Island Line Railway - current state and the future

[A0]

I agree an integrated plan is necessary, but it might be better perhaps if the steam railway built an entirely separate facility in the old yard to the south west, perhaps extending to a headshunt behind the signalbox near where the old steam depot was (but not impinging on any current parking spaces) :
https://maps.nls.uk/view/105990358#zoom=6&lat=1250&lon=3747&layers=BT
They would have space for a platform track, run-round, and perhaps a sidings or two alongside.

That's a daft idea.

St John's station is too big for its current use and could easily accomodate the IoWSR.

Why leave an over sized under utilised St John's for the mainline AND add the cost of building a new station for the IoWSR? Makes precisely no sense.

 

[A0]

Why would the mainline railway need two platforms at St Johns, if the service becomes half hourly with all trains crossing at a reinstated Brading loop?

It's an island platform so probably easier to leave it with the Island Line.

 

[MarkyT]

Why would the mainline railway need two platforms at St Johns, if the service becomes half hourly with all trains crossing at a reinstated Brading loop?

I agree a very basic railway is possible but would SWR and the local authority want to permanently remove the possibility of any frequency enhancement in the future by removing infrastructure, or capacity for any network expansion? Fantasy perhaps, but with some additional battery trains it might be possible in the future to share IOWSR infrastructure for a public service extension to Newport. While steam trains would still only go as far as their dedicated platform at St Johns, retaining double track through the station and tunnels to Esplanade and beyond could allow the Newport battery trains to reach the pier head. I suspect they they will also not wish to remove the Sandown loop.

 

[MarkyT]

That's a daft idea.

St John's station is too big for its current use and could easily accomodate the IoWSR.

Why leave an over sized under utilised St John's for the mainline AND add the cost of building a new station for the IoWSR? Makes precisely no sense.

Not daft if the IOWSR could build their standalone station themselves at their own expense, and if it placed their dedicated tracks in the station area a safe distance away from the Island line running lines so the steam railway could have staff on the ground engaged in shunting safely, attending to any problems with their rolling stock while running around etc. all without any special arrangements for protection. That could also be good for Island Line reliability.

 

[Warwick]

I bought a copy of the current issue of "Modern Railways" to-day as there was something in there that caught my eye. There is an article about a tram system that doesn't need any external contact wires. Seems ideal for the island.

 

[Mikey C]

Do it now or you probably won't be able to do it in future - once all the D-stock is either 230s (etc) or scrapped that's your lot.

And we have...
- A significant material increase in service quality ("new" stock, smoother ride, tarted-up stations, memorable and more useful frequency....)
- A load of publicity about same
- An increase in the willingness of young people not to own cars
- An increase in British holidaying, even more so with Brexit

Also, 3 cars will be operationally easier than 2x2 as the guard[1] will be able to move throughout the train to do revenue etc.

[1] For an isolated line like this there is really no case at all for DOO. Door operation methods have options (I favour, as in most other locations, driver open and guard close/dispatch), but if you had a revenue squad you'd need *more* staff than you'd need guards flogging tickets, and you'd probably have more fare dodging then too.

Even without any Viva Rail changes, the D78s as they left service looked pretty modern, and clearly a big leap forward from the 38s

I'm slightly sceptical though as to how much of a change in passenger numbers this would generate though, as the Island has a very good bus network, which goes to far more places than the railway covers. It's not as if the railway is super fast or the distances that great.

 

[Chris125]

Sorry - even IF you got a 25% increase in use you'd still be below 2012 where 2 car 483s were more than sufficient.

In 2012 the railway operated with one 2-car set and one 4-car set for much of the year, as can be seen below - indeed this was standard practice until 2016 though they've not run since, at least in part it seems due to the ban on guards moving between carriages which made them rather awkward to work - at some times only allowing passengers in the Ryde end of each set!


1938 Stock at Smallbrook Junction by Justin Foulger, on Flickr

Why would the mainline railway need two platforms at St Johns, if the service becomes half hourly with all trains crossing at a reinstated Brading loop?

Apparently SWR propose the retention of passing loops at Ryde and Sandown to allow for any future frequency enhancement... but I can't see that surviving the DfT.

 

[A0]

Not daft if the IOWSR could build their standalone station themselves at their own expense, and if it placed their dedicated tracks in the station area a safe distance away from the Island line running lines so the steam railway could have staff on the ground engaged in shunting safely, attending to any problems with their rolling stock while running around etc. all without any special arrangements for protection. That could also be good for Island Line reliability.

The Spa Valley already do coupling and uncoupling moves next to a running line - they manage it so why not the IoWSR?

 

[DelW]

The only likely service change would be back to every half hour rather than the 20 / 40 split they currently have, but given the high point of usage back in 2006 was 1.6m journeys which the 483s coped with, it's difficult to see where additional use will come from that would justify adding over 50% capacity to every train - which is what going for 3 car units would do.

I *think* that at peak times in 2006 there would have been 3tph at 20 minute intervals, Wighlink had the earlier catamarans in service then and could operate a three-boat service.

Put simply - even if you got a 25% improvement in use it would only return you to circa 2012 figures and even then the trains weren't exactly overcrowded.

Many peak services were 4-car units then, as mentioned by Chris125. When two-car units operate peak services, they were and still are very overcrowded at times (adding to the revenue problems as the guard can't move through the train). It doesn't seem to be uncommon on summer weekends for passengers to be unable to board at Esplanade or Pier Head, and to decide to walk along the pier instead.

... with some additional battery trains it might be possible in the future to share IOWSR infrastructure for a public service extension to Newport. While steam trains would still only go as far as their dedicated platform at St Johns, retaining double track through the station and tunnels to Esplanade and beyond could allow the Newport battery trains to reach the pier head. I suspect they they will also not wish to remove the Sandown loop.

It would be nice to reinstate some of the lines that were closed in the 1960s - had Ryde - Newport - Cowes lines survived then they might be doing reasonable business now. But I don't think there's any realistic prospect of finding the money to reopen any of them now,

I'm slightly sceptical though as to how much of a change in passenger numbers this would generate though, as the Island has a very good bus network, which goes to far more places than the railway covers. It's not as if the railway is super fast or the distances that great.

Even at its current speed, it's rather quicker than the parallel bus routes in summer, due to traffic congestion.

I've been to the island four times in the last year, three times by train, and once by car for a longer visit. On that occasion I was quite surprised by how bad the traffic delays are in a few places - most of the island roads are fine, but getting into or through Newport, Cowes or Ryde by car can be a very slow business.

 

[A0]

I *think* that at peak times in 2006 there would have been 3tph at 20 minute intervals, Wighlink had the earlier catamarans in service then and could operate a three-boat service.

The question is how the railway should align to Wightlink - the obvious is to run 2 tph at 30 min spacing, that way it doesn't really matter what the boats do.

Many peak services were 4-car units then, as mentioned by Chris125. When two-car units operate peak services, they were and still are very overcrowded at times (adding to the revenue problems as the guard can't move through the train). It doesn't seem to be uncommon on summer weekends for passengers to be unable to board at Esplanade or Pier Head, and to decide to walk along the pier instead.

As I keep pointing out - a 2 car D78 is more spacious and has 10% more seats than a 2 car 483, so IF D trains are the answer they'll easily offer better capacity even as a 2 car.

I did a scratch calculation last night - there are circa 1.6m journeys / annum on the Island Line. Assume there are 2 tph 6am- 11pm (17 hours) which means there are 68 services a day. Assume the railway operates about 360 days a year you're looking at about 4,400 passengers a day (yes I know it varies seasonally) but divide that by the 68 services and you have an average of 65 people on each service. A 483 has 84 seats so on average they are about 3/4 full. It also means there's capacity to increase passenger numbers by between 10 and 20% without it causing an issue. Yes there will be peak periods where it gets crowded, but that doesn't justify adding huge amounts of capacity and therefore cost for those occasions - which I suspect is less than 10% of the time.

It would be nice to reinstate some of the lines that were closed in the 1960s - had Ryde - Newport - Cowes lines survived then they might be doing reasonable business now. But I don't think there's any realistic prospect of finding the money to reopen any of them now,

Agreed - the biggest problem with the railways on the IoW are the location of the stations which, with the exception of Ryde Pier Head and Esplanade, are not in convenient places. Any route to Newport (and there are two possibilities) would end up on the outskirts of the town. If anything rediscovering the old Sandown - Newport route would be the best bet as it would terminate *far* closer to the town and would link Ryde, Brading and Sandown to Newport.

Even at its current speed, it's rather quicker than the parallel bus routes in summer, due to traffic congestion.

I've been to the island four times in the last year, three times by train, and once by car for a longer visit. On that occasion I was quite surprised by how bad the traffic delays are in a few places - most of the island roads are fine, but getting into or through Newport, Cowes or Ryde by car can be a very slow business.

The bus offers one big advantage - which is the stations are out of town and not easily accessible, whereas the bus serves the centre of the relevant towns.

 

[Mikey C]

Even at its current speed, it's rather quicker than the parallel bus routes in summer, due to traffic congestion.

I've been to the island four times in the last year, three times by train, and once by car for a longer visit. On that occasion I was quite surprised by how bad the traffic delays are in a few places - most of the island roads are fine, but getting into or through Newport, Cowes or Ryde by car can be a very slow business.

But the train doesn't serve Newport or Cowes. And going south goes no further than Shanklin (and even there it's not as central as the bus), how many people going to Ventnor would take the train to Shanklin and change, rather than taking the bus all the way?

 

[DelW]

But the train doesn't serve Newport or Cowes. And going south goes no further than Shanklin (and even there it's not as central as the bus), how many people going to Ventnor would take the train to Shanklin and change, rather than taking the bus all the way?

Yes, that was a general comment related to MarkyT's suggestion about reinstating closed routes. The railway is usually quicker to Ryde town (and of course more so to Pier Head) than the parallel bus routes though.

A few years ago there was a dedicated bus service between Shanklin station forecourt and Ventnor, timed to connect with trains, but I presume its demise was because there weren't enough passengers changing onto it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But the train doesn't serve Newport or Cowes. And going south goes no further than Shanklin (and even there it's not as central as the bus), how many people going to Ventnor would take the train to Shanklin and change, rather than taking the bus all the way?

Some might if it's quicker and the bus integrates well...with a completely separate fare structure it won't. As I said I see a very strong argument for taking it out of RSP except for through tickets to/from the mainland and instead putting it into Vectis's fare structure.

 

[pompeyfan]

Working out averages is all well and good, but a 75% load factor on every train on average shows there’s huge issues. Using your logic, you’re assuming that 60 odd people will be using the last up service of the day, but that a hot bank holiday Monday will again only have the same load. If anything, 75% average load is a clear indicator that 3 or 4 car D trains are essential. 2 guards, 1 doing door duties, the other solely revenue.

 

[A0]

Yes, that was a general comment related to MarkyT's suggestion about reinstating closed routes. The railway is usually quicker to Ryde town (and of course more so to Pier Head) than the parallel bus routes though.

A few years ago there was a dedicated bus service between Shanklin station forecourt and Ventnor, timed to connect with trains, but I presume its demise was because there weren't enough passengers changing onto it.

To be fair to SV, they run a half-hourly service from outside Shanklin station onto Ventnor and Newport. It's the railway which is out of line with its bizarre 20/40 service pattern. The trains arrive at xx 13 and xx 30, the bus leaves at xx 03 and xx 33. So not a terrible wait if you arrive on the xx 13 and a good link if on the xx 30.

 

[MarkyT]

To be fair to SV, they run a half-hourly service from outside Shanklin station onto Ventnor and Newport. It's the railway which is out of line with its bizarre 20/40 service pattern.

So a proper half hourly service on rail, coordinated with the buses could improve its chances of picking up more interchange traffic, especially with better fares interavailability.

 

[A0]

Working out averages is all well and good, but a 75% load factor on every train on average shows there’s huge issues. Using your logic, you’re assuming that 60 odd people will be using the last up service of the day, but that a hot bank holiday Monday will again only have the same load. If anything, 75% average load is a clear indicator that 3 or 4 car D trains are essential. 2 guards, 1 doing door duties, the other solely revenue.

Not at all - for the 10% of the times when 2 cars would be at or above capacity does not justify over capacity on the 90% when it isn't needed.

And the additional running, maintenance etc of adding a third car makes no sense at all and certainly won't cover the revenue shortfall.

It's already the most subsidised line on the national network - adding cost to it will only make that worse.

 

[MarkyT]

And the additional running, maintenance etc of adding a third car makes no sense at all and certainly won't cover the revenue shortfall.

Put another way it is probably a one-off opportunity to acquire a simple single additional TRAILER car for each set, requiring very little additional maintenance and well within the haulage capability of the powered cars. Certainly cheaper than having an additional set or two to cover summer peak that otherwise sit around doing nothing. It might be that you only actually need two trailers for the three unit fleet as the set out of use for maintenance could have its centre trailer removed.

 

[Rick1984]

(accidentally posted twice)

 

[Rick1984]

Though tickets to Ventnor are available changing onto the number 3 at Shanklin.

One point not mentioned is the provision of an accessible area. This would take up a lot of space on a 2-car but proportionally less on a 3-car and potentially allowing a more generous space. Ideally about a 1/3rd of a carriage

 

[Bletchleyite]

You can get through tickets to Ventnor changing onto the number 3 bus at Shanklin.

On the point of unit length, no one has mentioned te provision of an accessible area on the trains. This would take up a significant space, and on a 3-car you can make it more generous in size. Probably 1/3rd of a carriage as you've more provision to play with.

That and a toilet, which will probably be appreciated given the very large number of older holidaymakers on the island. The Marston Vale units will have that in a 2-car but it will probably mean in reality only about a coach and a half of seating.

 

[Rick1984]

Improving toilet facilities at station may actually be more worthwhile. Even modern automated toilets. Ideally free.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Improving toilet facilities at station may actually be more worthwhile. Even modern automated toilets. Ideally free.

Much more susceptible to antisocial behaviour, vandalism and (as a result) ending up closed.

 

[A0]

That and a toilet, which will probably be appreciated given the very large number of older holidaymakers on the island. The Marston Vale units will have that in a 2-car but it will probably mean in reality only about a coach and a half of seating.

Really? It's a 20 minute journey for crying out loud. Add in there's no infrastructure for maintaining train toilets at St Johns. Any number of London Overground journeys are more than 20 mind and manage without toilets.

 

[A0]

Improving toilet facilities at station may actually be more worthwhile. Even modern automated toilets. Ideally free.

IIRC there are toilets at both Ryde Pier Head and Esplanade stations - which are probably the 2 key stations on the line.

 

[The Ham]

Really? It's a 20 minute journey for crying out loud. Add in there's no infrastructure for maintaining train toilets at St Johns. Any number of London Overground journeys are more than 20 mind and manage without toilets.

The London Overground often runs at a much higher frequency and so getting off to use the loo to get in the next service can be a viable option.

Also you have to bear in mind that people may not be only out for the period of time that they are on the train for and so they may not have had access to a loo for some time beforehand or if they did may not have needed it when they did.

Although loos tend to lead to a loss of seats they often can allow more people to stand especially when paired with space for wheelchairs, and so capacity on the very busy services isn't always impacted very much.

 

[whhistle]

Certainly cheaper than having an additional set or two to cover summer peak that otherwise sit around doing nothing. It might be that you only actually need two trailers for the three unit fleet as the set out of use for maintenance could have its centre trailer removed.

But that's how having the flexibility of extra trains makes maintenance much easier for the IoW line. Means they can swap units very quickly if needs be. Having longer trains but less of them would mean this flexibility won't happen.

But what about the charm?
Having such old trains is part of the tourism charm of the IoW isn't it? Take Prague for example. You get really old trams operating on some routes... part of the "magic" of the city.
But I understand, sometimes not great for wheelchair passengers.

Better to look at increasing line speed where possible and extending to new towns, potentially, eventually making a circle type line.

 

[yorksrob]

Really? It's a 20 minute journey for crying out loud. Add in there's no infrastructure for maintaining train toilets at St Johns. Any number of London Overground journeys are more than 20 mind and manage without toilets.

It's an interesting point. It may well be a short train ride, but if the station itself is at the centre of a longer journey (involving a walking leg for example) there may still be a need.

Of course, this was brought into sharp relief (no pun intended) for me on a recent trip from Hampton to Kings Cross. I had about twenty minutes walk to the station, which only had a locked disabled facility, and of course no toilets on the 455, leading to a fairly uncomfortable journey.

The saving grace turned out to be Vauxhall bus station with a loo open relatively late.

Just because people are forced to 'manage' does not make it acceptable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just because people are forced to 'manage' does not make it acceptable.

What "manage" means to many older people, particularly women, is that they either have to not go out or suffer the indignity of wearing adult nappies.

Public toilet provision in all situations in this country is an utter, utter disgrace. I really do strongly support a law that would consider having bladder or bowel issues a disability, as practically it is, and that would therefore see non-provision or inadequate provision as discrimination. And reinstate the local authority requirement to provide.

 

[yorksrob]

What "manage" means to many older people, particularly women, is that they either have to not go out or suffer the indignity of wearing adult nappies.

Public toilet provision in all situations in this country is an utter, utter disgrace. I really do strongly support a law that would consider having bladder or bowel issues a disability, as practically it is, and that would therefore see non-provision or inadequate provision as discrimination. And reinstate the local authority requirement to provide.

I agree entirely.