I finally got around to riding the 484s on the isle of wight. Vivarail did a
very nice job. Interesting contrast between the sound of the new traction
inverters and the LU DC motors which they retained.

Makes me wonder , if a small company managed to refurbish these trains so well
why didn't LU do it instead of buying entirely new S Stock trains? I assume
there must have been good reasons not to.

On 15/04/2024 10:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> I finally got around to riding the 484s on the isle of wight. Vivarail did a
> very nice job. Interesting contrast between the sound of the new traction
> inverters and the LU DC motors which they retained.
>
> Makes me wonder , if a small company managed to refurbish these trains so well
> why didn't LU do it instead of buying entirely new S Stock trains? I assume
> there must have been good reasons not to.
>

Trundling up and down the Island Line or the Greenford loop is a lot
less taxing than operating the Metropolitan lines out to Amersham and
Chesham day in and day out.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:23:41 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 15/04/2024 10:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> I finally got around to riding the 484s on the isle of wight. Vivarail did a
>> very nice job. Interesting contrast between the sound of the new traction
>> inverters and the LU DC motors which they retained.
>>
>> Makes me wonder , if a small company managed to refurbish these trains so
>well
>> why didn't LU do it instead of buying entirely new S Stock trains? I assume
>> there must have been good reasons not to.
>>
>
>Trundling up and down the Island Line or the Greenford loop is a lot
>less taxing than operating the Metropolitan lines out to Amersham and
>Chesham day in and day out.

I'm not so sure. The track on the IOW is pretty rough still with the train
probably doing 40-50 along it and the trains get covered in salt spray on Ryde
Pier in windy weather.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> I finally got around to riding the 484s on the isle of wight. Vivarail did a
> very nice job. Interesting contrast between the sound of the new traction
> inverters and the LU DC motors which they retained.
>
> Makes me wonder , if a small company managed to refurbish these trains so well
> why didn't LU do it instead of buying entirely new S Stock trains? I assume
> there must have been good reasons not to.
>
>

Although there are some differences in seating layout and train length
basically the S stock is all one design, LU felt that having one pool of
spares, technicians,and drivers etc only need training on one design for
the subsurface lines and while the production line was running the
investment of getting new trains with the walkthrough feature ,Air con ,
disabled bays etc was better value than another refurbishment of the D
stock which would not have been able to achieve all those aims.

How was your Ferry crossing? Both routes have been suffering from service
interruptions
recently due to lack of staff and mechanical failures. There was a
family featured on the local radio
desperate to get off the Island to get to an airport for a flight but were
stranded due to cancellations.
Don’t know if they made it in the end.

GH

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:23:41 +0100
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 15/04/2024 10:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> I finally got around to riding the 484s on the isle of wight. Vivarail did a
>>> very nice job. Interesting contrast between the sound of the new traction
>>> inverters and the LU DC motors which they retained.
>>>
>>> Makes me wonder , if a small company managed to refurbish these trains so
>> well
>>> why didn't LU do it instead of buying entirely new S Stock trains? I assume
>>> there must have been good reasons not to.
>>>
>>
>> Trundling up and down the Island Line or the Greenford loop is a lot
>> less taxing than operating the Metropolitan lines out to Amersham and
>> Chesham day in and day out.
>
> I'm not so sure. The track on the IOW is pretty rough still with the train
> probably doing 40-50 along it and the trains get covered in salt spray on Ryde
> Pier in windy weather.
>
>
At the moment there is a shortage of working units which is why the
timetable has been stretched.
One unit has been damaged by flooding but wheel wear caused by poor profile
of the older track has meant the wheels are at the scrap stage on others
..Apparently only one firm can easily make new ones but it was put out of
to tender anyway. No other firm came forward so that just wasted time.
Once gWr bought the assets of Vivarail as both SWR and gWr are both first
group it looks like some wheels may be sourced from the pool of vehicles
but will need re profiling from LU std to NR std.
Trouble is the old track on the island is thought to have worn to its own
profile and nobody knows what it is.

GH

On 15/04/2024 10:36, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:23:41 +0100
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 15/04/2024 10:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> I finally got around to riding the 484s on the isle of wight. Vivarail did a
>>> very nice job. Interesting contrast between the sound of the new traction
>>> inverters and the LU DC motors which they retained.
>>>
>>> Makes me wonder , if a small company managed to refurbish these trains so
>> well
>>> why didn't LU do it instead of buying entirely new S Stock trains? I assume
>>> there must have been good reasons not to.
>>>
>>
>> Trundling up and down the Island Line or the Greenford loop is a lot
>> less taxing than operating the Metropolitan lines out to Amersham and
>> Chesham day in and day out.
>
> I'm not so sure. The track on the IOW is pretty rough still with the train
> probably doing 40-50 along it and the trains get covered in salt spray on Ryde
> Pier in windy weather.
>

Aluminium bodies aren't they?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall wrote:

> On 15/04/2024 10:36, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:23:41 +0100
> >Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > Trundling up and down the Island Line or the Greenford
> > > loop is a lot less taxing than operating the Metropolitan
> > > lines out to Amersham and Chesham day in and day out.
> >
> > I'm not so sure. The track on the IOW is pretty rough still
> > with the train probably doing 40-50 along it and the trains
> > get covered in salt spray on Ryde Pier in windy weather.
>
> Aluminium bodies aren't they?

Oh oh... corrosion !!!

I think the depot on the Isle of Weight is prone to floods too...

On 15 Apr 2024 09:49:00 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> I finally got around to riding the 484s on the isle of wight. Vivarail did a
>> very nice job. Interesting contrast between the sound of the new traction
>> inverters and the LU DC motors which they retained.
>>
>> Makes me wonder , if a small company managed to refurbish these trains so
>well
>> why didn't LU do it instead of buying entirely new S Stock trains? I assume
>> there must have been good reasons not to.
>>
>>
>
>Although there are some differences in seating layout and train length
>basically the S stock is all one design, LU felt that having one pool of
>spares, technicians,and drivers etc only need training on one design for
>the subsurface lines and while the production line was running the
>investment of getting new trains with the walkthrough feature ,Air con ,
>disabled bays etc was better value than another refurbishment of the D
>stock which would not have been able to achieve all those aims.

Makes sense.

>How was your Ferry crossing? Both routes have been suffering from service
>interruptions
>recently due to lack of staff and mechanical failures. There was a
>family featured on the local radio
>desperate to get off the Island to get to an airport for a flight but were
>stranded due to cancellations.
>Don’t know if they made it in the end.

No problems either way with Wightlink.

On 15 Apr 2024 10:06:04 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>At the moment there is a shortage of working units which is why the
>timetable has been stretched.
>One unit has been damaged by flooding but wheel wear caused by poor profile
>of the older track has meant the wheels are at the scrap stage on others
>..Apparently only one firm can easily make new ones but it was put out of
>to tender anyway. No other firm came forward so that just wasted time.
>Once gWr bought the assets of Vivarail as both SWR and gWr are both first
>group it looks like some wheels may be sourced from the pool of vehicles
>but will need re profiling from LU std to NR std.
>Trouble is the old track on the island is thought to have worn to its own
>profile and nobody knows what it is.

I can't remember the last time I rode on track that had so many rail joints.
It was constant clickety clack, like something from the 19th century.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:25:08 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 15/04/2024 10:36, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:23:41 +0100
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 15/04/2024 10:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> I finally got around to riding the 484s on the isle of wight. Vivarail did
>a
>>>> very nice job. Interesting contrast between the sound of the new traction
>>>> inverters and the LU DC motors which they retained.
>>>>
>>>> Makes me wonder , if a small company managed to refurbish these trains so
>>> well
>>>> why didn't LU do it instead of buying entirely new S Stock trains? I assume
>
>>>> there must have been good reasons not to.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Trundling up and down the Island Line or the Greenford loop is a lot
>>> less taxing than operating the Metropolitan lines out to Amersham and
>>> Chesham day in and day out.
>>
>> I'm not so sure. The track on the IOW is pretty rough still with the train
>> probably doing 40-50 along it and the trains get covered in salt spray on
>Ryde
>> Pier in windy weather.
>>
>
>Aluminium bodies aren't they?

I don't think the bodywork is the issue , more the underframe equipment and
bogies.

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> I finally got around to riding the 484s on the isle of wight. Vivarail did a
>> very nice job. Interesting contrast between the sound of the new traction
>> inverters and the LU DC motors which they retained.
>>
>> Makes me wonder , if a small company managed to refurbish these trains so well
>> why didn't LU do it instead of buying entirely new S Stock trains? I assume
>> there must have been good reasons not to.
>>
>>
>
> Although there are some differences in seating layout and train length
> basically the S stock is all one design, LU felt that having one pool of
> spares, technicians,and drivers etc only need training on one design for
> the subsurface lines and while the production line was running the
> investment of getting new trains with the walkthrough feature ,Air con ,
> disabled bays etc was better value than another refurbishment of the D
> stock which would not have been able to achieve all those aims.

The A stock had reached (or exceeded) the end of its life and had to be
replaced, while the C stock was also approaching end-of-life. LU needed to
increase frequencies on the core, shared SSL network, which required ATO,
computer control and faster acceleration.

This would only be possible once all the SSL lines used compatible trains
with the same performance and ATO, which meant bringing forward the
replacement of the D stock. But it still served 37 years, which isn't bad.
Having the same stock on the District, Circle and H&C lines also has
obvious benefits. And as we know, the inner city stock can also operate
without problems on the Met, and I think there's still one S7+1 unit in
operation.

If funding can be found, LU wants to repeat this on the Tube lines, with
the same basic design replacing the 72, 73 and 92TS over the next decade.
In due course, the 95 and 96TS could follow.

On 15/04/2024 11:28, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2024 09:49:00 GMT
> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> How was your Ferry crossing? Both routes have been suffering from service
>> interruptions
>> recently due to lack of staff and mechanical failures. There was a
>> family featured on the local radio
>> desperate to get off the Island to get to an airport for a flight but were
>> stranded due to cancellations.
>> Don’t know if they made it in the end.
>
> No problems either way with Wightlink.
>

I think it was/is Red Funnel problems:
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24191253.red-funnel-ceo-apologises-southampton-isle-wight-ferry-delay/
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24220244.isle-wight-ferry-red-funnel-issues-prompt-independent-investigation/

--
Colin

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:25:08 +0100
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 15/04/2024 10:36, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:23:41 +0100
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 15/04/2024 10:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> I finally got around to riding the 484s on the isle of wight. Vivarail did
>> a
>>>>> very nice job. Interesting contrast between the sound of the new traction
>>>>> inverters and the LU DC motors which they retained.
>>>>>
>>>>> Makes me wonder , if a small company managed to refurbish these trains so
>>>> well
>>>>> why didn't LU do it instead of buying entirely new S Stock trains? I assume
>>
>>>>> there must have been good reasons not to.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Trundling up and down the Island Line or the Greenford loop is a lot
>>>> less taxing than operating the Metropolitan lines out to Amersham and
>>>> Chesham day in and day out.
>>>
>>> I'm not so sure. The track on the IOW is pretty rough still with the train
>>> probably doing 40-50 along it and the trains get covered in salt spray on
>> Ryde
>>> Pier in windy weather.
>>>
>>
>> Aluminium bodies aren't they?
>
> I don't think the bodywork is the issue , more the underframe equipment and
> bogies.

Steel underframes? Are they fitted with sacrificial anodes?

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 15/04/2024 10:23, Graeme Wall wrote:
>
> Trundling up and down the Island Line or the Greenford loop is a lot
> less taxing than operating the Metropolitan lines out to Amersham and
> Chesham day in and day out.

In January, the service was reduced to one train an hour from 2 per hour
due to the wheels wearing out, and not enough trains available to cover
the turns required. SWR said it should be sorted for the Easter and Whit
holidays, so presumably in between they were back to one train per
hour.I cant see that happening on the Metropolitan.
What is it with the Island line? Too tight curves? Badly cambered and
profiled track?

On 15/04/2024 14:38, Alan Lee wrote:
> On 15/04/2024 10:23, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>
>> Trundling up and down the Island Line or the Greenford loop is a lot
>> less taxing than operating the Metropolitan lines out to Amersham and
>> Chesham day in and day out.
>
> In January, the service was reduced to one train an hour from 2 per hour
> due to the wheels wearing out, and not enough trains available to cover
> the turns required. SWR said it should be sorted for the Easter and Whit
> holidays, so presumably in between they were back to one train per
> hour.I cant see that happening on the Metropolitan.
> What is it with the Island line? Too tight curves? Badly cambered and
> profiled track?

The track needed replacing 40 years ago, it doesn't appear to have a
recognisable profile so that regardless whether the wheels are profiled
for Network Rail or TfL profiles, neither of them match.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 15/04/2024 14:38, Alan Lee wrote:
>> On 15/04/2024 10:23, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>
>>> Trundling up and down the Island Line or the Greenford loop is a lot
>>> less taxing than operating the Metropolitan lines out to Amersham and
>>> Chesham day in and day out.
>>
>> In January, the service was reduced to one train an hour from 2 per hour
>> due to the wheels wearing out, and not enough trains available to cover
>> the turns required. SWR said it should be sorted for the Easter and Whit
>> holidays, so presumably in between they were back to one train per
>> hour.I cant see that happening on the Metropolitan.
>> What is it with the Island line? Too tight curves? Badly cambered and
>> profiled track?
>
> The track needed replacing 40 years ago, it doesn't appear to have a
> recognisable profile so that regardless whether the wheels are profiled
> for Network Rail or TfL profiles, neither of them match.
>

A Wight state to get into.

Though I suppose getting a rail grinder to the Island isn’t that straight
forward and while Caulkheads might cope the ancient Overners who have moved
there to die will be writing to all and sundry to complain about the noise.

GH

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:13:47 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>If funding can be found, LU wants to repeat this on the Tube lines, with
>the same basic design replacing the 72, 73 and 92TS over the next decade.

The 92 stock is currently having a rather expensive refurb. Not sure they'll
want to be replacing it anytime soon tbh.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:43:58 +0100
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>On 15/04/2024 11:28, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On 15 Apr 2024 09:49:00 GMT
>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> How was your Ferry crossing? Both routes have been suffering from service
>>> interruptions
>>> recently due to lack of staff and mechanical failures. There was a
>>> family featured on the local radio
>>> desperate to get off the Island to get to an airport for a flight but were
>>> stranded due to cancellations.
>>> Don’t know if they made it in the end.
>>
>> No problems either way with Wightlink.
>>
>
>I think it was/is Red Funnel problems:
>https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24191253.red-funnel-ceo-apologises-southampton
>-isle-wight-ferry-delay/
>https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24220244.isle-wight-ferry-red-funnel-issues-pr
>ompt-independent-investigation/

Frankly I'm surprised a bridge has never been built to the island. Though I
guess the locals quite like being an island as that is half the appeal of
living there so maybe there'd be too much opposition.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:24:50 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> I don't think the bodywork is the issue , more the underframe equipment and
>> bogies.
>
>Steel underframes?

They certainly look like steel. We any trains in the 70s built with aluminium
underframes?

>Are they fitted with sacrificial anodes?

Beats me.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 14:38:54 +0100
Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
>On 15/04/2024 10:23, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>
>> Trundling up and down the Island Line or the Greenford loop is a lot
>> less taxing than operating the Metropolitan lines out to Amersham and
>> Chesham day in and day out.
>
>In January, the service was reduced to one train an hour from 2 per hour
>due to the wheels wearing out, and not enough trains available to cover

Seemed to be 1 train every half hour in both directions when we used it last
week so perhaps problem solved?

>the turns required. SWR said it should be sorted for the Easter and Whit
>holidays, so presumably in between they were back to one train per
>hour.I cant see that happening on the Metropolitan.
>What is it with the Island line? Too tight curves? Badly cambered and
>profiled track?

Probably just knackered with the rail profile probably worn into the old
38 tube stock wheel profile after running there for 30+ years.

Also I suspect the bogie length and hence bogie wheelbase is longer on the
D stock so perhaps curves that were fine for the 38 stock are a bit more
abrasive for the D stock.

On 15.04.2024 17:49, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:43:58 +0100
> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 15/04/2024 11:28, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On 15 Apr 2024 09:49:00 GMT
>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How was your Ferry crossing? Both routes have been suffering from service
>>>> interruptions
>>>> recently due to lack of staff and mechanical failures. There was a
>>>> family featured on the local radio
>>>> desperate to get off the Island to get to an airport for a flight but were
>>>> stranded due to cancellations.
>>>> Don’t know if they made it in the end.
>>>
>>> No problems either way with Wightlink.
>>>
>>
>> I think it was/is Red Funnel problems:
>> https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24191253.red-funnel-ceo-apologises-southampton
>> -isle-wight-ferry-delay/
>> https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24220244.isle-wight-ferry-red-funnel-issues-pr
>> ompt-independent-investigation/
>
> Frankly I'm surprised a bridge has never been built to the island. Though I
> guess the locals quite like being an island as that is half the appeal of
> living there so maybe there'd be too much opposition.

Due to the shipping activity in Portsmouth and Southampton, if a bridge
were built it would likely need to be at the western end of the Solent,
meaning access roads would need to be driven through the New Forrest,
likely to cause strong opposition.

Robin

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:55:11 +0200
Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>On 15.04.2024 17:49, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> Frankly I'm surprised a bridge has never been built to the island. Though I
>> guess the locals quite like being an island as that is half the appeal of
>> living there so maybe there'd be too much opposition.
>
>Due to the shipping activity in Portsmouth and Southampton, if a bridge
>were built it would likely need to be at the western end of the Solent,

Oh sure. I can't imagine funds for a 6 mile bridge to Portsmouth would
ever be forthcoming! :)

>meaning access roads would need to be driven through the New Forrest,
>likely to cause strong opposition.

At the closest point there's not much actual forest and its only just under
a mile of water to cross so in the scheme of things should be affordable.

On 15/04/2024 16:49, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:43:58 +0100
> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 15/04/2024 11:28, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On 15 Apr 2024 09:49:00 GMT
>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How was your Ferry crossing? Both routes have been suffering from service
>>>> interruptions
>>>> recently due to lack of staff and mechanical failures. There was a
>>>> family featured on the local radio
>>>> desperate to get off the Island to get to an airport for a flight but were
>>>> stranded due to cancellations.
>>>> Don’t know if they made it in the end.
>>>
>>> No problems either way with Wightlink.
>>>
>>
>> I think it was/is Red Funnel problems:
>> https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24191253.red-funnel-ceo-apologises-southampton
>> -isle-wight-ferry-delay/
>> https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24220244.isle-wight-ferry-red-funnel-issues-pr
>> ompt-independent-investigation/
>
> Frankly I'm surprised a bridge has never been built to the island. Though I
> guess the locals quite like being an island as that is half the appeal of
> living there so maybe there'd be too much opposition.
>

The only practical point to build a bridge would be across Hurst Spit
and that would have to clear a major shipping lane. There is no decent
road connection on either side of the water.

There have been a number of proposals for a tunnel from Stokes Bay, last
one was going to use one of the redundant tunnelling machines from the
Channel Tunnel. Probably updated to using one of the crossrail machines.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 15/04/2024 16:58, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On 15.04.2024 17:49, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:43:58 +0100
>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 15/04/2024 11:28, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On 15 Apr 2024 09:49:00 GMT
>>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How was your Ferry crossing?  Both routes have been suffering from
>>>>> service
>>>>> interruptions
>>>>> recently due to lack of staff and mechanical failures.    There was a
>>>>> family featured on the local radio
>>>>> desperate to get off the Island to get to an airport for  a flight
>>>>> but were
>>>>> stranded due to cancellations.
>>>>> Don’t know if they made it in the end.
>>>>
>>>> No problems either way with Wightlink.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think it was/is Red Funnel problems:
>>> https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24191253.red-funnel-ceo-apologises-southampton
>>> -isle-wight-ferry-delay/
>>> https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24220244.isle-wight-ferry-red-funnel-issues-pr
>>> ompt-independent-investigation/
>>
>> Frankly I'm surprised a bridge has never been built to the island.
>> Though I
>> guess the locals quite like being an island as that is half the appeal of
>> living there so maybe there'd be too much opposition.
>
> Due to the shipping activity in Portsmouth and Southampton, if a bridge
> were built it would likely need to be at the western end of the Solent,
> meaning access roads would need to be driven through the New Forrest,
> likely to cause strong opposition.
>
> Robin
>

Knowing this Government, they would probably want any bridge to be a
toll bridge. The island has a population of about 140,000. The likely
annual number of crossings might be too low to raise enough revenue
unless the toll tax was uncacceptably high.

Also, I suspect there would be some NIMBY types would would not like an
invasion by hordes of tourist cars or pollution-causing lorries.

Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> On 15.04.2024 17:49, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:43:58 +0100
>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 15/04/2024 11:28, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On 15 Apr 2024 09:49:00 GMT
>>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How was your Ferry crossing? Both routes have been suffering from service
>>>>> interruptions
>>>>> recently due to lack of staff and mechanical failures. There was a
>>>>> family featured on the local radio
>>>>> desperate to get off the Island to get to an airport for a flight but were
>>>>> stranded due to cancellations.
>>>>> Don’t know if they made it in the end.
>>>>
>>>> No problems either way with Wightlink.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think it was/is Red Funnel problems:
>>> https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24191253.red-funnel-ceo-apologises-southampton
>>> -isle-wight-ferry-delay/
>>> https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24220244.isle-wight-ferry-red-funnel-issues-pr
>>> ompt-independent-investigation/
>>
>> Frankly I'm surprised a bridge has never been built to the island. Though I
>> guess the locals quite like being an island as that is half the appeal of
>> living there so maybe there'd be too much opposition.
>
> Due to the shipping activity in Portsmouth and Southampton, if a bridge
> were built it would likely need to be at the western end of the Solent,
> meaning access roads would need to be driven through the New Forrest,
> likely to cause strong opposition.
>
> Robin
>
Why not reopen the Railway that linked from the Lymington Branch?

After all it was on the map .

<https://maps.nls.uk/view/97131110>

Don’t this seriously.

GH