy knowledge of what is actually on the ground, particularly in terms of space. Esplanade is extremely cramped, on a sharp curve and not the place to run round trains. In order to put in a turnout, the platform would have to be set back considerably and be brought back close indeed to the 1 in 50 descent to the tunnel. It may well limit train lengths on safety grounds. Additionally it is difficult to see how a service along the pier can be accommodated as well as steam services terminating at Esplanade. Somehow I doubt whether any of the advocates of a return to Esplanade are even aware of the lack of a crossover there or of the practical difficulties of putting one in.

My purpose behind asking when a correspondent last visited the IOWSR brought an unexpected but illuminating reply. He had not been as an adult! Quod erat demonstrandum but really no worse than others who have not been for years or at all.

Now the weary anticipation of "wouldn't it be nice to run steam trains along the pier again."

PH

 

With all due respect, so what? Have you visited every single line to assess how frivolous and wasteful and inauthentic they are? The internet's a wonderful thing.
Out of interest, does this mean in your eyes I have no credible experience or knowledge about heritage railways, as I'm still only 15!
I've just come up with the solution to the problem though - Network Rail continue to operate the line, but use the strategic reserve to aid tourism. So there!

On a slightly different note, I see that you volunteer - may I ask what you role is and what railway please?

 

Okay, that's great. Many more 15 year olds required and I don't think I suffer from the sin of too many old men of being unduly critical of the young. Usually it's those old enough to know better I am critical of. I try not to comment about individual operations I have no direct experience of but no doubt I fail from time to time If this is so I apologise. There are, I suspect, contributors on this thread who have no more experience or knowledge of the Isle of Wight than you, with far less excuse.

After several decades of involvement with the narrow gauge, concerned with things such as guarding, signalling, booking office, trackwork, steam and diesel driving I decided it was time to do something involving a rather shorter day. Hence my getting involved with Museums and Records on the IOWSR. There is a lot of good stuff including maps of various daft schemes put forward in the past, some of which, like the Ventnor West line, actually got built. Daftness is not confined to the gricer era!

As for the trials and tribulations of getting to and from the IOWSR I have experience of being the driver of a private motor car, the passenger in one, electric train plus steam train and motor bus plus steam train. Do come and have a look at us; if not small and perfectly formed we are at least small and decently formed!

Paul H.

 

i agree totally with paulhitch.

at the risk of repeating myself, the Ryde - Shanklin line has very special unique problems that do not lend themselves to the 'wouldnt it be nice' approach.

it is perhaps worth remembering that when the railway side of the pier was being rebuilt in 1966, steam trains were 'top and tailed' to Ryde Esplanade.

for those who think a steam railway 'going somewhere' would be preferable to Smallbrook - Wootton, they have obviously never walked from Brading or Sandown stations into the respective towns they are supposed to serve! Shanklin and Ryde St Johns Road stations are a bit more central but still at the back of the towns.

the IOWSR is very good at meeting it's potential market, and i would suggest that everyone who wants to travel on a steam train visiting the Island already does so.

Ryde St Johns Road is far from ideal as a terminus for steam trains from the IOWSR. the layout is not suitable and i do not think that Island Line passengers would like to be restricted to platform 3 especially if they have prams or luggage. you then have to consider the effect on the timetable of Island Line trains if the Smallbrook - Ryde St Johns Road section is converted to 2 single tracks, 1 for Island Line and 1 for the IOWSR. the Island Line timetable is already uneven and awkward. anything that prevents trains meeting the ferries at the Pierhead is simple 'not on'.

if Island Line were to close, then the Brading bypass scheme will rear it's ugly head again.

cheers,
julian

 

Terminating IWSR services in the through platforms at Ryde St Johns would allow a level connection to be provided with platform 3 beyond the overbridge, avoiding the need to use the footbridge and improving the current situation.

As for the double track, I don't think anyone is suggesting Island Line would continue without new passing arrangements, the obvious solution being a new loop at or near Brading.

Chris

 

I don't know how you did it, but I certainly didn't say that!

 

I believe that part of the works planned is to relay the loop at Brading, that will allow a clock face timetable, as that will become the passing place for up and down services, that will allow for single line working between Smallbrook and ryde, allowing the up line to become availible for the IOWSR, At St Johns, they can terminate the steam service in the island platform, leaving the up for island line, it will mean a trailing conectiom between the 2 lines at Ryde, but that shouldnt be a problem, as ryde box controls the line anyway.

 

I thought the plan was to have the IWSR run into platform 1 and run round via 2, leaving the Islandline to run via 3? This would enable them to be functionally separate, going the other way round potentially means delays whilst trains cross in front of each other.

Brading loop effectively gives single line working from Pierhead to Brading and from Brading to Shanklin. Trains leave the depot as a four car, run to Brading and split, one unit going south and one north. This gives better ferry connections and simpler working.

Even with this plan St Johns Road needs some work as it is set up for through running. If level access is needed, as suggested above, you have to put this at the north end going across the track from platform one to the island platform, stopping these lines going to Esplanade or Pier Head. You would then need to extend platform one south (mind the signalbox!) to fit in a full IWSR train because you lost the north end to form a headshunt. Platform 2 cannot go south without moving the crossover...

None of this is easy!

 

None of it is easy, the simple way is to re conect the island line to the outside face of the island platform, but then you have access problems , that would allow the crossover between platforms 1 and 2 to be the outer side of the bridge and a conection from the island line, via platform 2 should you wish to transfer plant between the 2 lines,

 

in the days when i regularly used 'Island Line', the Brading - Sandown section was double track, and trains ALWAYS met the ferry despite late running of the ferry. trains would be held at the pier head, and crossing places adjusted accordingly. that flexibility has now gone, with ferry passengers suffering as a result.

i am very interested in comments above on St Johns Road, but none address the question of singling the Smallbrook- Ryde St Johns section line if steam were to return to Ryde St Johns Road.

it is a very complex problem!

cheers,
julian

 

Apologies, edit gone wrong.