Talk:Island Line, Isle of Wight/Archive 1

Archive 1

untitled

The map shown is a little misleading: it is of all the railways which once existed on the island, and there is no explanation of that Peter Shearan 13:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

TOC vs Line

while i appreciate that the TOC (owned by stagecoach) has / is about to be subsumed into the new South Western franchise (still called SWT IIRC), the TOC detail need to be kept (like connex south central, et al still exist). At the same time the physical line needs an article. Obviously with a TOC with just one line this wasn't an issue before but in the imminent future i believe we need to split this article. Pickle 13:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with split as they are basically one and the same. Simply south 14:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I've already rearranged the article to reflect the change. This article is now primarily about the line, and all the info about the TOC itself (as was) is in the section at the bottom. I'm not sure what a split would achieve. --82.45.163.4 15:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking in terms of consistency of other articles. There are lots of "line" articles and lots of TOC articles, especially defunct TOC. The article can be both (as it is now), as we don't have enough stuff to justify a split. Pickle 13:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See also Valley Lines. Simply south 13:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Electrification system

As the rolling stock is ex-London Transport I think the voltage is 630, not 750. Biscuittin 20:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, the tube stock uses only 3rd rail rather than 4th rail system of LUL (the running rails act as the return rather than the 4th centre rail). The Waterloo and city line didn't have a 4th rail until very recently (despite using deep level tube stock, etc). The recently defunct electric-railways.co.uk site which is normally very accurate, listed the IOW scheme of 1967 as "750 V d.c.", and it makes the the distinction in its table of the voltage increase made after WW2 from the original 660V DC to 750V DC. I'm no sparky I'm afraid so i can't go technical on you and explain it any better, or why there is such a discrepancy or how it might work, I'm afraid. Pickle 04:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Island line logo.gif

Image:Island line logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Split

As mentioned previously on this page, I think now is the time to split the section on the former train operating company into its own article, leaving this page primerily about the railway line. This is because this page has become consufing with all the different templates on it, presenting Island Line as both a current and defunct TOC. A split would help to make the information clearer, as long as each page had a link to the Island Line disambiguation page. All comments, opinions and suggestions would be appriciated. Thanks, --Jorvik 12:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to support this, presuambly the TOC page would have to include the curretn "sub brand" of SWT and the defunct TOC, or do you want 3 pages ??? Pickle 18:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just the two pages, one for the line and one for the defunct TOC, each with a sentence explaining that South West Trains are now runnings services, but with the Island Line branding retained. --Jorvik 18:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Have been bold and gone ahead with split, following no objections. If anyone does have any objections, go ahead and make changes but please explain your reasoning here. Thanks, --Jorvik 17:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at the articles on some of the other railway lines of the country, and can't help thinking quite a lot of the information about the class 483 trains, and all but a fleeting reference to the 485/486, should be moved to Island Line Trains. Firstly, it's where it intuitively belongs, and second because the trains are owned (or formerly leased) by the train operator, not the infrastructure owner. It's made more complicated because of the restriction on the classes that physically fit Ryde Tunnel, so that should still be mentioned on this article. I've already put most of the info at the ILT article, but I think most of it isn't needed here, and will probably remove it in a couple of days if nobody says anything... Am I making sense here? --Peeky44 (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Done it (at least mainly) --Peeky44 (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Related split

Do you think this should happen with the Valley Lines? Simply south 13:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

For consistancy purposes yes, althouth the articles would both be low on content. --Jorvik 17:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you think i should bring this up on WP:Rail? Simply south 16:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there will hopefully be more response there. Dont't forget to leave a message at Talk:Valley Lines. --Jorvik 20:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have left a link on the project page with probably the main discussion happening at Talk:Valley Lines#Split?. Simply south 20:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Season ticket prices and discounts.

The article claims that by buying a £252 yearly Gold Card season ticket between Ryde Pierhead and Ryde Esplanade, the cost is more than recovered by the 33% discount available on other tickets throughout the Nework South East Area if you never use the ticket between those two stations. While the claim may be true, why would anyone bother? A Network South East card costs just £30 and also gives the same 33% discount. In fact the Network South East card is far better value than that because unlike the Gold Card, you can take up to three adittional adults who benefit from the 33% discount and up to four accompanying children at £1 each.

The same Gold Card between Lichfield City and Lichfield Trent Valley at £144 might seem a better bet, but it still does not undercut the £30 Network South East Card with its extra discout opportunities. 86.153.132.83 (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The Gold Card doesn't have the £13 weekday minimum fare that the Network Railcard has, and allows travel from 09:30 vs 10:00 for the Network Railcard. The number of passengers and the child discounts appear to be exactly the same across the two of them (3 additional adults, four children; child fare 60% discount with a minimum of £1). The Gold Card area is also rather larger than the Network Railcard area. Finally (and probably least importantly), the Gold Card allows the purchase of discounted first-class tickets. --bjh21 (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

An additional benefit of purchasing a yearly Gold Card season ticket is that it can be added to a Transport for London Oyster card which then grants a 1/3 discount on travel within the area covered by the Oyster card [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.243.17 (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Until the changeover from South West Trains to South Western Railways yearly Gold Card season ticket holders for routes within the South West Trains franchise also gained access to 6 day passes each year that provided free travel across the whole franchise.

Please note that this section was incorrect the cheapest Gold Card season ticket on the Island Line is between Ryde Esplanade to Ryde St Johns Road and not Ryde Pierhead and Ryde Esplanade. The main article has been updated to reflect this. At the time of writing (2017) the 3 different routes talked about have the following yearly Gold Card standard class season ticket costs

£260 Ryde Pierhead and Ryde Esplanade

£176 Ryde Esplanade(RYD) to Ryde St Johns Road(RYR)

£160 Lichfield City and Lichfield Trent Valley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.243.17 (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Island Line, Isle of Wight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130223073203/http://www.southernelectric.org.uk/features/historical-features/index.html to http://www.southernelectric.org.uk/features/historical-features/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)