Island Line Railway - current state and the future

[ainsworth74]

But what about non payment of fares - is that a major issue on the network?

I only experienced two guards on my recent trip. One of them I don't think did any revenue at all (at around 2200). The other was very proactive and I think managed to check everyone on the train by hopping between vehicles at stations (mid-morning). I also recall from a previous trip that all tickets were checked on the one journey I made. But I'm not sure if that's enough of a sample size to draw a conclusion!

 

[paul1609]

Not convinced by the busway cost argument - 16 miles of Cambridge guided busway mostly on former railway line cost £181M. But it might depend on what you have in mind. The Fareham to (nearly) Gosport "Eclipse" scheme cost about £20M for around 4 miles of what is in effect just a dual carriageway road dedicated to buses. I doubt that you would save much money compared with railway refurbishment on IoW, but what you might get is a flexible system which can run on conventional roads when not on the dedicated route, with cheap (compared with trains or trams) buses to run on it!

The Eclipse scheme is actually a single carriageway route with a 40 mph speed limit. One advantage of it that rail schemes don't provide is that it also provides express access for Emergency vehicles this is particularly important for the Gosport peninsula where ambulances particularly were often delayed on the congested A32 en route to the nearest accident and emergency departments at Cosham or Southampton. It also provides access for cycles.

 

[Chester1]

Not convinced by the busway cost argument - 16 miles of Cambridge guided busway mostly on former railway line cost £181M. But it might depend on what you have in mind. The Fareham to (nearly) Gosport "Eclipse" scheme cost about £20M for around 4 miles of what is in effect just a dual carriageway road dedicated to buses. I doubt that you would save much money compared with railway refurbishment on IoW, but what you might get is a flexible system which can run on conventional roads when not on the dedicated route, with cheap (compared with trains or trams) buses to run on it!

I think a guided busway would be a bad idea, but a dedicated bus-only conventional road (like the Eclipse busway in Gosport or for that matter Runcorn) may well be a good idea.

I think both would have to be costed but a Gosport style option would best because it would allow tourist buses and coaches to bypass heavy traffic.

The through ticketing via a busway would be easy to fix. Luggage might be more of a problem but you could handle that too, on a well-designed bus. Modern trains aren't particularly good at luggage (certainly the Class 444s and 450s that SWR uses for the Portsmouth services aren't). Much as I would like to see a steel-wheel on steel-rail solution, it's hard to see the logic for it on IoW. I shouldn't be surprised to see DfT using it as a trial for a rural rail-to-bus conversion scheme.

The Vantage bus layout for the Leigh Guided Busway is tailored for the route and the same could be done for IoW i.e. an enormous amount of luggage space, table seats etc. Id prefer a rail scheme but the numbers are getting unjustifiable. A tram network would be good but probably cost too much. A busway system would be the next best. It would be politically acceptable if it included sections in Newport and Cowes because it would be bigger and (arguably) better than the short line it would replace. Some of the track bed to West Cowes could be used and existing roads to Yarmouth. Some sort of priority system in Ryde and Yarmouth would help reliability during the holiday peaks. St Johns Road to Small Brook Junction could possibly be handed over to the IoW steam railway. A bus stop at the ferry terminal would serve ferry traffic adequately and to a much larger range of destinations. The government would have to fund the capital cost of any scheme but unlike the railway it would probably pay for its up keep (especially if private tourist buses and coaches were charged).

That's another aspect of the problem.

If they get away with it on the IoW, they'll want to resurrect that dreadful old ghoul of busway/road conversion schemes that we'd hoped Sir Peter Parker had seen off in the 1980's.

I also disagree with your point about luggage. Much as I dislike modern high density train layouts, there is a lot more space to stick a suitcase than on a bus.

Really depends entirely on how much luggage space is provided on a bus.

I know what you mean but even compared with other branch lines it is a financial basket case and cannot use normal rolling stock or even most tube trains. The issue in terms of huge seasonal variation in demand does not apply to most branch lines either.

 

[yorksrob]

Really depends entirely on how much luggage space is provided on a bus.

I know what you mean but even compared with other branch lines it is a financial basket case and cannot use normal rolling stock or even most tube trains. The issue in terms of huge seasonal variation in demand does not apply to most branch lines either.

The basket case narrative is a fabricated one. The route doesn't traverse particularly difficult terrain, and doesn't have challenging infrastructure. It's not even particularly long and strung out. It's a fairly simple, largely single track route that could be brought up to standard easily. The only reason for its basket case status is that it has been neglected for so long.

If you let this one go, it will open the flood gates.

 

[nickswift99]

I only experienced two guards on my recent trip. One of them I don't think did any revenue at all (at around 2200). The other was very proactive and I think managed to check everyone on the train by hopping between vehicles at stations (mid-morning). I also recall from a previous trip that all tickets were checked on the one journey I made. But I'm not sure if that's enough of a sample size to draw a conclusion!

I travelled last weekend. Bought tickets from the guard (Ryde Pier Head has nowhere to buy them). Travelled on several services and saw ticket inspections except for our last journey at 1945 on a Saturday night where the train contained a security guard and a number of people who had clearly had more than a good day out. I certainly wouldn't blame the guard for not checking tickets then.

 

[bb21]

Really? As someone who lives along the line I don't recognise that at all.

As sure as I can be, from the horse's mouth.

The railway does not win hands down for the flows quoted. A significant number of people of course use it, but many also don't. Many don't even realise you can buy through tickets to the island or that a railway existed at all until they got there.

Whether part of that is down to contrasting standards of publicity or else I can't say.

(actually £10 for 24 hours, which for a one night trip is effectively 2 days, £15 is 48hrs for weekend trippers)

I don't know why I thought £15, possibly because I used the £15 one earlier this year. The day ticket is still a good £1 over two singles, and reasonably priced for the area covered and standards offered imo.

The Isle of Wight is about the same size as the area covered by Lothian Buses, which charges £1.60 per bus (so effectively no more than £3.20 for any one-way journey) or £4.00 for a day ticket, so the IoW prices whilst not extortionate are by no means very cheap.

You can't compare pricing in a heavily populated urban area with that in an area of pretty much opposite characters. Along southern England quite a few operators traditionally ran a high fare policy to keep service frequencies high due to the rural nature of large areas they serve. Southern Vectis fares compare reasonably well amongst such operators.

 

[Chris125]

I think both would have to be costed but a Gosport style option would best because it would allow tourist buses and coaches to bypass heavy traffic.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the relatively simple Gosport scheme cost £25m despite easy terrain and a double-track formation - Ryde-Shanklin would be vastly more expensive even without the cost of getting buses up the half mile pier. Downgrading the service at such vast cost would be the height of lunacy.

 

[yorksrob]

A significant number of people of course use it, but many also don't.

That sounds like a good justification to keep both modes of transport.

 

[Chris125]

As sure as I can be, from the horse's mouth.

The railway does not win hands down for the flows quoted. A significant number of people of course use it, but many also don't.

Some will take the bus, some will take taxis, but in my experience the majority will take the train - every afternoon train I took this summer involved me having to stand on a train with 100+ passengers including many family groups with luggage (far more than I ever see on a bus), often a few prams plus the odd bike in the doorways.

 

[BestWestern]

If I was the Council paying I would be quite cross about the above example, it's near enough fraudulent. By all means set it to £8 but making it more expensive is out of order.

Mind you not everywhere reimburses on the single ticket price.

It's worth pointing out of course that local authorities have been doing their utmost to pay as little as they possibly can to bus operators for years, with this being a frequently given reason for many smaller companies going out of business. A two way street I think.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes taking luggage on most buses in the UK is difficult. Some have a small luggage rack above the wheel arch at the front, but it is small. In some areas, like my local bus route, this has entirely been given over to copies of the "Metro" so the only place to put luggage is on the floor in the wheelchair space, where you have to hold on to it, to stop it moving about and if anyone in a wheelchair gets on, prepare to be asked to get off the bus!

Yes, but fitting luggage racks to a few buses (as found on airport buses) is a rather easier task than rebuilding a railway.

Vectis are, unusually for rural buses, a fan of big buses, and so many services have a large double-decker which is rarely full so you can just put your bag on a seat.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know what you mean but even compared with other branch lines it is a financial basket case and cannot use normal rolling stock or even most tube trains. The issue in terms of huge seasonal variation in demand does not apply to most branch lines either.

The main issue is not so much that it's a basket case (there are plenty of those). The main issue as you say is the rolling stock limit. It could be made a bit cheaper to run by bringing say 3-4 Class 150s (or even Pacers, or 230s[1]) over on the boat, de-electrifying, singling with a passing loop at Brading and fettling the track a bit - that'd be another 20 years' worth for next to nothing. The big problem is that tunnel.

[1] Would 230s fit? They are short vehicles...

 

[hooverboy]

The big problem is that tunnel.

[1] Would 230s fit? They are short vehicles...[/QUOTE]

sadly not.Even low height units such as 313/DLR stock(11ft 6 or so) are still about 6 inches too high for the tunnel.

230's are same height as most mainline stock at 12ft.

I guess it's a squadron of parry people movers then at 10' 6" they can do it!.

or maybe they could do a "cut and shut" on the DLR stock roof to drop it another 6 inches!..might be a fairly cheap option.

 

[Chester1]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the relatively simple Gosport scheme cost £25m despite easy terrain and a double-track formation - Ryde-Shanklin would be vastly more expensive even without the cost of getting buses up the half mile pier. Downgrading the service at such vast cost would be the height of lunacy.

Downgrading the service? Its 1930s stock running at a low frequency on one line! How much will bespoke units and complete renewal of the line cost?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Would a new build of stock the same as the 2009 LU Victoria line stock (but with the ATO stuff not there) be too tall for the tunnel (or too long)?

 

[Chester1]

Would a new build of stock the same as the 2009 LU Victoria line stock (but with the ATO stuff not there) be too tall for the tunnel (or too long)?

I think the only stock that would fit it are the 1972 stock on the Bakerloo line which won't be available for several years and will be nearly life expired. If it stays as heavy rail then at some point it will need new trains built to spec for it. There are good reasons why even some rail enthusiasts consider closing the line a reasonable option. If normal trains or even just most tube trains could fit into the tunnel it would be a different situation. However, we are talking about a line which needs complete infrastructure renewal and bespoke rolling stock but loses huge amounts of money. Its probably the least viable line in regular passenger use in the UK!

 

[Monty]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the relatively simple Gosport scheme cost £25m despite easy terrain and a double-track formation - Ryde-Shanklin would be vastly more expensive even without the cost of getting buses up the half mile pier. Downgrading the service at such vast cost would be the height of lunacy.

As someone whose lives right next to the Gosport BRT I have to say while it is a useful resource it is by no means a cheap option, if the whole family are going to Fareham or Gosport for a day out it's simply cheaper to drive and pay for parking. Ripping up the track after the RN stopped using the line was a really short sighted move IMHO.

Closing the Island line is not really an option, the roads simply wouldn't cope with the increased traffic during the summer. I'm not at all keen on relying on a bus company such as Southern Vectis either, in the past it has shown itself to be against any form of competition and has run several local bus operations out of town in a way that would impress Brian Souter. So yes, handing them a complete monopoly on public transportation on the island isn't a great idea, and as others have said it's not all that cheap either.

 

[A0]

The big problem is that tunnel.

[1] Would 230s fit? They are short vehicles...

sadly not.Even low height units such as 313/DLR stock(11ft 6 or so) are still about 6 inches too high for the tunnel.

230's are same height as most mainline stock at 12ft.

I guess it's a squadron of parry people movers then at 10' 6" they can do it!.

or maybe they could do a "cut and shut" on the DLR stock roof to drop it another 6 inches!..might be a fairly cheap option.[/QUOTE]

I thought the issue with Ryde tunnel was the car length rather than the height ? BR looked at using ex Merseyside 503s to replace the original tube stock.

The 503s were 3.48m tall, the 313s are 3.58m tall, Flexity 2s (as used in Blackpool) are 3.42m tall.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, but fitting luggage racks to a few buses (as found on airport buses) is a rather easier task than rebuilding a railway.

Vectis are, unusually for rural buses, a fan of big buses, and so many services have a large double-decker which is rarely full so you can just put your bag on a seat.

I think the only stock that would fit it are the 1972 stock on the Bakerloo line which won't be available for several years and will be nearly life expired. If it stays as heavy rail then at some point it will need new trains built to spec for it. There are good reasons why even some rail enthusiasts consider closing the line a reasonable option. If normal trains or even just most tube trains could fit into the tunnel it would be a different situation. However, we are talking about a line which needs complete infrastructure renewal and bespoke rolling stock but loses huge amounts of money. Its probably the least viable line in regular passenger use in the UK!

I've not heard anyone else say that modern types of standard tube stock couldn't fit through Ryde tunnel. I've heard mentioned that modern electronics aren't ideal, but that is something different and not a 'bespoke' issue to the route.

To speak of the line as needing complete infrastructure renewal belies the fact that so does every passenger railway on a regular basis.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the only stock that would fit it are the 1972 stock on the Bakerloo line which won't be available for several years and will be nearly life expired. If it stays as heavy rail then at some point it will need new trains built to spec for it. There are good reasons why even some rail enthusiasts consider closing the line a reasonable option.

Precisely.

There are truckloads of spare third rail EMUs in the UK and will be more all the time (and it only needs somewhere between 3 and 5 2-car units). There will be an entire fleet of spare DMUs (Pacers), have as many as you want for 50p a pop. There are even things like bubble cars and other heritage stock. Were it not for that tunnel, any of those options would do.

The trouble is none of them fit. There isn't a cheap and easy cascade solution.

 

[yorksrob]

Precisely.

There are truckloads of spare third rail EMUs in the UK and will be more all the time (and it only needs somewhere between 3 and 5 2-car units). There will be an entire fleet of spare DMUs (Pacers), have as many as you want for 50p a pop. There are even things like bubble cars and other heritage stock. Were it not for that tunnel, any of those options would do.

The trouble is none of them fit. There isn't a cheap and easy cascade solution.

No, the assertion was that even modern tube trains could not fit through the tunnel, negating the option of tagging onto an order of new build stock. I have never seen this assertion before, and since the tube seems to be quite limited in how far vehicle size can expand (hence the recent preference for articulated vehicles) I'm sceptical that the assertion has any basis in fact.

 

[Chester1]

No, the assertion was that even modern tube trains could not fit through the tunnel, negating the option of tagging onto an order of new build stock. I have never seen this assertion before, and since the tube seems to be quite limited in how far vehicle size can expand (hence the recent preference for articulated vehicles) I'm sceptical that the assertion has any basis in fact.

I could be wrong but I am sure I have read on this site multiple times that the Bakerloo 1972 stock are the only ones that can be used.

As Bletchleyite has said if the tunnel was a normal size there would be nearly infinite and very cheap rolling stock options but its not and the options for new stock are either too far into the future or very expensive. The argument for closure is also helped by the steam railway. Its entirely plausible the electrics could be removed and the line from St Johns Road to Shanklin gifted to the steam railway. IoW needs a fast public transport network serving the whole Island, that can avoid traffic jams and can handle seasonal demand. A bus network with busway and priority sections with joint bus-ferry ticketing is better and cheaper.

 

[jon0844]

No, the assertion was that even modern tube trains could not fit through the tunnel, negating the option of tagging onto an order of new build stock. I have never seen this assertion before, and since the tube seems to be quite limited in how far vehicle size can expand (hence the recent preference for articulated vehicles) I'm sceptical that the assertion has any basis in fact.

Like the belief that you couldn't fit any old train down to Moorgate on the Northern City Line?

 

[A0]

I could be wrong but I am sure I have read on this site multiple times that the Bakerloo 1972 stock are the only ones that can be used.

As Bletchleyite has said if the tunnel was a normal size there would be nearly infinite and very cheap rolling stock options but its not and the options for new stock are either too far into the future or very expensive. The argument for closure is also helped by the steam railway. Its entirely plausible the electrics could be removed and the line from St Johns Road to Shanklin gifted to the steam railway. IoW needs a fast public transport network serving the whole Island, that can avoid traffic jams and can handle seasonal demand. A bus network with busway and priority sections with joint bus-ferry ticketing is better and cheaper.

I though Piccadilly '73 stock was the originally preferred option?

 

[A0]

Like the belief that you couldn't fit any old train down to Moorgate on the Northern City Line?

Both that and Merseyrail are space constrained, so no, you can't just "fit any old train" on either of those.

 

[swt_passenger]

I though Piccadilly '73 stock was the originally preferred option?

Definitely. SWT were consistent in public announcements over quite a number of years that the plan was to use 73 stock whenever it became available. I think that was because on LU published plans they were expected to become available first. But I don't think that meant another 'tube' stock wouldn't be taken if LU plans changed.

As mentioned earlier there have been reports that 67 stock (ex Victoria) had been assessed and turned down as having no driver's doors; but I never saw that in writing...

 

[Walace58]

The problem with height on the Island line, is the tunnel at Ryde Esplanade. There was always an issue, the O2’s were lower, and when the line was being modified for electrification an imported diesel shutter had to have the cab cut down to be used to help the modifications. Since then the tunnel has been further lowered as the floor was raised to mitigate the effects of flooding which used to regularly close the tunnel.

 

[Mikey C]

The 1973 stock was their preferred choice. As it's stayed in service for a lot longer than expected, that option has receded. The Bakerloo 1972 stock is even older, and in pretty poor shape

The 1938s were relatively recent when then the Northern Line received its new stock in the late 90s, otherwise maybe its 1972 stock may have been taken at the time?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The 1973 stock was their preferred choice. As it's stayed in service for a lot longer than expected, that option has receded. The Bakerloo 1972 stock is even older, and in pretty poor shape

The 1938s were relatively recent when then the Northern Line received its new stock in the late 90s, otherwise maybe its 1972 stock may have been taken at the time?

The 73's do not become available until 2023 , and they are struggling a bit with the fleet , in passing TfL have binned the Northern and Jubilee line capacity enhancements due to lack of funding - both lines were to get about 120 new vehicles ....72TS solder on ........

The 38TS the Island got via NSE had relatively recently been overhauled , so they have lasted incredibly well. Will they make it to 2024 or so ?

 

[Chester1]

Oops yes your right. Regardless, its still a very long wait making do with 1930s rolling stock until 1970s stock arrive. A bespoke order of new stock is probably going to be neccessary. Maybe that would solve the stock problem for another 50 years but at a very high capital cost and continuation of a very large subsidy. Add complete renewal of worn out track and the cost could pay for a busway system for the whole Island or make a significant contribution to the cost of converting the line into a tram system using secondhand trams.

Pier to St Johns Road could be a viable tourist attraction in its own right and the 1938 units would last much longer if only one was in use each day.