Island Line Railway - current state and the future

[Chris125]

The people who would ultimately pay for the infrastructure changes. I'm fairly sure it is still Network Rail for significant infrastructure works, although I believe the TOC does most day to day stuff on the IOW due to some sort of vertical integration.

I follow this topic very closely and I can't recall any such statement, can you point me to it? Besides I'd have thought this was an issue for the franchisee and the DfT.

 

[swt_passenger]

I follow this topic very closely and I can't recall any such statement, can you point me to it? Besides I'd have thought this was an issue for the franchisee and the DfT.

Responsibility wise I was going by my recollection of earlier threads. For instance your post here:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1059798&postcount=2

 

[trainmania100]

Could do with extending the line so it covers the whole island

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Could do with extending the line so it covers the whole island

On the basis it lose a shedload of money - and did even in the 1950's - I wish you well with this concept ....

 

[swt_passenger]

I predict that the infrastructure will never be improved to allow normal gauge trains; and if ex tube stock cannot be obtained then the line will just face closure.

I expect IOW county council cannot afford it, and central government aren't really interested in it.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I predict that the infrastructure will never be improved to allow normal gauge trains; and if ex tube stock cannot be obtained then the line will just face closure.

I expect IOW county council cannot afford it, and central government aren't really interested in it.

I tend to agree with that view - tough though it is - one Mr Barter saved the route in the 1960's with his brilliant idea of scrap priced ex LT stock and a cheap electrification - that has bought 50 years of life extension - doubt it is going to happen again.

Highest subsidy per passenger mile ? (after Merseyrail) - not really on the "must act" Government agenda....

 

[Rational Plan]

Yes, but if the Labour party can subsidise the complete modernisation of the Blackpool tram, because of sentimental political attachment why can not the Tory Party do the same for a Southern english icon. As an Islander I find the attachment to a part of England stuck in the 50's (an idea that cripples the Island to extreme Nimbyism) deeply irritating but it what everyone says when the wax on about childhood holidays in the sand and saying how much they love it etc. An investment in Brexit Britain, as it one of those deeply faded seaside resorts areas that aren't part of the London commuter belt.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It could well be that a small bespoke order of stock is the best solution. Bearing in mind that new build has been considered more favourably in recent mainland franchise contests, something made-to-measure from the likes of Stadler might not be as ridiculous as it sounded a few years ago.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Yes, but if the Labour party can subsidise the complete modernisation of the Blackpool tram, because of sentimental political attachment why can not the Tory Party do the same for a Southern english icon. As an Islander I find the attachment to a part of England stuck in the 50's (an idea that cripples the Island to extreme Nimbyism) deeply irritating but it what everyone says when the wax on about childhood holidays in the sand and saying how much they love it etc. An investment in Brexit Britain, as it one of those deeply faded seaside resorts areas that part of the London commuter belt.

I wish it well - if only some deal had been done with TfL to hold onto some displaced tube stock a few years ago as a strategic move. That would have been ideal for the Island ......

Quite amazing (slightly off topic how the 72 and 73 stock is still being hammered on the Bakerloo and Piccadilly lines - when newer stock on the District was scrapped / withdrawn) .....)

 

[30909]

I tend to agree with that view - tough though it is - one Mr Barter saved the route in the 1960's with his brilliant idea of scrap priced ex LT stock and a cheap electrification - that has bought 50 years of life extension - doubt it is going to happen again.

Highest subsidy per passenger mile ? (after Merseyrail) - not really on the "must act" Government agenda....

We have discussed the gauging issue at Ryde, the clearances at overbridges, weight restrictions on underbridges, infrastructure needs e.g. Brading loop, power supply limitations, lack of available stock to cascade etc. Somewhere I recall that there is a potentially, fatal financial penalty in the state of Ryde Pier. Certainly, to the untrained eye, the corrosion on the rail side of the structure is severe and it may only be the determination of the Tin Worms not to get wet that is holding it together.

 

[trash80]

Quite amazing (slightly off topic how the 72 and 73 stock is still being hammered on the Bakerloo and Piccadilly lines - when newer stock on the District was scrapped / withdrawn) .....)

D78s were withdrawn about 10 years early to allow for a standard sub-surface fleet.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

We have discussed the gauging issue at Ryde, the clearances at overbridges, weight restrictions on underbridges, infrastructure needs e.g. Brading loop, power supply limitations, lack of available stock to cascade etc. Somewhere I recall that there is a potentially, fatal financial penalty in the state of Ryde Pier. Certainly, to the untrained eye, the corrosion on the rail side of the structure is severe and it may only be the determination of the Tin Worms not to get wet that is holding it together.

On a scale of 1-10 (10 being beyond any sort of possible repair, no matter how much money was thrown at it), what would the scale of the corrosion be rated as?

 

[class387]

Can 313s fit, given that they are used for Moorgate which used to be LU?

 

[D365]

Therefore we are yet again discussing the unlikeliest solutions.

Isn't that the trademark of certain members?

Can 313s fit, given that they are used for Moorgate which used to be LU?

Bearing in mind that the replacement 717s use exactly the same bodyshells as the Class 700 - do you really think so?

 

[bramling]

Can 313s fit, given that they are used for Moorgate which used to be LU?

I suspect the answer is no. Remember that the Highbury branch was built to 16-ft diameter rather than the Tube standard of c.12ft, specifically to take mainline-sized trains.

 

[Mojo]

Can 313s fit, given that they are used for Moorgate which used to be LU?

The line might once have been owned by LT and used small tube trains, however it was built by the Great Northern & City Railway with tunnels much larger than ordinary tube tunnels.

 

[Emblematic]

Although there have been suggestions here about a build of custom stock, it must be remembered that EMU stock still costs around £1.2m per vehicle. Historically it's cheap, but no TOC or ROSCO will fund this unless there's a government guarantee of long term use. Usable redundant EMUs will have minimal premium over scrap value, there being such a surplus. Investing in the infrastructure would seem the best way forward, but like others I fear dilapidation until closure. The pier itself is another problem, overdue for renewal, it's only the relatively light weight of the stock that's kept it going this long.

 

[A0wen]

The line might once have been owned by LT and used small tube trains, however it was built by the Great Northern & City Railway with tunnels much larger than ordinary tube tunnels.

True. But if the 503s would have fitted through the IoW tunnel then the PEPs might bearing in mind the 507/8s replaced the 503s on Merseyside and the PEPs had a standard bodyshell.

 

[MotCO]

If they need to get some newer stock, I know the perfect solution...

picture here

(Might need to cut that chimney down a bit to fit in the tunnel, but I'm sure a modern chainsaw could do the trick).

Yes, that would fit the bill of modernising the fleet

 

[Chris125]

Responsibility wise I was going by my recollection of earlier threads. For instance your post here:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1059798&postcount=2

Sorry, I was referring to the suggestion that 'they' said that infrastructure changes weren't cost effective - I've never seen that asserted by Network Rail and I doubt they would even if they'd looked at it.

If SWT did it was probably when they expected deep tube stock to become available, and before the DfT asked for proposals to make the line 'more financially sustainable' which is what SWR will consult on in the next few weeks.

Can 313s fit, given that they are used for Moorgate which used to be LU?

Vehicle length is the obvious stumbling block - 20m vehicles would create a significant platform gap at Esplanade, even greater clearance issues through the tunnel and perhaps cause problems with the depot too.

 

[abn444]

Vehicle length is the obvious stumbling block - 20m vehicles would create a significant platform gap at Esplanade, even greater clearance issues through the tunnel and perhaps cause problems with the depot too.

Couldn't they remove the (disused) other track through Esplanade and make it single track along there, wouldn't that give more space to straighten out the track and therefore the platform? As for the tunnel couldn't that be singled as well (especially with a new passing loop planned for Brading) giving more space there, just removing the dividers at the ends of the tunnel? Having said that there is the obvious issue of money, would someone be willing to provide funding for it? I'd suggest possibly not.

 

[MML]

I'm sure I read somewhere that the London Dockland Light Railway is receiving new, replacement stock. Would some of the old stock be suitable for the island line ?
Gauge ?
Vehicle dimensions ?
Low Cost automated operation with minimal staff ?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Although there have been suggestions here about a build of custom stock, it must be remembered that EMU stock still costs around £1.2m per vehicle. Historically it's cheap, but no TOC or ROSCO will fund this unless there's a government guarantee of long term use. Usable redundant EMUs will have minimal premium over scrap value, there being such a surplus. Investing in the infrastructure would seem the best way forward, but like others I fear dilapidation until closure. The pier itself is another problem, overdue for renewal, it's only the relatively light weight of the stock that's kept it going this long.

Assuming the "worst-case scenario" of closure doesn't happen, I can't think of a better guarantee of long-term use than owning stock which is the only suitable option for a given route.

How much of the ridership is reliant on the mainland connection offered via the pier? Would loss of the pier section make the route even more of a basket-case?

 

[jon0844]

On the basis it lose a shedload of money - and did even in the 1950's - I wish you well with this concept ....

With rail usage growing, are you absolutely sure a railway (running well, with modern stock and a reliable, regular, timetable) wouldn't be successful today?

Look at how London Overground turned around the north London line, and many other examples.

 

[Chris125]

Couldn't they remove the (disused) other track through Esplanade and make it single track along there, wouldn't that give more space to straighten out the track and therefore the platform?

The curve actually extends out onto the pier structure - easing it would be a lot of work.

As for the tunnel couldn't that be singled as well (especially with a new passing loop planned for Brading) giving more space there, just removing the dividers at the ends of the tunnel? Having said that there is the obvious issue of money, would someone be willing to provide funding for it? I'd suggest possibly not.

I think we can assume that resignalling will involve single tracking the tunnel, but with all the other constraints on the line I doubt such major structural changes to the tunnel could be justified.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the London Dockland Light Railway is receiving new, replacement stock. Would some of the old stock be suitable for the island line ?
Gauge ?
Vehicle dimensions ?
Low Cost automated operation with minimal staff ?

IIRC there are no significant gauging issues - what tram/light rail designs like the DLR fleet would struggle with is the quality of the track.

Mark Brinton's reply to the Garnett Report points this out at some length - even the 38TS were found to need bogie mods to provide an acceptable ride.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

True. But if the 503s would have fitted through the IoW tunnel then the PEPs might bearing in mind the 507/8s replaced the 503s on Merseyside and the PEPs had a standard bodyshell.

503s had a slightly lower roofline than the PEPs, but since that proposal the track has been raised in Ryde tunnel to reduce the frequency of flooding stopping the job in any case.

 

[bramling]

With rail usage growing, are you absolutely sure a railway (running well, with modern stock and a reliable, regular, timetable) wouldn't be successful today?

Look at how London Overground turned around the north London line, and many other examples.

Sadly I just don't think the two can compare. The Island Line has been in continual decline over the last few decades - compare today with scenes from 30+ years ago when summer Saturdays had multiple long trains running. Even in the last decade 4-car trains have gone from being common all week right through summer to being rare if at all. This says it all sadly.

It's not that the trains don't load well, just that the relative numbers of people travelling simply don't come anywhere near to covering the costs - especially when averaged across the year and including the winter months.

 

[bramling]

Assuming the "worst-case scenario" of closure doesn't happen, I can't think of a better guarantee of long-term use than owning stock which is the only suitable option for a given route.

How much of the ridership is reliant on the mainland connection offered via the pier? Would loss of the pier section make the route even more of a basket-case?

The route is a basket case full stop. In my experience trains will load up at Pier Head (assuming the ferry connection occurs as planned, which often it doesn't), a good proportion will alight at Ryde Esplanade, then a good number will join at Ryde St John's Road, the train will then gradually empty out at each stop to Shanklin, with a small number of local journeys occurring along the way.

If you got rid of the pier run, it's debatable whether those passengers would still use the train, or find another way of making the journey altogether.

 

[jon0844]

I can see why usage has fallen, as I found the service too infrequent and the bus network a lot better. Of course I had to try it out for nostalgia, but it's not really something (as it stands) that I can see being that popular.

When it's busy with tourists, locals must hate it even more.

I think that with loads of investment (which I know isn't going to happen) there has to be scope to improve the service, which would improve usage. It has worked in many other cases, and is also the case for most new roads.

It's not as if IoW has a tiny population, and people still live and work there out of season. We're all getting older, so public transport seems likely to survive better than a lot of other towns and cities that have terrible provision a lot of the time.

I guess we have to wait and see what SWR suggests. Perhaps we'll be genuinely surprised. Or not.

 

[Harbouring]

Sadly I just don't think the two can compare. The Island Line has been in continual decline over the last few decades - compare today with scenes from 30+ years ago when summer Saturdays had multiple long trains running. Even in the last decade 4-car trains have gone from being common all week right through summer to being rare if at all. This says it all sadly.

It's not that the trains don't load well, just that the relative numbers of people travelling simply don't come anywhere near to covering the costs - especially when averaged across the year and including the winter months.

It seems that a lot of the housing development on the island has been focused on Newport and Cowes with East Wight being left to become a relic of old seaside towns. Ok in the summer but during the winter it can get quite bleak.

The knock on is the route just won't get any better which is a shame. I'm not sure how thrilled wightlink would be IF the railway to Pier Head was to end, if the trip ended with a 10 minute walk along an exposed pier (again ok in summer, wouldn't like to do it myself in winter) then people might turn to the Hover.