Another Island Line closure.

[Gloster]

According to the Islandecho (.islandecho.co.uk - sorry, can’t do a link) the Island Line is to be closed between Ryde Esplanade and Pier Head from the end of June to mid-February 2023. £17 million is to be spent on various work on the pier, most urgently platform work, and the track will be relaid; some work will continue into 2024. If the work had not been carried out, the line would have had to be closed on safety grounds in December. Warning: The news item is a bit confused so it remains to be seen what exactly will happen. (Island Line, the gift that keeps on giving: to satirists.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

ISLAND LINE WON’T SERVE RYDE PIER HEAD FOR 3 MONTHS DURING £17MILLION REPAIR SCHEME

Island Line trains won't be serving Ryde Pier Head for at least 3 months to facilitate a £17million critical repair

www.islandecho.co.uk

Yes, the mind does boggle why it wasn't done as part of the main works! Rail replacement golf buggy service, anyone?

Island Line trains won’t be serving Ryde Pier Head for more than 7 months to facilitate a £17million critical repair project to the railway, it has been revealed.

It’s said that the platform superstructure at the end of Ryde Pier is coming towards the end of its operational life and requires renewal and refurbishment to allow it to continue to operate safely. If the works aren’t completed before December this year the line will be forced to close for safety reasons.


It is proposed that works will get underway at the end of June and will continue until at least mid-February, during which time the line needs to be closed north of Ryde Esplanade. It will include replacing the dilapidated weather screen that greets visitors to the Island.



As well as the more serious repairs to the structure, engineers are set to replace the track along the length of the pier. In addition, smaller refurbishment works are proposed to take place from the beginning of June until December this year.


It’s understood an area of the ‘wet end’ car park used by fishermen will be taken over as a works compound, meaning less parking at Pier Head.




The 7-month long scheme won’t be the end of the story though as it is envisioned that refurbishment works will continue until 2024 as work is dictated by tides and weather. Furthermore, Ryde Esplanade station is due an upgrade as part of the wider Esplanade redevelopment.


The major scheme comes after a £26million project to upgrade the entire Island Line – and many may be left wondering why the work wasn’t completed at the same time.



South Western Railway and Network Rail have been approached for a statement.

 

[swt_passenger]

This isn’t actually new news. The pier repair was always going to be a separate Network Rail project outside the 484 associated work.

 

[DelW]

Rail replacement golf buggy service, anyone?

Pier Head can be, and is, served by taxis up to and including minibus size.

This isn’t actually new news. The pier repair was always going to be a separate Network Rail project outside the 484 associated work.

But why? Surely it could have been planned to coincide with the earlier works, when nothing ran up the pier for months on end? I know that those works overran by many months, but even on the original schedule, carrying them out concurrently would have reduced the period of disruption quite considerably.

 

[swt_passenger]

But why? Surely it could have been planned to coincide with the earlier works, when nothing ran up the pier for months on end? I know that those works overran by many months, but even on the original schedule, carrying them out concurrently would have reduced the period of disruption quite considerably.

I can’t answer that. But I think NR were only doing surveys of the pier structure during mid 2021, too late to add it I suspect.

 

[Gloster]

Pier Head can be, and is, served by taxis up to and including minibus size.

Indeed it can and taxis have been used in the past, but connections to and from the FastCats aren’t that generous. Are passengers going to risk finding that a small delay at one end of the pier or the other leads to an hour’s delay, or even two as some Cats are missing in the timetable. And before anyone suggests running a second train to give a robust half-hour connection, Island Line still seems to be suffering cancellations due to staff shortages.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2022 ==

I can’t answer that. But I think NR were only doing surveys of the pier structure during mid 2021, too late to add it I suspect.

Wouldn’t it have been better to do the surveys as part of the preparation for the modernisation?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2022 ==

EDIT: The headline has been altered and added to. According to Network Rail the closure will only be for ‘at least twelve weeks, starting in September.’ The dates will be announced later.

 

[hermit]

Pier Head can be, and is, served by taxis up to and including minibus size.

But why? Surely it could have been planned to coincide with the earlier works, when nothing ran up the pier for months on end? I know that those works overran by many months, but even on the original schedule, carrying them out concurrently would have reduced the period of disruption quite considerably.

The official line, quoted in the County Press paper edition, is that “it was not possible to complete the work during the Island Line closure in 2021 as our programme of work had not been finalised”. This does suggest a failure of planning.

I think the idea that present ferry connections can be reliably maintained during the closure is for the birds - connection times will be too tight. On past experience the replacement taxi service doesn’t work well, and most people end up walking up or down the pier. The sensible solution would be to adjust the train timetable to allow extra time for the pier traverse. I don’t have much confidence that this will happen. A fully-functioning half-hourly train service would at least be some help.

 

[Gloster]

The paper edition of the new Island Line timetable is out. Even though it is marked as running until 5 November, there is not the slightest mention of alterations from September on.

 

[dorsetdesiro]

Is NR responsible for the whole pier or just the track? If other parties i.e. council & ferry operator also involved then I can see this dragging on and on as "passing the buck" is apparently common these days.

This reminds me of a local shopping centre car park was originally built poorly that cracks appeared not long after the grand opening. The council & developer blamed each other which went on for nearly 20 years until the other backed down. This car park is currently being rebuilt.

About time for the pier to be redeveloped with the old tramway line replaced with a wide walkway with peds & cyclists no longer having to use the roadway is to be welcomed.

 

[swt_passenger]

Is NR responsible for the whole pier or just the track? If other parties i.e. council & ferry operator also involved then I can see this dragging on and on as "passing the buck" is apparently common these days.

This reminds me of a local shopping centre car park was originally built poorly that cracks appeared not long after the grand opening. The council & developer blamed each other which went on for nearly 20 years until the other backed down. This car park is currently being rebuilt.

About time for the pier to be redeveloped with the old tramway line replaced with a wide walkway with peds & cyclists no longer having to use the roadway is to be welcomed.

They are actually structurally completely separate piers, Wightlink own and maintain the road pier and pier head, Network Rail own and maintain the rail pier and station area. I’m not sure on the unused tram pier ownership though I’d be very surprised if it had anything to do with NR. Hence the walkway project is nothing to do with NR and SWR, although it will possibly have to interface near the station building at the shore end.

 

[Gloster]

They are actually structurally completely separate piers, Wightlink own and maintain the road pier and pier head, Network Rail own and maintain the rail pier and station area. I’m not sure on the unused tram pier ownership though I’d be very surprised if it had anything to do with NR. Hence the walkway project is nothing to do with NR and SWR, although it will possibly have to interface near the station building at the shore end.

It looks as though planning permission to convert the tramway pier to a walkway has been granted to Wightlink: Isle of Wight Council planning reference 22/00235/LBC . (Sorry, I can’t do a link and I couldn’t get all the documents into focus on my iPad.)

 

[swt_passenger]

It looks as though planning permission to convert the tramway pier to a walkway has been granted to Wightlink: Isle of Wight Council planning reference 22/00235/LBC . (Sorry, I can’t do a link and I couldn’t get all the documents into focus on my iPad.)

From what I remember IOW planning links time out anyway so no need to worry about links. Having had a quick scan through the docs it seems the tram pier is in Wightlink ownership. At least they’re the declared applicant.

 

[dorsetdesiro]

Thanks for the update.

Good news that Wightlink have set the ball rolling on this, hopefully this will be actioned quickly as possible, one more long closure of the pier may not hurt if this will result in the pier restored in a splendid condition after rusting away for so many years. It would be annoying for tourists/ferry users to turn up to find the pier's track closed which is unfortnately unavoidable.

Agree with the questions about why this wasn't done at the same time as the line upgrade, no joined up thinking between NR/SWR/Wightlink/IOW Council. At least this isn't being swept under the carpet, for modern stock as 484s going past the rotting remains of the old tramway just cannot continue if Ryde wishes to present itself as an attractive Victorian seaside resort.

 

[43066]

Thanks for the update.

Good news that Wightlink have set the ball rolling on this, hopefully this will be actioned quickly as possible, one more long closure of the pier may not hurt if this will result in the pier restored in a splendid condition after rusting away for so many years. It would be annoying for tourists/ferry users to turn up to find the pier's track closed which is unfortnately unavoidable.

Agree with the questions about why this wasn't done at the same time as the line upgrade, no joined up thinking between NR/SWR/Wightlink/IOW Council. At least this isn't being swept under the carpet, for modern stock as 484s going past the rotting remains of the old tramway just cannot continue if Ryde wishes to present itself as an attractive Victorian seaside resort.

Possibly a little artistic license being deployed there in describing 484s as “modern stock” .

 

[hermit]

The works to be carried out during closure will apparently include replacing the dilapidated ancient windshield that protects the platform at Pierhead. So arguably the worst eyesore greeting arriving visitors will be dealt with. Not before time - whenever I pass by another panel seems to have dropped off.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Possibly a little artistic license being deployed there in describing 484s as “modern stock” .

Perhaps they are, if compared with what they replaced!

 

[Gloster]

There was only one comment received about the application. It came from a Mr (sic) Ryde Town Council.

 

[A0]

The official line, quoted in the County Press paper edition, is that “it was not possible to complete the work during the Island Line closure in 2021 as our programme of work had not been finalised”. This does suggest a failure of planning.

I think the idea that present ferry connections can be reliably maintained during the closure is for the birds - connection times will be too tight. On past experience the replacement taxi service doesn’t work well, and most people end up walking up or down the pier. The sensible solution would be to adjust the train timetable to allow extra time for the pier traverse. I don’t have much confidence that this will happen. A fully-functioning half-hourly train service would at least be some help.

BIB - as a project manager, that statement is utter balderdash, made by somebody who is little more than an "armchair expert".

What it appears to mean here is the extent of works needed on the pier weren't part of the original scope of the other works on the line, presumably because the analysis of what was needed for the pier had not been fully completed at that time. Why that analysis hadn't been complete by that stage, who knows - could be lack of resource (which given the pandemic is possible), could be that the pier head hadn't been scheduled for works at that time. It could be that since the works may need to look at the whole structure of the pier, but NR aren't the sole owner of the pier (they are part owner with Wightlink) that there has been some issue there - who knows. What is tiresome are the incessant claims from "armchair experts" that it's always a project failure - if it's that easy to manage large projects, one wonders why you aren't doing it......

 

[hermit]

The test of any planning process is whether it produces a sensible outcome. In this case it clearly didn’t. There may indeed be good reasons why tackling the pier works separately from the rest of the Island Line project was unavoidable, but none of us, whether in armchairs or not, are in a position to know that. In the absence of such information, it is not unreasonable to at least ask the question whether more could have been done to avoid a double closure, given that the need for work on the pier was long known and was indeed announced at the same time as the Island Line project.

And, with respect, can I suggest that comments made from a position of ignorance about the supposed credentials, or lack of them, of other contributors are uncalled for.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The test of any planning process is whether it produces a sensible outcome. In this case it clearly didn’t. There may indeed be good reasons why tackling the pier works separately from the rest of the Island Line project was unavoidable, but none of us, whether in armchairs or not, are in a position to know that. In the absence of such information, it is not unreasonable to at least ask the question whether more could have been done to avoid a double closure, given that the need for work on the pier was long known and was indeed announced at the same time as the Island Line project.

And, with respect, can I suggest that comments made from a position of ignorance about the supposed credentials, or lack of them, of other contributors are uncalled for.

Thing is the failure of the rail industry to adequately communicate why it wasn't co-ordinated invites this sort of criticism.

The industry is supposed to be putting the passenger first not last.

 

[Chris125]

Details of the planned work can be seen in the MMO application - it's the structure holding the track in the pier head platform that's safety critical, with other works taking advantage of the necessary closure. They'll be using floating platforms, a multicat to move materials and and a RRV to relay the track.

Ryde Pier: Critical work on railway requires six month closure

A report states that the critical work must be fixed by December, or else the ‘railway would need to be closed for safety reasons’

onthewight.com

Ryde Pier’s railway track could be shut forever unless six months of closure for critical improvements takes place — civil engineers have warned.

An application has been made to the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) by Osborne Infrastructure, on behalf of Network Rail, to make the improvements.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Thinking slightly outside the box perhaps (but financially never going to happen anytime soon I appreciate), but the pier head as is, was presumably built where it was so that the ferry vessels of the time could berth, without risk of grounding at low tide. But with today's CATS operating the service, would they be able to come closer to shore, to allow a completely new build terminal to replace the ongoing headaches with the current structure? Probably not I would guess, as the pier isn't all that long compared to the likes of Southend.
I honestly have no idea of all the issues that may be involved?

 

[swt_passenger]

Thinking slightly outside the box perhaps (but financially never going to happen anytime soon I appreciate), but the pier head as is, was presumably built where it was so that the ferry vessels of the time could berth, without risk of grounding at low tide. But with today's CATS operating the service, would they be able to come closer to shore, to allow a completely new build terminal to replace the ongoing headaches with the current structure? Probably not I would guess, as the pier isn't all that long compared to the likes of Southend.
I honestly have no idea of all the issues that may be involved?

The mean low water mark as drawn on OS maps is very close to the pier head. The fastcats couldn’t get more than about 50m closer to the land. I expect you can walk out on the sand all the way to the pier head at the lowest spring tides.

 

[DelW]

Thinking slightly outside the box perhaps (but financially never going to happen anytime soon I appreciate), but the pier head as is, was presumably built where it was so that the ferry vessels of the time could berth, without risk of grounding at low tide. But with today's CATS operating the service, would they be able to come closer to shore, to allow a completely new build terminal to replace the ongoing headaches with the current structure? Probably not I would guess, as the pier isn't all that long compared to the likes of Southend.
I honestly have no idea of all the issues that may be involved?

The pier *could* be abandoned if the passenger service were to be switched entirely to the hovercraft, but those need a bus connection (or a mile walk) at the Pompey (actually Southsea) end, and I think they're more weather susceptible than the Wightlink cats.

There would also need to be several more hovercraft built to match the ferries' capacity, even though they can cross more quickly.

 

[Gloster]

The pier *could* be abandoned if the passenger service were to be switched entirely to the hovercraft, but those need a bus connection (or a mile walk) at the Pompey (actually Southsea) end, and I think they're more weather susceptible than the Wightlink cats.

There would also need to be several more hovercraft built to match the ferries' capacity, even though they can cross more quickly.

Withdrawing the FastCats and trusting to the hovercraft would have a devastating effect on commuting, for work or any other purposes, to the Portsmouth area, south-east Hampshire, East Sussex and beyond. It would create a near-ghetto, and I use those words deliberately, in the eastern part of the island. The hovercraft cannot be relied on to the extent that is necessary: the cuts to the FastCats have been bad enough.

 

[swt_passenger]

Withdrawing the FastCats and trusting to the hovercraft would have a devastating effect on commuting, for work or any other purposes, to the Portsmouth area, south-east Hampshire, East Sussex and beyond. It would create a near-ghetto, and I use those words deliberately, in the eastern part of the island. The hovercraft cannot be relied on to the extent that is necessary: the cuts to the FastCats have been bad enough.

I also don’t think the hovercraft (or the Cowes hydrofoils) are particularly sustainable in the long term. Are there any online comparisons of their fuel economy?

 

[Train Maniac]

From someone with absolutely zero engineering knowledge on the matter, why haven't they dredged (is that the word?) the seabed thereby allowing FastCats to pull up alongside the bus station and turn Ryde into a port properly? I take it the beach next door gets in the way?

 

[Gloster]

From someone with absolutely zero engineering knowledge on the matter, why haven't they dredged (is that the word?) the seabed thereby allowing FastCats to pull up alongside the bus station and turn Ryde into a port properly? I take it the beach next door gets in the way?

I reckon it would be a lot of dredging and would silt up fairly quickly, so requiring regular maintenance. It might also be difficult to find a large enough area to allow the Cats to turn. And it would probably require the removal of the pier, which would not be popular in some quarters due to it cutting the beach in half (and might cause problems due to changes in the sand).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is the pier (or any part of it, given that it's actually three separate piers next to each other) listed?

 

[swt_passenger]

Is the pier (or any part of it, given that it's actually three separate piers next to each other) listed?

Only the first pier, known as the “promenade pier” is listed Grade 2. That’s in Wightlink ownership.

The tram pier is also Wightlink’s, (works are in hand to form a dedicated foot way - post #11 refers), are apparently designed so as to not alter the setting of the promenade pier. AIUI the station areas at either end are part of the listing, but the railway pier structure itself isn’t.