On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Bruce wrote:

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.

So a pier which currently has a railway and trains on it isn't strong
enough for a perspex tunnel? Absolute horse****, i'm afraid.

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.

Bicycle hire!

tom

--
The players listen very carefully and respectfully to all that the clever
men have to say about what is to happen in the next generation. They
players then wait until all the clever men are dead, and bury them
nicely. Then they go and do something else. -- The Napoleon of Notting
Hill, G. K. Chesterton

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:33:03 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

So a pier which currently has a railway and trains on it isn't strong
enough for a perspex tunnel? Absolute horse****, i'm afraid.


Don't be afraid. It's only your ignorance of structural engineering
that prevents you from understanding my post, and that's nothing to be
embarrassed about. ;-)


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.

Bicycle hire!


More horse****?

Perhaps reinstating the horse trams is not such a bad idea. ;-)

On 13/07/2010 09:33, Ian wrote:
wrote in message
he 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.

From this perspective Southport is interesting. It has a long pier -
but even at high tide the water is somewhat shallow at the end!

When Queen Victoria was on the throne, they built a statue to her on top
of the promenade, at the end of Neville Steet. In those days the sea
would come in as far as that. Now you go several miles to find the sea.
(alluvial deposits from the Mersey and the Ribble) When the pier was
built the sea would come into the land based end!

Old Liverpool joke - Southport beach, the only beach in the world where
the coastguards ride camels.


--
John Wright

Blasphemy - a victimless crime.

On 08/07/2010 16:48, Paul Scott wrote:


"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

On Jul 8, 12:23 pm, Matt Forbes wrote:
I've never understood why they didn't grab some 1983 stock when they
had the chance. Decades newer than what they've got and the single
leaf doors wouldn't have been a problem on the IOW.

Presumably because at the time, the (at the time, recently
refurbished) stock was still fit for purpose, and replacing it with
the ex-Jubilee stock would have been a false economy. Perhaps if
there were six or seven units of 83 stock available now, then it might
be worthwhile, but with 69 stock becoming available soon, I think
there's a strong possibility that some of them will head to Grockle-
Central, rather than straight to CF Booth's tin-can factory.

Wonder how much TfL will ask for them from the Island Line? (And IIRC
it is the Island Line that would be buying them, as opposed to a Rosco
- correct?)

Not necessarily, the 38 stock currently in use was owned by a ROSCO
(HSBC?) until just before the last franchise change, when they were sold
to SWT for a nominal sum.

Wikipedia says it is / was HSBC. The nominal sum was apparently £1.

--
John Wright

Blasphemy - a victimless crime.

In message , john wright
writes
From this perspective Southport is interesting. It has a long pier -
but even at high tide the water is somewhat shallow at the end!
Funny, that. I noticed how, when the tide comes in, the water's always
shallow at the edge.
--
Clive