Island Line - yet ANOTHER closure

[Gloster]

Network Rail is to replace the decks of two bridges (Park Road and Rink Road) just north of Ryde St John’s Road station. The dates are not yet certain, but work may start around September this year and go on to February 2024, or it may not start until 2024. It is as yet unclear if the line will be closed north of St Johns’s Road for the whole of the period or merely for significant periods.

Source: Island Echo, which doesn’t say much more. (Sorry, I can’t do a llink.)

 

[Lewlew]

It’s good that money is finally being spent on the line. It’s gone many many years with zero investment. Temporary closures are annoying but they’ll be worth it in the long run.

Over the past 18 months, plans have been drawn up to carry out the major engineering scheme, which looks likely to begin sometime around September this year and last until February 2024. However, depending on how things progress, it could be 2024 until works get underway. Either way, this will cause severe disruption to those visiting the Tower House doctor’s surgery and businesses on Rink Road, as well as motorists looking to circumnavigate St John’s Road via Park Road.

It has been confirmed that the works will require possession of the railway line, which means it is likely trains will not travel between Ryde Pier Head and Ryde St John’s for either the duration of the works, or at least for significant periods.

BRIDGE DECKS AT RYDE TO BE REPLACED FORCING ROAD CLOSURES FOR 5 MONTHS

Network Rail is set to replace the bridge decks at both Park Road and Rink Road in Ryde, forcing the

www.islandecho.co.uk

(Although I don’t recommend using their website as they force you to turn off ad blockers before showing any of the site)

 

[zwk500]

It’s good that money is finally being spent on the line. It’s gone many many years with zero investment. Temporary closures are annoying but they’ll be worth it in the long run.

It's slightly frustrating that this wasn't able to be programmed into the recent full closure and conversion for the D-Stock. I know there'll be a reason, but all the same given how long that went on you can understand any frustration.

 

[Chris125]

I hope they take the opportunity to remove the central brick pillars - without them it may be possible to ease the curves slightly and increase the linespeed, the second track north of St Johns serves no practical purpose after all.

 

[Bald Rick]

Surprised it’s going to survive at all. It loses so much money. I’ve heard a suggestion that it costs more to run the line than the entire IoW bus operation.

 

[Gloster]

I do have a genuine fear that in a few years’ time a round of cuts might lead to the line’s closure or reduction to a pier-shuttle. However, closure because of the costs and loss of traffic would be a very public example of just how chaotically structured the rail industry is nowadays. Closing a line that you have just spent millions refurbishing because said refurbishment (or refurbishments) were so badly organised that they drew out excessively and drove passengers away does not look good.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

possible to ease the curves slightly and increase the linespeed

Unlikely I would say, the reverse curves being as they are at that spot, I don't think there'd be any real benefit tbh?

I do have a genuine fear that in a few years’ time a round of cuts might lead to the line’s closure

I've had that very real gut feeling for a number of years now. As a nipper I (and my parents) piled in to a 6 set at the pier with an 02 up front and off we went to either Ventnor or Shanklin (we had fav guest houses to use at both), but those days of crush loading (to the railways financial benefit ticket wise) have long gone!

 

[Meerkat]

Why would these two bridges take long?
both look like flat bridges with flat areas nearby for building new decks or parts thereof.
Lift out the old one, sort the abutments, lift in a new one.
Or is it cheaper to not run the trains for ages and take their time, considering that not running trains probably saves money in itself!

 

[Gloster]

Why would these two bridges take long?

A very good question. Even allowing for the fact that they are probably going to have to rebuild, or even completely replace, the abutments it does seem to be a ridiculously long time, even if they do one bridge at a time. Or maybe work just takes longer on the island: my moderately-sized surgery, opened to much fanfare in 2014, needs to be completely demolished and rebuilt, which will take three years.

 

[zwk500]

Why would these two bridges take long?
both look like flat bridges with flat areas nearby for building new decks or parts thereof.
Lift out the old one, sort the abutments, lift in a new one.
Or is it cheaper to not run the trains for ages and take their time, considering that not running trains probably saves money in itself!

Neither look particularly easy to get a crane near, and the crane would need to come from the mainland, tying it up for longer than other jobs.

 

[Meerkat]

Neither look particularly easy to get a crane near, and the crane would need to come from the mainland, tying it up for longer than other jobs.

Looking at it again…the size of crane needed to do reach from where I was looking probably wouldn’t fit on the ferry! Lucky engineering plans aren’t knocked up after a quick look at Google Maps eh!
However if you can get access to the yard between the bridges to the west couldn’t you build a roadway over the track then lift/Jack a prefab bridge together?
Not saying it’s easy at all, but not especially difficult to take weeks.

 

[A0]

Why would these two bridges take long?
both look like flat bridges with flat areas nearby for building new decks or parts thereof.
Lift out the old one, sort the abutments, lift in a new one.
Or is it cheaper to not run the trains for ages and take their time, considering that not running trains probably saves money in itself!

They're not 'flat' as such - screenshots from Google Street view attached.

 

[Chris125]

Unlikely I would say, the reverse curves being as they are at that spot, I don't think there'd be any real benefit tbh?

Essentially these bridges cross one elongated curve of varying severity so any improvement from singling would be limited - nevertheless watching cabrides like Hidden London's on youtube you can clearly see the Down line under Rink Road needs a noticeably sharper curve than the Up line. Tight clearances through the bridges may be limiting the cant that can be applied too.

 

[Meerkat]

They're not 'flat' as such - screenshots from Google Street view attached.

Sorry - me being non technical. I meant flat girder type construction rather than arches.
Are the railway allowed to replace them like for like or might they have to sort out gradients, pavements, etc?

 

[zwk500]

Sorry - me being non technical. I meant flat girder type construction rather than arches.
Are the railway allowed to replace them like for like or might they have to sort out gradients, pavements, etc?

The railway (or indeed the highway authority) can replace them like-for-like, within a certain tolerance much as can be done with rail infrastructure.

 

[swt_passenger]

IIRC the council did replace a bridge over the line somewhere towards the south end of the line during the main closure. I think it was their own scheme, rather than Network Rail’s responsibility.

 

[Gloster]

The bridge that was replaced was the footbridge adjacent to Sandown Road in Lake. The two bridges to be replaced during the latest closure will have their weight limit raised from 3 tonnes to 40 tonnes. As the roads seem to be intended only for local traffic and are hardly fit for heavy vehicles, this seems to be overkill. Is 40 tonnes an industry standard?

 

[A0]

The bridge that was replaced was the footbridge adjacent to Sandown Road in Lake. The two bridges to be replaced during the latest closure will have their weight limit raised from 3 tonnes to 40 tonnes. As the roads seem to be intended only for local traffic and are hardly fit for heavy vehicles, this seems to be overkill. Is 40 tonnes an industry standard?

Well the Park Road bridge is right next to the old Southern Vectis depot, which SV AIUI still use as an outstation, so unless buses have got *alot* lighter, it may be helpful for them to go either way when leaving the depot.

 

[Gloster]

Well the Park Road bridge is right next to the old Southern Vectis depot, which SV AIUI still use as an outstation, so unless buses have got *alot* lighter, it may be helpful for them to go either way when leaving the depot.

I think that the Ryde outstation is only used by around a dozen buses, mostly school ones but possibly including some open-toppers: most of these would not need to cross the railway when going to and from their duties. Much of the area to the east of the line is basically a residential one with none too wide streets (I will admit I don’t know it well) where the residents would likely be up in arms about empty buses using their streets. So is it worth doing two bridges for a handful of buses which might be forced to use another route before long?

 

[fandroid]

The bridge that was replaced was the footbridge adjacent to Sandown Road in Lake. The two bridges to be replaced during the latest closure will have their weight limit raised from 3 tonnes to 40 tonnes. As the roads seem to be intended only for local traffic and are hardly fit for heavy vehicles, this seems to be overkill. Is 40 tonnes an industry standard?

If the bridges are in need of replacement anyway, a 40 tonnes capacity is probably no more expensive to provide than say 10 tonnes, and that builds in some load redundancy too