Yes, and a lot of goods could have been got across the island on the trains, serving the various towns AND onwards to the ferries, keeping some traffic off the roads.
Unfortunately social benefits were less valued then, and mechanisms for public subsidy weren't in place. BR were a bit devious - the TUCC inspector announced that there was sufficient hardship to retain Ryde-Ventnor, but BR then suggested truncating it at Shanklin. The last 4 miles on to Ventnor were less remunerative but had the biggest social benefit because of the town's isolated position with steep hills intervening.
@@iankemp1131 Not strictly true, it would have cost BR an extra £264k to electrify down to Ventnor as a 4th substation would have been needed, which was money that they did not have agreement to spend; also the bulk of the footfall was at Shanklin, with little to Ventnor and even less in winter.
@@michaelhearn3052 Well, British Railways wanted to get rid of the entire line altogether and were forced to keep it by the TUCC/Minister of Transport's refusal to sanction it. So they did a somewhat devious ploy to reduce the extra money spent. If they really wanted to save money they could have kept steam trains with Ivatt 2-6-2 tanks (as now on the IOW steam railway) - this was proposed in BR but they were determined to get rid of steam. The electrification and resignalling was very costly by comparison. Replacing the carriages could have been more of a challenge as BR Mk 1s etc simply didn't fit. But they were only 50 years old whereas the O2s were nearly 80. And of course both coaches and engines are still running at Havenstreet.
@@iankemp1131 The closure notice was served IIRC on the remaining IoW railways in March 1964, as these lines were seen as un-remunerative according the the Beeching report of 1963. The problem was that the report was based on data from a survey of passenger and freight traffic week ending 23 April 1961. This was well outside the IoWs main holiday loadings between June to September. Indeed as an Electrical Engineer, myself, the scheme itself is a bodge, and NR (BR) engineers don't like working on it. What you have got is the best of a bad job with the truncated section of the line surviving today. Bearing in mind this was put through by a Labour government, and the question has to be asked what would a Tory government done? Also remember that BR were under pressure from the government to get rid of steam off of the main line. Equally I would agree that some opportunities were missed in that the route to Newport and Cowes could have been a steam heritage operation relieving the congestion on the A302 road, (and others).
I wonder if the tunnel at ventnor is still open as part of cycleway ,I would love to have a cycling holiday on the IOW! Stayed at Swanage on holiday and I do remember having a day out at IOW ,the ferry which may have been a paddle boat and the railway on the pier.head ,60 years ago but still a fresh memory 👍
Hi Jeffrey, the tunnel is not currently open to the public, but it is still accessed regularly by the water board because of water pipes running through which are still used. Ironically, the main reason why the line was subsequently terminated at Shanklin was because... of the perceived cost of maintaining the tunnel...
@@dominicwood3451 Not true. There were reports of a fall in the tunnel which IIRC were also not true. At the time, prior to the closure of the Shanklin to Ventnor section of the line; BR had assessed the footfall and found that the bulk of passengers alighted at Shanklin and not Ventnor. Probably because there was a higher number of B&Bs and Hotels there. Secondly and more importantly to electrify down to Ventnor would need a fourth substation and connections to the Area Board 33kV grid, costing £264k. The budget set for the electrification scheme and all works was set at £500k at the time in the mid 1960's, the fourth sub would have exceeded the budget set, as it was the project costs did exceed the budget on occasions and the project, if innovations and cost saving solutions could not be found hovered on the verge of being scrapped.
@@michaelhearn3052 It would however have been difficult to scrap the project as the Minister of Transport had refused consent for closure - BR had wanted to close all the Island railways. They were also determined to eliminate steam so the alternative of using cutdown Ivatt 2MT 2-6-2Ts (like those now at Havenstreet) was rejected. BR cut off their nose to spite their face by closing the Ventnor section before the beginning of the 1966 summer season when it could still have earned useful money.
@@michaelhearn3052 Well, they didn't have the money for Ryde to Shanklin either, but they had to find it and did, as the TUCC and MoT refused closure due to hardship. There was still no reason why they shouldn't have got the extra revenue from Ventnor for summer 1966 before closing it.
I remember crossing on a paddle steamer and having to wait mid way for the SS United States to pass
If only this vast ammount of infrastructure had been converted to light rail operation instead of being torn up!
Agree completely. The demolition of the IoW network is a classic case of short-term thinking.
The line to Ventnor should have remained open this would then allow many more tourists etc.to reach Ventnor and boost the economy.
Yes, and a lot of goods could have been got across the island on the trains, serving the various towns AND onwards to the ferries, keeping some traffic off the roads.
Unfortunately social benefits were less valued then, and mechanisms for public subsidy weren't in place. BR were a bit devious - the TUCC inspector announced that there was sufficient hardship to retain Ryde-Ventnor, but BR then suggested truncating it at Shanklin. The last 4 miles on to Ventnor were less remunerative but had the biggest social benefit because of the town's isolated position with steep hills intervening.
@@iankemp1131 Not strictly true, it would have cost BR an extra £264k to electrify down to Ventnor as a 4th substation would have been needed, which was money that they did not have agreement to spend; also the bulk of the footfall was at Shanklin, with little to Ventnor and even less in winter.
@@michaelhearn3052 Well, British Railways wanted to get rid of the entire line altogether and were forced to keep it by the TUCC/Minister of Transport's refusal to sanction it. So they did a somewhat devious ploy to reduce the extra money spent. If they really wanted to save money they could have kept steam trains with Ivatt 2-6-2 tanks (as now on the IOW steam railway) - this was proposed in BR but they were determined to get rid of steam. The electrification and resignalling was very costly by comparison. Replacing the carriages could have been more of a challenge as BR Mk 1s etc simply didn't fit. But they were only 50 years old whereas the O2s were nearly 80. And of course both coaches and engines are still running at Havenstreet.
@@iankemp1131 The closure notice was served IIRC on the remaining IoW railways in March 1964, as these lines were seen as un-remunerative according the the Beeching report of 1963. The problem was that the report was based on data from a survey of passenger and freight traffic week ending 23 April 1961. This was well outside the IoWs main holiday loadings between June to September. Indeed as an Electrical Engineer, myself, the scheme itself is a bodge, and NR (BR) engineers don't like working on it. What you have got is the best of a bad job with the truncated section of the line surviving today. Bearing in mind this was put through by a Labour government, and the question has to be asked what would a Tory government done? Also remember that BR were under pressure from the government to get rid of steam off of the main line. Equally I would agree that some opportunities were missed in that the route to Newport and Cowes could have been a steam heritage operation relieving the congestion on the A302 road, (and others).
I wonder if the tunnel at ventnor is still open as part of cycleway ,I would love to have a cycling holiday on the IOW! Stayed at Swanage on holiday and I do remember having a day out at IOW ,the ferry which may have been a paddle boat and the railway on the pier.head ,60 years ago but still a fresh memory 👍
Hi Jeffrey, the tunnel is not currently open to the public, but it is still accessed regularly by the water board because of water pipes running through which are still used. Ironically, the main reason why the line was subsequently terminated at Shanklin was because... of the perceived cost of maintaining the tunnel...
@@dominicwood3451 Not true. There were reports of a fall in the tunnel which IIRC were also not true. At the time, prior to the closure of the Shanklin to Ventnor section of the line; BR had assessed the footfall and found that the bulk of passengers alighted at Shanklin and not Ventnor. Probably because there was a higher number of B&Bs and Hotels there. Secondly and more importantly to electrify down to Ventnor would need a fourth substation and connections to the Area Board 33kV grid, costing £264k. The budget set for the electrification scheme and all works was set at £500k at the time in the mid 1960's, the fourth sub would have exceeded the budget set, as it was the project costs did exceed the budget on occasions and the project, if innovations and cost saving solutions could not be found hovered on the verge of being scrapped.
@@michaelhearn3052 It would however have been difficult to scrap the project as the Minister of Transport had refused consent for closure - BR had wanted to close all the Island railways. They were also determined to eliminate steam so the alternative of using cutdown Ivatt 2MT 2-6-2Ts (like those now at Havenstreet) was rejected. BR cut off their nose to spite their face by closing the Ventnor section before the beginning of the 1966 summer season when it could still have earned useful money.
@@iankemp1131 The business case was not there, to electrify down to Ventnor would have cost £264k money BR did not have.
@@michaelhearn3052 Well, they didn't have the money for Ryde to Shanklin either, but they had to find it and did, as the TUCC and MoT refused closure due to hardship. There was still no reason why they shouldn't have got the extra revenue from Ventnor for summer 1966 before closing it.
A complete lack of fore site Could do with the line into Ventnor now. Cant see leeson Rd opening anytime soon