Island Line Railway - current state and the future

[trash80]

I read earlier that the "new" Asset Inspection Train might be binned, now if you add the Aldwych 72 stock which will have to be got rid of when the access to the branch is removed in a few years i wonder if there is enough stock from these 67 and 72 cars to replace the 483s?

 

[Chester1]

What you fail to mention is that the bus is half a mile away down the pier from the Catamaran, struggles to cater for visitors with luggage or prams, useless for those with bikes, takes around twice as long if running to time and is much more expensive.

I have addressed the points about bus speed, prams and luggage before. A properly designed bus layout, busway and priority system would solve them. More expensive is hard to know until SWR has published estimated costs for keeping the line open. Is there a practical reason why the hovercraft runs from Southsea and not closer to the centre of Portsmouth or why a passenger ferry cannot run from a jetty near Ryde harbour? If Wightlink wants a decent number of passengers then it should pay for cost of the rail pier repairs and if does not want to or cannot pay then train services should be cut back to the Esplanade rather than the taxpayer paying. Government funding to renew and maintain the rail pier would basically subsidise Balfour Beatty!

If the line was converted to a tram system, could the line be extended to Ventnor and potentially down the hill? Are trams capable of climbing that hill?

Ideally you could gradually reopen lines on the island overtime. The line between Sandown and Newport is intact, then street run through the centre and reopen the original line out to Cowes.

The second bit is essentially what I suggested but as a busway not a tram system. If the finances could work for trams then they would be better.

 

[StephenHunter]

Is the line all double track?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is the line all double track?

Mostly single.

 

[Chris M]

Is there a practical reason why ... a passenger ferry cannot run from a jetty near Ryde harbour?

If the ferry could run from closer to the centre of Ryde then the pier wouldn't be there in the first place.

 

[StephenHunter]

Mostly single.

Then you couldn't fit a busway very easily in it...

 

[DelW]

Then you couldn't fit a busway very easily in it...

As I mentioned in a post a few days ago...
I'm also bemused at the idea of a "Ryde harbour", the hovercraft operating to central Portsmouth, and (in another post) trams street running through central Newport. I can only assume the proposers have never been there.

 

[MarkyT]

Then you couldn't fit a busway very easily in it...

A single track busway where necessary, with block direction signalling arrangements should be within the realms of possibility. These work well for tramways such as NET and Croydon Tramlink.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The second bit is essentially what I suggested but as a busway not a tram system. If the finances could work for trams then they would be better.

As someone who lives not too many miles away from the southern reaches of the Manchester Metrolink system, there is the cost of installing the tram tracks should the existing rails not be suitable and the associated power line structures to be borne in mind when considering a tramway system.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Street running has implications on existing road traffic routes during construction as was borne out during the Manchester Metrolink Second City Line.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Street running has implications on existing road traffic routes during construction as was borne out during the Manchester Metrolink Second City Line.

Disruption during construction is not a reason to not install a tramway, as long as businesses and residents are adequately compensated. "Sorry, you can't have a modern transport system that will last 70 years, because Mr. Brown doesn't want to put up with slightly awkward car-parking for 9 months"

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Disruption during construction is not a reason to not install a tramway, as long as businesses and residents are adequately compensated. "Sorry, you can't have a modern transport system that will last 70 years, because Mr. Brown doesn't want to put up with slightly awkward car-parking for 9 months"

What arrangements will need to be made for those road transport companies who deliver goods to retail and wholesale premises during that period of construction.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

What arrangements will need to be made for those road transport companies who deliver goods to retail and wholesale premises during that period of construction.

Very similar arrangements as were used during construction of tramways in Croydon, Sheffield and Nottingham for example. The sky didn't fall in in those places, nor in Manchester. Not even in Edinburgh where the implementation was far from perfect.

I don't know when it was that the old adages of "no pain, no gain" or alternatively "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs" fell out of use, but they're quite appropriate when it comes to building a tramway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What arrangements will need to be made for those road transport companies who deliver goods to retail and wholesale premises during that period of construction.

They put up with it like in all other kinds of roadworks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Then you couldn't fit a busway very easily in it...

It's mostly surrounded by farmland so you could widen it easily enough. Pinch points would have traffic lights or one-way give way type chicanes (I forget the word for those) if very short with good visibility.

 

[DT611]

I have addressed the points about bus speed, prams and luggage before. A properly designed bus layout, busway and priority system would solve them.

No point unless it can be guaranteed more people would get out of their car and use it, which the answer to that is likely "no" . realistically such a system wouldn't cope as well as the currently existing service with the traffic that would be bring lots of luggage.

If Wightlink wants a decent number of passengers then it should pay for cost of the rail pier repairs and if does not want to or cannot pay then train services should be cut back to the Esplanade rather than the taxpayer paying.

does wightlink own that part of the pier.

Government funding to renew and maintain the rail pier would basically subsidise Balfour Beatty!

sorry, but that makes no sense. The money would be to renew the infrastructure. whoever gets the contract to cary out the work isn't relevant in terms of that fact.
If we follow your statement to it's logical conclusion, Wightlink if it was to pay would be subsidising Balfour Beatty rather then renewing the infrastructure. In fact, any renewal of infrastructure anywhere on the railway would be subsidising Balfour Beatty if they were involved.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I read earlier that the "new" Asset Inspection Train might be binned, now if you add the Aldwych 72 stock which will have to be got rid of when the access to the branch is removed in a few years i wonder if there is enough stock from these 67 and 72 cars to replace the 483s?

Doubt it + the Aldwych set is probably a scrap job by now ......

 

[trash80]

Well it still regularly goes for maintenance and has not exactly been heavily used these last few years

 

[class387]

Doubt it + the Aldwych set is probably a scrap job by now ......

Would it? I don't think a set primarily for filming (and therefore PR) would be in too bad a condition.

 

[Chester1]

If the ferry could run from closer to the centre of Ryde then the pier wouldn't be there in the first place.

The pier is very old so that is not necessarily true. I am suggesting a much smaller type of ship/boat could get much closer to the coast so a jetty rather than a pier could be used. Less capacity would mean more boats and a higher service frequency would be needed but that would encourage use.

does wightlink own that part of the pier.

sorry, but that makes no sense. The money would be to renew the infrastructure. whoever gets the contract to cary out the work isn't relevant in terms of that fact.

If we follow your statement to it's logical conclusion, Wightlink if it was to pay would be subsidising Balfour Beatty rather then renewing the infrastructure. In fact, any renewal of infrastructure anywhere on the railway would be subsidising Balfour Beatty if they were involved.

Wightlink is owned by Balfour Beatty Infrastructure Partners.

Wightlink own the road pier but I don't think they own the rail pier or station. I could be wrong though but it would seem odd that forum members and the media assume that Network Rail will have to pay repair costs if they don't own it. If the government pay to maintain a pier and station that exist only to serve Wightlinks ferry service then they will be basically be subsidising Balfour Beatty through spending millions to keep a link to their facility. When there is a competing service that does not need a pier it is reasonable to expect Balfour Beatty to pay for rail link or lose it and strengthen their competitor. If the pier rail line closes it would be an excellent opportunity for Hovertravel to buy additional craft and take as many customers off Wightlink as possible.

 

[bramling]

Doubt it + the Aldwych set is probably a scrap job by now ......

The Aldwych unit is maintained to some kind of schedule so should be in something approaching reasonable condition, and it has the benefit of having spent something like 18 out of its 45 year life under cover and not doing very much.

Nonetheless I still think the boat has sailed as regards using 67 or 72 stock. Yes it would be possible to make up two four-car units, one using the Aldwych unit and the other from the AIT (assuming LU want to give either unit away of course) but that doesn’t make for a particularly flexible fleet, and it would require 100% availability. Unless there are some cars sitting around off the radar, my understanding is something between most and nearly all other spare cars have now been scrapped, in some cases very recently.

Making 72 stock into 2-cars would be expensive, and the reason the MAs went on the trailers in the first place was due to lack of room in the motor cars. So it’s necessary to move both MAs and compressors to the motor cars. Then for any length it’s necessary to modify to third rail, then get the cars to a standard where they are considered acceptable to passengers (remember they are still in largely as-built state) and where their performance will be reliable. As a compromise it might be possible to more viably reduce to 3 cars, but two units still is’t enough, and 3 cars is a reduction in capacity compared to potentially 4 today on the busiest days.

A lot depends on how urgent it is to replace the 38 stock, and no one seems to definitely know the answer to that. If the 38 stock physically cannot be kept going then something will have to happen. Otherwise I can’t see anything other than status quo. There’s no point in replacing just so someone can say we now have newer (or less old!) trains if it means there is less slack in the fleet, so worse reliability and less chance of long trains on the busiest days. From a perception point of view I’m not sure unrefurbished 72 stock would appear much newer than 38 stock, plus they perform worse in poor adhesion!

Unless something from abroad is in the offing, my money is on the existing trains continuing, perhaps with another unit withdrawn for spares. Time will tell...

 

[trash80]

I think there are some 67 cars at Acton that are due for scrapping soon? Probably not enough though.

 

[DT611]

Less capacity would mean more boats and a higher service frequency would be needed but that would encourage use.

there is no guarantee that more smaller boats would or could be provided to replace the existing ferry service, or that even if there were they would ultimately increase frequency and usage. Ultimately that would be for the operator to look at. The relevant finances may not even stack up, i don't know.

Wightlink own the road pier but I don't think they own the rail pier or station. I could be wrong though but it would seem odd that forum members and the media assume that Network Rail will have to pay repair costs if they don't own it.

I presume it would only be for the rail part that nr would be paying to fix. assuming they own that part of course. If they don't own it then it would be unreasonable to expect them to pay for it.

If the government pay to maintain a pier and station that exist only to serve Wightlinks ferry service then they will be basically be subsidising Balfour Beatty through spending millions to keep a link to their facility.

It's subsidising infrastructure. Who operates services from that infrastructure would be secondary in terms of whether the infrastructure benefits the island or not. Ultimately that will be for the relevant people to make that decisian.

When there is a competing service that does not need a pier it is reasonable to expect Balfour Beatty to pay for rail link or lose it and strengthen their competitor.

they will ultimately be paying for what parts of the pier they do own. they can't be expected to pay for the parts they don't own though. Of course it would be great if they did.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The Aldwych unit is maintained to some kind of schedule so should be in something approaching reasonable condition, and it has the benefit of having spent something like 18 out of its 45 year life under cover and not doing very much.

Nonetheless I still think the boat has sailed as regards using 67 or 72 stock. Yes it would be possible to make up two four-car units, one using the Aldwych unit and the other from the AIT (assuming LU want to give either unit away of course) but that doesn’t make for a particularly flexible fleet, and it would require 100% availability. Unless there are some cars sitting around off the radar, my understanding is something between most and nearly all other spare cars have now been scrapped, in some cases very recently.

Making 72 stock into 2-cars would be expensive, and the reason the MAs went on the trailers in the first place was due to lack of room in the motor cars. So it’s necessary to move both MAs and compressors to the motor cars. Then for any length it’s necessary to modify to third rail, then get the cars to a standard where they are considered acceptable to passengers (remember they are still in largely as-built state) and where their performance will be reliable. As a compromise it might be possible to more viably reduce to 3 cars, but two units still is’t enough, and 3 cars is a reduction in capacity compared to potentially 4 today on the busiest days.

A lot depends on how urgent it is to replace the 38 stock, and no one seems to definitely know the answer to that. If the 38 stock physically cannot be kept going then something will have to happen. Otherwise I can’t see anything other than status quo. There’s no point in replacing just so someone can say we now have newer (or less old!) trains if it means there is less slack in the fleet, so worse reliability and less chance of long trains on the busiest days. From a perception point of view I’m not sure unrefurbished 72 stock would appear much newer than 38 stock, plus they perform worse in poor adhesion!

Unless something from abroad is in the offing, my money is on the existing trains continuing, perhaps with another unit withdrawn for spares. Time will tell...

Great response - a policy of keeping those 38's going for a bit more time ,(maybe with a bit less mileage on them? ) - reduced operations in Winter - might just be a compromise ....I assume the stores at Acton / Golders Green etc have long been stripped of any useful spares ...! ?

 

[trash80]

The heritage 38ts has just had a lengthy overhaul, i wonder if any useful knowledge was shared betwen the relevant teams?

 

[Chester1]

there is no guarantee that more smaller boats would or could be provided to replace the existing ferry service, or that even if there were they would ultimately increase frequency and usage. Ultimately that would be for the operator to look at. The relevant finances may not even stack up, i don't know.

I presume it would only be for the rail part that nr would be paying to fix. assuming they own that part of course. If they don't own it then it would be unreasonable to expect them to pay for it.

It's subsidising infrastructure. Who operates services from that infrastructure would be secondary in terms of whether the infrastructure benefits the island or not. Ultimately that will be for the relevant people to make that decisian.

they will ultimately be paying for what parts of the pier they do own. they can't be expected to pay for the parts they don't own though. Of course it would be great if they did.

It is subsidising a piece of infrastructure which is soley used to connect to one company's service and that is a liability not an asset. DfT may decide it is worth it for the Island or it may be decide that it cutting back services to the Esplanade is a reasonable way to reduce costs and give Wightlink the choice.

Great response - a policy of keeping those 38's going for a bit more time ,(maybe with a bit less mileage on them? ) - reduced operations in Winter - might just be a compromise ....I assume the stores at Acton / Golders Green etc have long been stripped of any useful spares ...! ?

Can they be made compliant for use after 31/12/2019? A derogation could be granted for a short period but not for several years.

Has the cost of a rebuild been considered? Would it be possible to design a simple unit using the shell and cab equipment of the 483s and avoid the complexity of modern tube trains? Something like a diesel or battery powered D train in the body of 1938 stock? Removing most of the third rail could potentially make a major contribution reducing the subsidy.

 

[Chris M]

The pier is very old so that is not necessarily true. I am suggesting a much smaller type of ship/boat could get much closer to the coast so a jetty rather than a pier could be used. Less capacity would mean more boats and a higher service frequency would be needed but that would encourage use.

Chart for Ryde Sands. If you are not familiar with nautical charts, the colours represent water depth with orange being always above water, green being tidal, blue to white being below the water at low tide with darker colours being shallower. So no matter how big your boat, you can't get closer to Ryde than the current pier at all states of the tide.

 

[Chester1]

Chart for Ryde Sands. If you are not familiar with nautical charts, the colours represent water depth with orange being always above water, green being tidal, blue to white being below the water at low tide with darker colours being shallower. So no matter how big your boat, you can't get closer to Ryde than the current pier at all states of the tide.

Then cut back the services to the Esplanade and either Wightlink will have to pay to buy the rail pier and maintain it or Hovertravel will make a very large profit by being the only operator running directly to the shore.

Are there any suggestions from locals that are not variations of maintaining the status quo through large stock and infrastructure spending followed by a huge subsidy? This may happen but DfT may force significant spending cuts.

 

[johnnychips]

I don't think I've seen a post on here - though I might be wrong: there are 598 responses - that clarifies when the current stock will become really not repairable, or really unreliable. If it's, say, ten years, you've got a long time to plan. If it's three, things are more urgent.

On the other hand, if it is the losses the line is encountering that is the main problem, then that goes into politics...

 

[Rational Plan]

If they ever did close the railway, the DFT would have to build a pier suitable for buses at the very least. As the line is mostly single track. I can't see much point in converting it to busway. I could see the need for some new road bypasses. defintely Brading, then maybe Ryde to remove the through traffic and then last Sandown as it is often bumper to bumper (even in winter at some times) through Lake to as far as Sandown Station.

Lots of money, but more no ongoing costs and frankly the Islands roads are increasingly choked, even in winter, they should not have cancelled those road schemes in the 1990's.