Trams proposed for Isle of Wight

[341o2]

Alas I don't think it would any difference - there's no realistic prospect of steam returning to the pier given the cost and practicality.

The steam railway have stated that they have no intention of retuning to Pier Head.

A few years back, there was a proposal that the Island line would reinstate the passing loop at Brading, close Smallbrook and the steam railway would take over the second track to St Johns. To St Johns only

It would seem best to retain the Island line as is and source replacement stock. By all accounts, the track is in need of some work as well, to put it mildly.

 

[Chris125]

Aren't they looking at replacing some DLR stock with a new walk through design? As a previous poster said these displaced units would appear ideal as they are relatively modern, lightweight, use a US style third rail pick up and surely would fit in the tunnel?

Exactly, though I'm not sure TfL have yet confirmed that units will be freed up or given a timescale - if/when they do this should be looked into, they seem ideal.

 

[infobleep]

The IoWSR (Isle of Wight Steam Railway) have said multiple times they are not interested in the running the Ryde - Shanklin line, they don't have the money or man power to run a meaningful service and the burden would probably bankrupt them.

As for why the services survived the 60s is because of the large passenger flows during the summer months. I'm don't know if you have ever been to the island but the road network is already quite congested as it is. Would hate to think what would happen if you closed the railway and replaced it with buses.

I'm also not sure how I feel about handing a transport monopoly over to Southern Vectis, the way they have treated some the smaller operators is nothing short of appalling.

I've only been to the Isle of Wight in December. What surprises me though is how such a short stretch of line survived.

I understand they didn't wish to repair the tunnel but all the other lines closed down. I guess Sandown alone was enough. Clearly it isn't now, if they are making a loss.

Not that I really think it should close.

 

[Mojo]

Yes. Bus operations are almost always cheaper than rail operations.

Given you appear to be talking about the cost of operations, rather than that of infrastructure:

On main corridors, per passenger kilometre, the operating costs of [Light Rail Transit], which vary between 1p and 2.1p are lower than that of buses, which vary between 3.3p and 8.8p, or bus rapid transit, which vary between 2.5p and 5p. The reason for this lower cost is due to higher patronage, longer-lasting vehicles and lower staffing levels. At volumes of 2,500 passengers per hour LRT tends to become cheaper than buses to provide a service.

 

[341o2]

I've only been to the Isle of Wight in December. What surprises me though is how such a short stretch of line survived.

I understand they didn't wish to repair the tunnel but all the other lines closed down. I guess Sandown alone was enough. Clearly it isn't now, if they are making a loss.

Not that I really think it should close.

Many lines closed in the 50's, by 1956 only Ryde - Ventnor/Cowes survived.

Beeching recommended complete closure, most preferred the bus between Ryde and Newport because it was quicker. Ryde - Ventnor was reprieved, but this would have meant a sterling halfpenny on the rates due to the need to provide an additional substatiion, the Islanders voted nay, hence the terminus at Shanklin.

Plenty of other lines can appear to carry few passengers at times, there's a letter in this week's Lymington Times on this very subject.

A visit to Blackpool in winter found the basic service covered by six of the then new one man trams with a few extras. Visit during the illuminations and you'll realise why consideration of complete closure of the tram system was turned down

 

[MidlandMainlie]

The steam railway have stated that they have no intention of retuning to Pier Head.

A few years back, there was a proposal that the Island line would reinstate the passing loop at Brading, close Smallbrook and the steam railway would take over the second track to St Johns. To St Johns only

It would seem best to retain the Island line as is and source replacement stock. By all accounts, the track is in need of some work as well, to put it mildly.

Having found the report online and having read it last night it's not just the track that is in need of some work but the DC electricity supply too with voltage drops at various places along the line and the signalling has issues too. That combined with replacement for the 1938 TS not likely to be available for another 10 years and that will need money to be modified when it will already be 50 years old.

So if the Island line is to remain open then there will have to be some investment in the near future, but it costs around £4 million a year to operate and only generates around £1 million a year in revenue then there will have to be cost reductions to make the line viable. So conversion to a tramway would require some upfront capital costs, (but hopefully not much more than maintaining the current line), it could reduce the amount required to operate the line from the £4 million at the moment.

Here is a link to the report at the bottom of this page.

http://www.iwcp.co.uk/news/news/isl...ncil-commissioned-report-concludes-93945.aspx

 

[450.emu]

1992TS is mainly aluminum I believe, but has around 20 years before it's going to the razor blade factory.

Those 92 Stock defintely is not The Best a Man Can Get :roll: they already look a state and have very worn out interiors. I guess there are the similarities to the Waterloo & City stock, not sure if the W&C is BR-style Third Rail or have a central return rail like the rest of the Underground?

 

[zuriblue]

Those 92 Stock defintely is not The Best a Man Can Get :roll: they already look a state and have very worn out interiors. I guess there are the similarities to the Waterloo & City stock, not sure if the W&C is BR-style Third Rail or have a central return rail like the rest of the Underground?

It was third rail only until it passed to LU. LU added the fourth rail as they were using a variant of the Central Line stock. The old drain stock was ancient, it was even marked "Southern Railway"

 

[Firesprite]

It was third rail only until it passed to LU. LU added the fourth rail as they were using a variant of the Central Line stock. The old drain stock was ancient, it was even marked "Southern Railway"

That may be, But they were still two years younger than the current 1938 stock.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Having found the report online and having read it last night it's not just the track that is in need of some work but the DC electricity supply too with voltage drops at various places along the line and the signalling has issues too. That combined with replacement for the 1938 TS not likely to be available for another 10 years and that will need money to be modified when it will already be 50 years old.

So if the Island line is to remain open then there will have to be some investment in the near future, but it costs around £4 million a year to operate and only generates around £1 million a year in revenue then there will have to be cost reductions to make the line viable. So conversion to a tramway would require some upfront capital costs, (but hopefully not much more than maintaining the current line), it could reduce the amount required to operate the line from the £4 million at the moment.

Here is a link to the report at the bottom of this page.

http://www.iwcp.co.uk/news/news/isl...ncil-commissioned-report-concludes-93945.aspx

It sounds like it's going to near enough need all it's current infrastructure replaced as well as getting whatever it gets to replace it's current rolling stock. Rode on the line must have been a couple of years ago now and it was like riding on a Pacer!

 

[Bletchleyite]

It sounds like it's going to near enough need all it's current infrastructure replaced as well as getting whatever it gets to replace it's current rolling stock. Rode on the line must have been a couple of years ago now and it was like riding on a Pacer!

Old Tube stock has very basic suspension with limited travel because of the limited Tube loading gauge. I bet if you put a 158 on there (whacking the tunnel roof aside) or a 221 (smashing the track to bits aside from its excessive weight) it would be barely noticeable.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That may be, But they were still two years younger than the current 1938 stock.

Amazing to see 78 year old 1938 stock being shown as "current"...:roll:

 

[HSTEd]

The advantages of tram operation are primarily street running which would consume so much money that I doubt the CBR would ever be any good.

And £3m in excess costs isn't really that much in railway terms.
Voltage drop on the supply can be handled by extra cables in parallel with the third/running rails at rather low cost really. An extra rectifier station would use tram style gear and cost almost nothing thanks to its very low required output.
A current limited chopper rectifier station could even use 400V supply to prop up the rail voltage during load transients.

Tram conversion doesn't make the track replacement that would be required magically cost less or make identical or greater electrical infrastructure work cost less.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

One matter needs stressing about this tramway proposal is that on the grounds of historical precedent, the fact that elderly LU stock is used at present was only ever used AFTER the original steam haulage was discontinued, so the proposed use of tramway units therefore would appear to have the same validity of usage as the existing LU units.

 

[yorksrob]

One matter needs streshelf'about this tramway proposal is that on the grounds of historical precedent, the fact that elderly LU stock is used at present was only ever used AFTER the original steam haulage was discontinued, so the proposed use of tramway units therefore would appear to have the same validity of usage as the existing LU units.

I was under the impression that tube stock was chosen because it was the only 'off the shelf' stock that would fit through the tunnel.

With a tram solution, you would either need a bespoke build of tube size tram, or new infrastructure to get around the tunnel, so it wouldn't be off the shelf.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I was under the impression that tube stock was chosen because it was the only 'off the shelf' stock that would fit through the tunnel.

With a tram solution, you would either need a bespoke build of tube size tram, or new infrastructure to get around the tunnel, so it wouldn't be off the shelf.

That was NOT the point that I was making. The point that I so sought to make was concerning historical grounds that the original railway was run by steam locomotives, so the use of trams have not the same historical precedent that neither the LU units had.

I was not making any reference to what was available to replace the steam trains. Incidentally, did you amend my posting to show the phrase "streshelf'" as my posting clearly stated the word "stressing" ?

 

[Chris125]

I was under the impression that tube stock was chosen because it was the only 'off the shelf' stock that would fit through the tunnel.

With a tram solution, you would either need a bespoke build of tube size tram, or new infrastructure to get around the tunnel, so it wouldn't be off the shelf.

The clearances are sub standard but rolling stock does not have to be tube sized to fit - 05001 worked through to Ryde Pier unmodified and there was a serious proposal in the 80s to use Class 503s retired from Merseyrail, so tram/light rail designs without excessively high roofs should be fine, and their typically short vehicle lengths would be ideal for the sharp curves at Esplanade.

Chris

 

[Mikey C]

If converted to trams, would it be feasible via some street running where necessary to extend the route to say Ventnor, which might make the service more useful?

 

[Chris125]

If converted to trams, would it be feasible via some street running where necessary to extend the route to say Ventnor, which might make the service more useful?

Ventnor wouldn't really benefit from street running, the railway formation is largely intact and trams would surely struggle with the roads down to the high street. It would benefit a reopening to Newport and especially through to Cowes much more, but that seems highly unlikely in the foreseeable future.

 

[A0wen]

If converted to trams, would it be feasible via some street running where necessary to extend the route to say Ventnor, which might make the service more useful?

You've got to be joking - the roads into and out of Ventnor are *very* steep. (Happy memories of travelling on Bristol VRs and Olympians labouring their way on those roads).

The railway line used to come in from the north of Ventnor (via Wroxall) rather than a direct 'as the crow' flies' route.

Any route following the coastline would be a nightmare.

 

[Stroud Valleys]

Whichever way you look at it, the island line needs significant expenditure during the next 5-10 years for track, signalling etc. Is it worth updating the existing infrastructure or to spend the money converting the track to enable trams. It might require some more investigation as to which would be more beneficial in the long term.

It would probably make sense to go to a tram based system, so that is allows the possibility to extensions in the future, but that isn't for another 10 years plus.

In the short term, I would suggest that the powers that be decide whether its trains or trams, and once decided, purchase some made to design trains or trams specifically for the island line, and upgrade existing power supplies.

Also introduce the loop at Brading. This would allow trains to pass at Brading and allows for 1 unit to spend 20 minutes between Shanklin and Brading, plus 10 minute wait at Shanklin.

The other unit would spend 14 minutes to get between Brading and Ryde Pier. On arrival at Ryde Pier, another unit could depart 2 minutes later, allowing sufficient time to pass with the train from Shanklin at Brading.

This would make the loop at Sandown unnecessary - save money and move that loop to Brading?

The unit waiting over at Ryde Pier could do a return trip to St Johns to allow a 15 minute service between St Johns and the Pier.

The only problem with the above is that 2/3 platforms would still be required at St Johns. It would be good to see the steam train link up at St Johns, as that would be much better than the current situation with Smallbrook Junction. One potential solution would be to use some of the waste land at the back of the St Johns station car park, but not sure if there is sufficient room?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You've got to be joking - the roads into and out of Ventnor are *very* steep. (Happy memories of travelling on Bristol VRs and Olympians labouring their way on those roads).

The railway line used to come in from the north of Ventnor (via Wroxall) rather than a direct 'as the crow' flies' route. Any route following the coastline would be a nightmare.

Ventnor and the surrounding settlements only has a total resident population of around 6,000 and noting what you say above about the steepness of the roads, one must always bear in mind that the geological Graben fault above the town, which I am informed by a learned professor who has retired to the Newport area, suffers movements from time to time, coupled with the fact that much of the town area has a clay substrate, leaving the town open to landslip.

 

[Chris125]

Any route following the coastline would be a nightmare.

Amazingly the intended route of the Isle of Wight Railway was to follow the existing route south of Shanklin before heading east, climbing towards Cowleaze Hill then through Luccombe and Bonchurch - alas it was scuppered by local landowners.

 

[yorksrob]

I was not making any reference to what was available to replace the steam trains. Incidentally, did you amend my posting to show the phrase "streshelf'" as my posting clearly stated the word "stressing" ?

Not intentionally, but if you've ever used one of these crummy android phones, you'll know how it jumps around the text and changes things without permission.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The clearances are sub standard but rolling stock does not have to be tube sized to fit - 05001 worked through to Ryde Pier unmodified and there was a serious proposal in the 80s to use Class 503s retired from Merseyrail, so tram/light rail designs without excessively high roofs should be fine, and their typically short vehicle lengths would be ideal for the sharp curves at Esplanade.

Chris

Does that mean that there might be some other stock on the main line that might fit the bill, or is the PEP stock uniquely squat in profile ?

 

[NotATrainspott]

If the route is to be kept open with the lowest possible cost then I'm sure the Parry People Mover company could build some basic trains that would fit just fine through whatever obstacles may exist.

 

[Mikey C]

Ventnor and the surrounding settlements only has a total resident population of around 6,000 and noting what you say above about the steepness of the roads, one must always bear in mind that the geological Graben fault above the town, which I am informed by a learned professor who has retired to the Newport area, suffers movements from time to time, coupled with the fact that much of the town area has a clay substrate, leaving the town open to landslip.

But then what is the reason the line still exists

1) to enable locals to get around
2) to enable locals to get to the mainland via Ryde Pier
3) for tourists, e.g. to reach the steam railway or get to the holiday destinations in the south of the Island,

as other than Ryde itself, the traffic is pretty light. The bus routes from Newport to the west are a delight!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does that mean that there might be some other stock on the main line that might fit the bill, or is the PEP stock uniquely squat in profile ?

503s aren't PEPs, they are older. But I do wonder if PEPs might fit, being lower than Mk3-based EMUs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If the route is to be kept open with the lowest possible cost then I'm sure the Parry People Mover company could build some basic trains that would fit just fine through whatever obstacles may exist.

I didn't think of that, but it could be a reasonable testbed for a larger, bogied, 2-car PPM type vehicle. Then the electrification equipment could be retired, probably saving further money.

I'd think it was a joke were it not for the fact that a PPM has been largely reliably plying its trade on the Stourbridge Shuttle for a few years now.

 

[Townsend Hook]

Would PEP stock be a little heavy for the pier? Not sure how restrictive that would be, or how much heavier PEP stock is than '38 stock.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would PEP stock be a little heavy for the pier? Not sure how restrictive that would be, or how much heavier PEP stock is than '38 stock.

It's ally bodied, so I doubt it's *that* heavy.

 

[Chris125]

Does that mean that there might be some other stock on the main line that might fit the bill, or is the PEP stock uniquely squat in profile ?

The 503s date from 1938 and have vehicles 17-17.7m long rather than the 20m of more modern designs like the PEP stock, so present fewer clearance issues through the curves in the tunnel and platform at Esplanade.