Island Line Railway - current state and the future

[Rick1984]

Esplanade to St. Johns isn't that bad a walk. Just not very interesting.

 

[A0wen]

I could see holidaymakers staying at Sandown/Shanklin making day trips to Newport using the IoWSR over the bus despite the much longer journey, in much the same way that I'm sure they take a trip out on it now. Having something to do at the "end point" of a preserved railway can be a big draw.

Dream on.

Even if the railway could extend back to Newport it would be on the wrong side for the main attractions in Newport e.g. Carisbrooke Castle.

The regularity of more direct buses will easily outweigh the pull of a heritage train on a much longer journey for most people.

Give me one example where the restoration of a heritage railway has seen significant use where there is an alternative of a cheaper, quicker more direct bus.

 

[Meerkat]

I very much doubt that anyone would fancy walking from the ferry to St Johns. It's well over a mile, and uphill.

If you're in Ryde anyway, or want to go to the town centre, then it might be more convenient to walk than try to catch a half hourly train.

 

[67018]

If you're in Ryde anyway, or want to go to the town centre, then it might be more convenient to walk than try to catch a half hourly train.

I suspect most people would make use of the 5 buses an hour from St Johns into Ryde

 

[Meerkat]

Which still means Island Line losing revenue

 

[Chris125]

That was offered to the Isle of Wight steam railway but they didn’t want the responsibility/cost/liability of both taking on Ryde Pier but also the need of providing a regular service every day and everything which goes with it - the line isn’t just some heritage operation it does have daily commuters.

I've never heard of Island Line being 'offered' to anyone - that's simply the IWSR's position when people suggest they should run it, something way beyond their resources.

 

[Clarence Yard]

I could see holidaymakers staying at Sandown/Shanklin making day trips to Newport using the IoWSR over the bus despite the much longer journey, in much the same way that I'm sure they take a trip out on it now. Having something to do at the "end point" of a preserved railway can be a big draw.

Your last comment is spot on but, as one who visits the Island regularly and stays in the diminishing number of hotels in Shanklin, the Vectis is the best way of getting to the west of the island and using Newport as the change to go other places south or north. It’s frequent, reliable and cheap.

Osborne House is practically the only destination that an extension of the steam railway westwards (if some sugar daddy came along and expensively sorts out the well dodgy ground just along the way) would serve and even that would need a bus connection from a rebuilt Whippenham. Further west into the very outskirts of Newport isn’t viable.

There are a number of Island connected people who work at FG/SWR and who wanted to see the steam railway back at Ryde. They are very angry about what the ORR are seemingly mandating and the costs involved to both parties. Until there is a change of heart, sticking with the Smallbrook interchange seems like the best policy to pursue.

 

[The Ham]

Thanks for this. Presumably any sustainable storage needs to hold back - to let the peak flow pass - not just whatever would have been absorbed by the surface that's now built on, but also enough to compensate for the usage from the development itself as well. But can such storage really hold many days of heavy rain from all the built-on area? Perhaps larger-scale developments, with associated added lakes, major underground storage, etc - if they really all do that now as a matter of course?? - might do. But the sum of very many much smaller losses of natural surface must all add up as well, and these aren't compensated for. I'm thinking of garden after garden being concreted over for car parking in some areas I know, for instance. The cumulative effect is massive in a major urban area.

When designing there's an allowance made for 10% more hard surfacing to be added to all dwellings, however not all plots would be able to be expanded by that much.

However it should be noted that things like water butts don't count for water storage (even though lots of people have them) as they could be full at the start of a storm.

Likewise not do the small pipes to gullies or individual houses.

Houses don't generate surface water they only have rainfall which is collected and passed to the surface water sewers.

The size of the site is fairly immaterial on how easy it is to store the water, with small sites having much smaller amounts of water to store, which can often be facilitated within the manholes of the site, especially if they are made a bit bigger than needed or a couple extra get added which could in theory be designed out. Larger sites with more water to store can be more challenging than a small site.

A storage tank holding 100m3 of water discharging at 4l/s would take just 7 hours to empty if there's no water entering. Although we can have very wet days, rarely do the very heavy storms last very long. Even over the course of a few days there's often enough of a lull to allow the storage to empty sufficiently to keep the system working.

Even if it does have to discharge without a limit because the system is full this tends to be over a very short timeframe.

 

[dubscottie]

I've never heard of Island Line being 'offered' to anyone - that's simply the IWSR's position when people suggest they should run it, something way beyond their resources.

I do recall there was talk of it. It was about the same time that it was suggested that the NYMR could run over the Whitby line (which has sort of happened).

The Ffestiniog was invited to bid on the Conway Valley line as part of a possible "micro franchise" . There were a few others that I cant recall.

 

[Roast Veg]

Your last comment is spot on but, as one who visits the Island regularly and stays in the diminishing number of hotels in Shanklin, the Vectis is the best way of getting to the west of the island and using Newport as the change to go other places south or north. It’s frequent, reliable and cheap.

Osborne House is practically the only destination that an extension of the steam railway westwards (if some sugar daddy came along and expensively sorts out the well dodgy ground just along the way) would serve and even that would need a bus connection from a rebuilt Whippenham. Further west into the very outskirts of Newport isn’t viable.

I've been well and truly told by other posters, but this post covered the situation in the best detail. Smallbrook Junction is not bad as far as access goes, especially when compared to other preserved lines. Wishful thinking indeed to imagine a "grand day out" when there's nothing suitable to get to.

 

[cav1975]

There are a number of Island connected people who work at FG/SWR and who wanted to see the steam railway back at Ryde. They are very angry about what the ORR are seemingly mandating and the costs involved to both parties. Until there is a change of heart, sticking with the Smallbrook interchange seems like the best policy to pursue.

Keeping Smallbrook Junction as the eastern terminus of the Steam Railway does not preclude any options. Clearly the climate isn't right at the moment - but one day it might be.

 

[ElectroSoldier]

There is no island platform at Ryde St Johns.
There are two platforms. The platform face that is closets to the TMD is never ever used as a platform and as far as Im aware there is no intention to ever use it as a plaform face either.

There is only a coping stones width between the footbridge steps and the edges of the platform. Adding a lift is highly unlikely unless the lift is added to the platform at the opposite end closer to the bridge where the canopy is, but as far as I know thats listed grade II and must remain as it is.

It wouldnt be possible to extend the steam railway down to St Johns, there is nowhere for a preserved track to go at certain points along the route, and if there was it would be prohibitively expensive.

 

[341o2]

There is double track - one line disused - between St Johns and Smallbrook. It was proposed that the disused line be taken over by the steam railway. Presumably SWR are demanding this be realigned, possibly fenced off, before the steam railway can use it

 

[Chris125]

I do recall there was talk of it. It was about the same time that it was suggested that the NYMR could run over the Whitby line (which has sort of happened).

Every idea under the sun has been suggested over the years, sometimes generating a few articles in the local press before melting away, but I'm not aware of any actual plan to offer the line to anyone and given the infrastructure liabilities it would be pretty pointless to try.

There is no island platform at Ryde St Johns.
There are two platforms. The platform face that is closets to the TMD is never ever used as a platform and as far as Im aware there is no intention to ever use it as a plaform face either

It's built as an island platform but the third siding/platform is no longer connected to the running line at the Pier end and the headroom under the bridge has been compromised - pretty sure that passenger services do occasionally start from it.

There is double track - one line disused - between St Johns and Smallbrook. It was proposed that the disused line be taken over by the steam railway. Presumably SWR are demanding this be realigned, possibly fenced off, before the steam railway can use it

Both lines are in use and it's not clear if SWR intend to change that under their current plans - perhaps SWR wanted the IWSR to pay for moving the single>double track junction to St Johns, inflating the cost?

 

[Train Maniac]

https://www.iwsteamrailway.co.uk/news/ryde-st-johns-road-latest-news-363.aspx

I am genuinely surprised and rather dissapointed. This should of been the perfect time to do the work, Upgrade the Island Line, reconfigure Ryde St Johns at the same time and get IOWSR to contribute a small portion of money towards it

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I am genuinely surprised and rather dissapointed. This should of been the perfect time to do the work, Upgrade the Island Line, reconfigure Ryde St Johns at the same time and get IOWSR to contribute a small portion of money towards it

The national network wasn’t prepared to give up the double track section as that prevents ever being able to increase the frequency in the future plus it makes everyone go over the steps at Ryde St Johns.
As part of the national network the heritage stock has to comply with RSSB standards hence just too expensive

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The national network wasn’t prepared to give up the double track section as that prevents ever being able to increase the frequency in the future plus it makes everyone go over the steps at Ryde St Johns.

I guess it is worth remembering that Island Line must carry many, many, more passengers than the heritage railway. You're talking, 2 trains an hour every weekday, versus a few steam trains a day that only run during the tourist and holiday seasons. While it'd be nice to see the Steam Railway extended, it would seem to be a retrograde step if that extension for the sake of a fairly small number of trains removed double track - and therefore operational resilience - from a regular rail service that serves many more people.

 

[MarkyT]

I guess it is worth remembering that Island Line must carry many, many, more passengers than the heritage railway. You're talking, 2 trains an hour every weekday, versus a few steam trains a day that only run during the tourist and holiday seasons. While it'd be nice to see the Steam Railway extended, it would seem to be a retrograde step if that extension for the sake of a fairly small number of trains removed double track - and therefore operational resilience - from a regular rail service that serves many more people.

Agree completely. While I love steam heritage railways, real public transport must always take precedence. By leaving the existing layout alone, resignalling will not be necessary and with the new loop at Brading there is flexibility to operate different but always regular frequencies of service according to demand. The existing loop at Sandown is a little TCB island remotely controlled from Ryde St Johns SB today, with train operated points automatically routing the trains into their appropriate platforms. Tokenless Block working applies between Ryde and Sandown (with no tail light observation required), then it's One Train without trainstaff beyond to Shanklin. The TB section can be subdivided fairly easily for the extra loop at Brading without having to change much at Sandown and Ryde as the Sandown installation is fairly simple and self contained. If new examples of the train operated points can be obtained, or overhauled units recovered from elsewhere, this would be the best solution for skills and spares holding on the island. The line already uses LU style mechanical train stops, which were fitted to a number of key signals protecting junctions and single lines in the early noughties as an alternative to TPWS. The tripcocks on the 38 stock were very easy to retrofit, and the new trains will clearly be able to just retain their LU tripcocks.

 

[Chester1]

The national network wasn’t prepared to give up the double track section as that prevents ever being able to increase the frequency in the future plus it makes everyone go over the steps at Ryde St Johns.
As part of the national network the heritage stock has to comply with RSSB standards hence just too expensive

Is there any realistic chance of the line going above a frequency that could not cope with singling the line between Smallbrook Junction and Ryde St Johns? Isn't the bottleneck the lack of double track on the southern 2/3rds of the line? With the new loop at Brading and the existing loop, another loop at Smallbrook would probably be enough to support 4tph.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Is there any realistic chance of the line going above a frequency that could not cope with singling the line between Smallbrook Junction and Ryde St Johns? Isn't the bottleneck the lack of double track on the southern 2/3rds of the line? With the new loop at Brading and the existing loop, another loop at Smallbrook would probably be enough to support 4tph.

Sure, if everything runs perfectly to time every day, then you could run the line with St. John's Road to Smallbrook singled. But cutting the double track means that the line becomes less resilient to delays.

As an example, with the planned 30 minute timetable, there should normally only ever be one train north of Brading, with the trains passing at Brading - so you might naively think you could get away with single track all the way to Ryde Pier Head. But if - say - a Southbound train is heavily delayed, then - what do you do with the Northbound train that it was supposed to pass at Brading? You have a choice between holding that train at Brading until the Southbound train arrives (thereby delaying that train by the same amount which means perpetuating the delays to the next services too) or finding a spot where the trains can pass further North instead, which may mean the Northbound train can still run roughly on time. The more double track you have, the better are your options for having the trains pass somewhere else, so the delay to one train doesn't keep propagating. And that scenario is with just 2tph!

It's probably not a common scenario to have trains delayed that much on such an isolated route, so it's not the sort of thing where it'd be worth all the expense of putting double track in if it's not already there. But where you do have double track already there, then I certainly wouldn't want to start paying to take it out.

 

[MarkyT]

It's probably not a common scenario to have trains delayed that much on such an isolated route, so it's not the sort of thing where it'd be worth all the expense of putting double track in if it's not already there. But where you do have double track already there, then I certainly wouldn't want to start paying to take it out.

Yes and signalling changes would be required to suit such a revised layout, which can be very expensive. The relatively self contained additional loop for Brading will be a simple job signalling-wise by comparison, especially if they can make it a direct copy of the Sandown installation so the interfaces towards Ryde will look the same. Sandown is controlled by a little self contained switch panel on the instrument shelf in St Johns Road SB, above the levers that control the Ryde area, so this could be fairly easily replaced by a new one covering both loops.

 

[Rick1984]

You would still have the double section from St. Johns to Esplanade for passing

 

[Chris125]

Is there any realistic chance of the line going above a frequency that could not cope with singling the line between Smallbrook Junction and Ryde St Johns?

No, even 3tph looks pretty unlikely and at best only a few days a year - as trains normally pass in the platforms at Ryde St Johns losing the second track to Smallbrook would be fine, especially as there'd be no station stop nor speed restriction for the junction.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

No, even 3tph looks pretty unlikely and at best only a few days a year - as trains normally pass in the platforms at Ryde St Johns losing the second track to Smallbrook would be fine, especially as there'd be no station stop nor speed restriction for the junction.

But why unnecessarily constrain yourself for the future by taking out infrastructure you don’t have too - exactly the same as taking Brading Loop out in the 80s did?

 

[30907]

You would still have the double section from St. Johns to Esplanade for passing

Leaving aside the costs, the most likely increase in service would be to 20min interval, which requires the present Sandown and Smallbrook layout.

 

[Chris125]

But why unnecessarily constrain yourself for the future by taking out infrastructure you don’t have too - exactly the same as taking Brading Loop out in the 80s did?

What would be constrained? 3tph can be run without a second track between St Johns and Smallbrook and even that frequency is hard to justify when the Catamarans are only half-hourly.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

What would be constrained? 3tph can be run without a second track between St Johns and Smallbrook and even that frequency is hard to justify when the Catamarans are only half-hourly.

Of course it can be run without the 2nd track between St. John's and Smallbrook, on both 2tph and 3tph, provided every train keeps exactly to its timetable. But in the real world, things go wrong and trains get delayed. That's when the extra double track can come in useful.

 

[Chris125]

Of course it can be run without the 2nd track between St. John's and Smallbrook, on both 2tph and 3tph, provided every train keeps exactly to its timetable. But in the real world, things go wrong and trains get delayed. That's when the extra double track can come in useful.

Pretty much every train does run exactly to timetable! It's a short line with decent recovery time at each end so it's really not an issue, especially as time will be saved by no longer stopping at Smallbrook Junction.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Whether it is an issue or not is immaterial. The “Safety Stasi” have spoken and the costs are prohibitive.

Everyone has to wait for a more favourable climate when a more “can do” attitude will get the result most people (including those at SWR) want.

 

[Chester1]

Sure, if everything runs perfectly to time every day, then you could run the line with St. John's Road to Smallbrook singled. But cutting the double track means that the line becomes less resilient to delays.

As an example, with the planned 30 minute timetable, there should normally only ever be one train north of Brading, with the trains passing at Brading - so you might naively think you could get away with single track all the way to Ryde Pier Head. But if - say - a Southbound train is heavily delayed, then - what do you do with the Northbound train that it was supposed to pass at Brading? You have a choice between holding that train at Brading until the Southbound train arrives (thereby delaying that train by the same amount which means perpetuating the delays to the next services too) or finding a spot where the trains can pass further North instead, which may mean the Northbound train can still run roughly on time. The more double track you have, the better are your options for having the trains pass somewhere else, so the delay to one train doesn't keep propagating. And that scenario is with just 2tph!

It's probably not a common scenario to have trains delayed that much on such an isolated route, so it's not the sort of thing where it'd be worth all the expense of putting double track in if it's not already there. But where you do have double track already there, then I certainly wouldn't want to start paying to take it out.

Delays should be very uncommon with a service operated with a new fleet, 8 minute turnarounds and no interaction with the rest of the network. If IWSR ran to St Johns it would enable the demolition of Smallbrook Junction Station which would increase recovery time. In the unlikely event of IWSR running to St Johns and 3-4tph being necessary, I would put a loop on the site of Smallbrook Station.

Pretty much every train does run exactly to timetable! It's a short line with decent recovery time at each end so it's really not an issue, especially as time will be saved by no longer stopping at Smallbrook Junction.

I am very much of the view that the main focus needs to be on keeping operating costs low. I just can't see how a 8.5 mile line separate to the rest of the network needs any long double track sections. Three passing loops and 8 minute turnarounds would be adequate for any realistic future service level.

Whether it is an issue or not is immaterial. The “Safety Stasi” have spoken and the costs are prohibitive.

Everyone has to wait for a more favourable climate when a more “can do” attitude will get the result most people (including those at SWR) want.

Its a real shame, especially considering that most of the section has space for quite a wide separation between NR and IWSR tracks. What kind of boundary would there need to be to meet ORR requirements? There was no proposed track sharing so needing to meet full NR rolling stock requirements is bonkers!