On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:39:51 -0700 (PDT), D7666
wrote:

The true IOW solution is new stock. Not new heavy weight trains or new
tube stock, but some kind of light rail / heavy tram device. If this
is affordable for Watford St.Albans it is affordable for IOW ((+)).

Except that, unless someone does a low-roof, high-platform tram, there
would need to be expensive infrastructure works for that, particularly
on the low tunnel, not to mention stringing up the OHLE (unless a
diesel option was chosen).

As the Island Line is a financial basket case, I suspect hand-me-down
Tube stock is the cheapest option, and as such is probably the best
one short of getting into a debate about closure and bustitution.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 04:38:30 -0700 (PDT), D7666
wrote:
On Jul 11, 12:24*pm, "
wrote:

I wonder, however, if they would not continue to operating equipment on
the Isle of Wight as they do on the Isle of Man?

Well maybe this is the way to go ... just continue .


You can only do that if you have a generous benefactor who will pay
for the periodic overhaul and refurbishment of vintage rolling stock,
and a team of volunteers who will do some of it for nothing.

The Isle of Man Government is prepared to fund this activity in the
name of encouraging tourism, because the two Isle of Man railways are
a major draw for tourists.

However, the Island Line is not so much of a draw. I doubt there is
much money available in the Isle of Wight Council's budget for what is
seen as part of former British Rail; the money is more likely to
support bus operations that service many more people than the railway.
Any volunteers are more likely to want to work for free on the steam
railway.

So, all in all, I don't think a valid comparison can be made with the
Isle of Man.

In message of Wed, 7 Jul
2010 20:46:40 in uk.transport.london, Neil Williams wensleydale@pacersp
lace.org.uk writes
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 10:21:47 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

There are plenty all around the system. LU should change their moto to
Never Knowingly Early. Its fine for a train to be late but god forbid its
running slightly early - then you'll be sitting at a platform for 2 minutes
going nowhere.

It's not a bad railway rule to never accept early running, as that
means people miss the train. On much of LUL, that doesn't matter, but
on the Circle, H&C and Met, where frequencies are lower, people may
well be attempting to do so.

It's a rule I'd like to see apply to local buses. A couple of minutes
late = annoying but tolerable. One minute early = unacceptable in my
mind, though up to 5 minutes early is permitted by current rules,

Can you point to documentation allowing early running?

I once took a U1 from West Ruislip station to Ruislip station - it gives
a reasonable connection between the Central and Metropolitan lines. The
bus service interval is about 15 minutes and there was a timetable on
the West Ruislip bus stop. I caught a bus which arrived 2 minutes early.
I growled at the driver, but did not follow up with Surface Transport
Customer Services at 0845 300 7000 (M-F: 8-20)

IIRC.

IIRC?
--
Walter Briscoe

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:40:01 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

As the Island Line is a financial basket case, I suspect hand-me-down
Tube stock is the cheapest option, and as such is probably the best
one short of getting into a debate about closure and bustitution.


Even if there was an intention to close the line to Shanklin, there
would still need to be a shuttle train service from the Pier Head to
and from Ryde Esplanade, and probably to Ryde St John's Road, to
connect with the ferries.

The Isle of Wight Steam Railway could then extend its route the short
distance from Smallbrook Junction to Ryde St John's Road for
interchange with the shuttles.

I doubt very much whether the Isle of Wight Steam Railway would be
interested in taking over the route from Smallbrook Junction to
Shanklin. As you say, it is a financial basket case.

I know you didn't want to discuss the option of bustitution, but there
is a very clear case for it here. There are already buses from Ryde
to Shanklin and Ventnor, and they serve those communities far better
than the trains can - the railway is of no use at all to people
travelling to/from Ventnor.

"Walter Briscoe" wrote in message
...

IIRC?
--
Walter Briscoe

Usenet shorthand for "If I recall correctly"...

IYSWIM

Paul S

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:57:44 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

Even if there was an intention to close the line to Shanklin, there
would still need to be a shuttle train service from the Pier Head to
and from Ryde Esplanade, and probably to Ryde St John's Road, to
connect with the ferries.

Why? Many people would walk (it isn't *that* far, and most people
seem to use trolley luggage these days), many are collected by car,
and a minibus shuttle could be run between the ferry and the bus
station for anyone who couldn't or didn't want to walk. Far cheaper
than maintaining the infrastructure.

Or absent the railway - is the Ryde ferry actually needed, and could
it more sensibly be sent somewhere else, thus removing the need to
maintain the pier (which looks in a poor condition) at all? Is there
somewhere near Ryde where a terminal could be built without a need for
the pier?

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:24:52 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

Why? Many people would walk (it isn't *that* far, and most people
seem to use trolley luggage these days), many are collected by car,
and a minibus shuttle could be run between the ferry and the bus
station for anyone who couldn't or didn't want to walk.


Let me guess: You have only seen the pier in summer and in good
weather.

In winter, at high water, with a choppy sea and a gale blowing, people
would succumb to exposure before they reached Ryde Esplanade.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:24:52 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:57:44 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

Even if there was an intention to close the line to Shanklin, there
would still need to be a shuttle train service from the Pier Head to
and from Ryde Esplanade, and probably to Ryde St John's Road, to
connect with the ferries.

Why? Many people would walk (it isn't *that* far, and most people seem
to use trolley luggage these days), many are collected by car, and a
minibus shuttle could be run between the ferry and the bus station for
anyone who couldn't or didn't want to walk. Far cheaper than
maintaining the infrastructure.

Walking along the pier on a nice sunny day might be pleasant.
In November with a strong North Easterly gale it would be awful so
you need something along the Pier.

Like a perspex tunnel, you mean?

tom

--
Mass motoring effects an absolute triumph of bourgeois ideology on the
level of daily life. It gives and supports in everyone the illusion
that each individual can seek his or her own benefit at the expense of
everyone else. -- Andre Gorz

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:44:54 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:24:52 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:57:44 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

Even if there was an intention to close the line to Shanklin, there
would still need to be a shuttle train service from the Pier Head to
and from Ryde Esplanade, and probably to Ryde St John's Road, to
connect with the ferries.

Why? Many people would walk (it isn't *that* far, and most people seem
to use trolley luggage these days), many are collected by car, and a
minibus shuttle could be run between the ferry and the bus station for
anyone who couldn't or didn't want to walk. Far cheaper than
maintaining the infrastructure.

Walking along the pier on a nice sunny day might be pleasant.
In November with a strong North Easterly gale it would be awful so
you need something along the Pier.

Like a perspex tunnel, you mean?


A perspex tunnel would need a strong structural frame to support the
weight of the perspex and also resist the much greater loads imposed
on the perspex structure by the weather. You would then need to carry
out a major strengthening of the pier structure to support the perspex
tunnel and the loads it would impose on the pier structure, mostly
from the weather.

That would not be a trivial undertaking, nor a cheap one. Victorian
piers were built light and spindly, and not covered in, for a reason -
it massively reduced the loads on the structure.

Also, the walk from the landing stage to the kerb at the Esplanade is
slightly over 400 metres - it is longer than the train journey because
the train cuts off a corner at the pier head. So those who think "it
isn't *that* far" are somewhat wide of the mark. As I already stated,
a shuttle service of some kind would definitely be needed.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:44:54 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:24:52 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:57:44 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

Even if there was an intention to close the line to Shanklin,
there
would still need to be a shuttle train service from the Pier
Head to
and from Ryde Esplanade, and probably to Ryde St John's Road, to
connect with the ferries.

Why? Many people would walk (it isn't *that* far, and most
people seem
to use trolley luggage these days), many are collected by car,
and a
minibus shuttle could be run between the ferry and the bus
station for
anyone who couldn't or didn't want to walk. Far cheaper than
maintaining the infrastructure.

Walking along the pier on a nice sunny day might be pleasant.
In November with a strong North Easterly gale it would be awful
so
you need something along the Pier.

Like a perspex tunnel, you mean?


A perspex tunnel would need a strong structural frame to support the
weight of the perspex and also resist the much greater loads imposed
on the perspex structure by the weather. You would then need to
carry
out a major strengthening of the pier structure to support the
perspex
tunnel and the loads it would impose on the pier structure, mostly
from the weather.

That would not be a trivial undertaking, nor a cheap one. Victorian
piers were built light and spindly, and not covered in, for a
reason -
it massively reduced the loads on the structure.

Also, the walk from the landing stage to the kerb at the Esplanade
is
slightly over 400 metres - it is longer than the train journey
because
the train cuts off a corner at the pier head. So those who think
"it
isn't *that* far" are somewhat wide of the mark. As I already
stated,
a shuttle service of some kind would definitely be needed.

Meanwhile, the hovercraft deposits its load MUCH closer to the main
road. Pity its Southsea terminus is at Southsea, and not anywhere near
the rail station....

Main reason Ryde Pier is so long, is that the tide goes out a long
way, and the need to land at all states of the tide. That is also the
reason for the continued success of the hovercraft, which can travel
over the sandbanks exposed at lowtide as if they did not exist.