Steaming back into Ryde?

1.668 million is the sum of the list of entries and exits - the number of passengers is no more than half of that total (if all singles - unlikely), or a quarter if all returns (I had divided by the number of stations for some reason in my earlier post, now corrected!)

Steven

 

From experience I would say that a good number of "passengers" never get the opportunity to pay for their travel. The guard may be in the other coach or even the other unit when 4 cars are used, I don't think that even the guards are allowed to use the interconnecting gangways so many start off with good intentions but never get to pay for their tickets. How much of a difference a more robust fare collection system would make I really cannot say.

I think that the IOWSR involvement in the future will definitely extend the running line into Ryde St John's, possibly Esplanade but I cannot see how a run round could be accommodated without getting in the way of whatever Island Line evolves into. Esplanade would give a much more public face to the Steam Railway, St John's is a little hidden away from the centre of the town centre and touristy areas.

 

That's very true, nothing unusual about the guard never getting to you especially when travelling a short distance, though I remember one guard who rarely bothered with any revenue collection.

I doubt accommodating the IWSR at Esplanade is practical without a new, straight platform and run-round - if you started with a blank sheet of paper there may be enough room but that would need a complete rebuild of the railway and bus stations and remodelling of the roads so fat chance of that happening. I doubt Esplanade offers much beyond Ryde St Johns, which though at the back of the town is on a main through road and has room for a decent car park.

Chris

 

Why does the platform at Esplanade have to be straight all of a sudden? Run rounds can be done on curves, it is already wide enough for O2's, or has it been narrowed since 1966? Whitby, Pickering, Kingswear have curved loops. Others exist no doubt.

 

New platforms have to be straight under Group Standards - but exemptions can be applied for as long as suitable systems to manage risk associated are identified. I suspect bringing a disused but existent platform back into use would count as "new".

I suspect that bringing the second platform back into use at Esplanade would be seen as necessary if trains were to terminate there, but not sure what means of access from the "Town" side of the Station there would be for it use. Might platform lengths also be an issue? (There is an unused section of the main platform from a picture on Google earth).

Steven

 

If the current platform was used then it wouldn't need to be straight, but I doubt that's practical - it's steam-era length extends some way onto the pier while the likely need to segregate the IWSR from Island Line would prevent run-rounds and require regular passengers to use the less convenient far platform.

On the issue of passenger numbers, interestingly the IW Council mention 1.4m in their 2012 response to the Alternative Solutions RUS though there's no source for that figure.

Chris

 

Whilst esplanade would be the desired station, how would you incorporate the island line services, unless you kept the lines separate, from pier head to small brook,and could you ensure that a IOWSR engine running round at Esplanade,does not dellay an island line train ? its going to need some pretty fast run rounds to clear the lines

 

In the 80s we used to do run rounds in 3 minutes if we needed to.........

 

The procedure for uncoupling loco from train was changed a few years back. It can still be done very smartly, but generally not as quickly as it used to be.

 

Island line where do you start? If you look back to 1967 there was a train every 12 minutes on a summer Saturday with 43 underground cars. Fast forwards to today a train every 20/40 minutes and 6 x 2 car units, less track and signal boxes etc.

The line looses money but how many other lines around the country loose money? so the question you need to ask is how do you improve the loss.

Cut costs,

Single more of the line, (will only happen with the loop being put in at Brading ) no double track in Ryde, steam railway gets into Ryde st johns.
Close signal box and move control of line to ROC at Basingstoke or remove all signals and control with radio as in Scotland.
Look at ways to change railway group standards for lesser used lines so making it cheaper to run.

Increase revenue,

Advertise line better,
many people walk down the pier because train doesn't away's connect with the boat, 30 minute service with Brading loop would help.
The line is both faster and cheaper than the bus, let people know this.
Put door controls in the drivers cab so letting the guard collect fares/move through the train.

These and many other ideas will be put forwards by many people who are better placed than me on Island line, the steam railway and the Island council. The island needs to have a updated railway to attract people from their cars before any thought of extending. As to motive power until the loading gauge is enlarged we will be stuck with 40 years + underground stock and not dmu, emu or trams.

Over to you

 

Was that a competition ?

 

Back in the late 70s and into the 80s really quick run-rounds were achieved at Havenstreet during the August Bank Holiday Steam Shows. The railway was operating at full capacity (1 train operation over the 1 1/2 mile Wootton section) and the timetable went out of the window, trains were turned around as quickly as possible until the busy period of the day was over. A run round of 3 minutes would only have been possible if the loco didn't need to take water.

 

I think those people advocating the IWSR takes over Islandline do not understand the size of what they are proposing. It would double (if not more) the size of the existing railway in track terms, and totally change the nature of what is meant to be a railway preservation undertaking. The IWSR is a very small line in some ways; to put this into perspective Islander and I are two of about fifteen Drivers, and we only have about the same number of firemen. We have struggled to resource the existing operation at times this year in staff, engines and carriages, where would we get the resources to run the rest? How could we pay for the upkeep of the track bed of the Shanklin line for occasional steam charters, as suggested earlier, when we have to have appeals to pay for the Chatham carriage repairs? I am sure occasional charters would be full whilst they were novel, but it is not a sustainable option. Who would pay to lower the track in the stations to begin with?

I am not all doom and gloom...I think we should be extending to Ryde St Johns and setting the track layout up to segregate the two railways. If we took out Smallbrook (which does not really have the best facilities) we could just about continue running with one train and having one service per hour. We then have other things to worry about such as a bigger loco works.....

 

Andrew makes some very good points. One of the ways that the IWSR has maintained its success and grown has by being realistic in its objectives and taking many small incremental steps (OK, including one big one with the extension from Havenstreet to Smallbrook Junction).

It is good at doing what it does, that doesn't mean that it would be good at running a 363 day a year railway with a 20 hours a day working period.

What could/should be done is to transfer Island Line to a Community Interest Company properly constituted and resourced. There is absolutely no reason why the co-operation between the two Island railways couldn't be extended and deepened. Steam trains to Ryde St John's Road and some shared maintenance resources could be part of that deepened co-operation. Whether the track layout needs to continue to segregate the two operations is a moot point. Island Line is already exempt from TPWS & OTMR, fitting the IWSR's fleet with train stops may be all that's needed to allow track sharing.

 

So, lets transfer the Island line to a CIC. Probably a sensible idea. It will need a management team to run it. Wouldn't it make sense to use the existing IWSR management team to do so, with all their experience, and strengthened, as necessary, rather than have two totally separate entities? The economics are obvious. You could keep the two operations as separate entities if you want to preserve the ambience of the two. However, I'd suggest that, if this was done, the opportunities afforded by integration would soon come to the fore and steam would be running from Ryde to Shanklin fairly regularly during the summer.

 

Presumably there would also be a need to lock all the doors on the side next to the SWT track as with the Spa Valley?

 

Which economies are those Steve? On a serious note the IWSR (and all heritage railways) are not set up as transport companies. They are living museums run by volunteers. I am not sure the two are exactly the same or that the skills needed for managing them are the same.

Would you like to take over the Whitby line fully with staff, maintenance depot, rolling stock, signalling and a commitment to run it on the same days as today?

 

Economies of management, for one. Yes, heritage railways may not be set up as transport companies but, if their management didn't understand railway operation, I'm sure that the ORR would have a few very serious concerns.
There are quite a few people who would think it would be easier and better for rthe NYMR to operate the EVL. The only caveat is that the subsidy would come the way of the NYMR, rather than the NYMR having to turn a loss maker into a sustainable business.

 

I am not sure there are that many economies of management. Our structure is set up to manage the railway as it is. For the IWSR to take on, say St Johns works to maintain the electric stock would be to increase the engineering teams workload exponentially and need more people and specialised ones at that, so the potential for economies are small...especially when the current staff probably TUPE over. Don't forget that a lot of our 'management' is done by volunteers anyway. I can see some logic in going halves on orders of ballast etc

I have no wish to suggest that heritage railway managers do not understand railway operations, but that management teams usually also have other things that take up their time such as museums that do not figure on 'professional' railways.

Maybe a bad analogy with the Whitby line though it was the obvious one, feel free to suggest another piece of railway that is larger than the NYMR and comes complete with depots, rolling stock etc and a suitably decaying major piece of infrastructure such as a pier...!

 

Not sure why - Island Line is not exactly a high speed operation. Personally I think that the Spa Valley requirement is an over reaction to a minimal risk. I don't think that the doors were locked when the Bluebell's Metropolitan set ran in London.