IoW light rail conversion proposed

[Mike Storey]

 

According to TS, it would require the following to be removed if one were to route a tram from one end of the tunnel to the other:

1 footbridge

1 fence

Ryde Bus Station

2 Trees

1 Payphone

1 Garden & Wall

1 Roundabout

1 House

 

There are some pretty mean gradients and curves in there, but nothing that hasn't been seen on tramways in the past.

 

 

Thanks but is that a route along Esplanade, East Street and part way along Monkton Street? 

[sem34090]

Coming off at the St John's end of Esplanade station, I took the line down the Esplanade itself, across the roundabout opposite the superbowl, then down East Street and across Monkton Street, over the existing portal and down onto the formation. I suppose this could be extended all the way to St Johns to ease the gradient.

 

Quite frankly it looks to me as if it would be cheaper, easier and potentially less disruptive to break down the wall dividing the two bores of the tunnel (where it is double bore) and singling the line through it.

 

The footbridge is the one from the hovercraft to the bus station, the fence is alongside the line next to the station, the bus station is partially in the way. Then there is a bench inset into a flowerbed and planted with trees. Two of these trees and part of the wall would need removing. There is a phonebox on the corner that would need removing. The roundabout would need to be either removed or remodelled. There is a house (well, it's a house in TS. Might be something else in reality) which would need partial or full demolition to accommodate a smooth alignment. From there it's down East Street and over the top of the, presumably bricked up in this scenario, tunnel.

 

My own, preferred scenario is to turn platforms 1 and 2 over to the IOWSR, thus providing a loop. The Island line is then directed through the former platform 3, and SWR retain the depot. The IOWSR takes over the signal box and the up line (with its semaphores) up to Smallbrook. SWR retain the Down line as far as Smallbrook, and the loop is reinstated at Brading to permit a half-hourly schedule. The island line from St Johns to Pier head is singled (I know the down line onto the pier is disused, but the materials could be recovered for further use and the extra weight would be taken off of the pier.

 

If heavier and wider stock was to be used on the Island line, then only platform one would, in my plans, be handed to the IOWSR. Platform two would take Shanklin trains (with the new stock) and platform three would take vintage tube stock on a shuttle from St John's to Pier Head. IOWSR trains would have to be push-pull (they have got a push-pull set!) or top-and-tail from Smallbrook (where the loop would be maintained). The vintage tube stock, now restored and used on lighter duties at lower speeds would provide a novel attraction for visitors and tourists travelling down the pier to connect the ferries with the Island Line and IOWSR. The lighter weight of the tube stock would also be beneficial for the structure of the pier, and their loading gauge would remove the need to modify the tunnel at all. The substation at Ryde could continue to supply to the pier, as the distance is short, and the Island Line could be operated using either an upgraded third rail system or battery units.

 

I think that would be a happy compromise, and offers the following advantages:

 

• The IOWSR gets its long-awaited extension into Ryde.
• Island commuters get a modernised means of commuting from Shanklin into Ryde.
• Tourists (who, it seems, find the old tube trains quite novel and quirky) get to have the vintage stock.
• The 1938 stock is saved from scrap and will survive longer than it would otherwise.
• SWR fulfil their requirement (I think!) to maintain the Island Line.
• The pier takes a lighter load than it might otherwise.
• Two platforms no longer need raising.
• The tunnel no longer needs modification.
• A loop at Brading allows a half-hourly (or perhaps every 20 minute, with the removal of St John's - Pier Head) services on the Island Line.
• SWR retain their facilities at Ryde Depot.
• The shorter Island line requires less adaptation for new stock.
• The IOWSR does not have the burden of the whole Island line.
• The St John's - Pier Head section could, potentially, be operated as a heritage enterprise, perhaps (even) by the LTM? It would be nice to have an electric heritage railway, though it may be easier to leave it with SWR who could gain extra revenue by still having the 'novel' vintage stock.

Anyone got any disadvantages?

Edited May 14, 2018 by sem34090

[PhilJ W]

Quite frankly it looks to me as if it would be cheaper, easier and potentially less disruptive to break down the wall dividing the two bores of the tunnel (where it is double bore) and singling the line through it.

That should also ease the curves enabling longer stock. The only problem is that the dividing walls may be supporting something.

[Mike Storey]

Coming off at the St John's end of Esplanade station, I took the line down the Esplanade itself, across the roundabout opposite the superbowl, then down East Street and across Monkton Street, over the existing portal and down onto the formation. I suppose this could be extended all the way to St Johns to ease the gradient.

 

Quite frankly it looks to me as if it would be cheaper, easier and potentially less disruptive to break down the wall dividing the two bores of the tunnel (where it is double bore) and singling the line through it.

 

The footbridge is the one from the hovercraft to the bus station, the fence is alongside the line next to the station, the bus station is partially in the way. Then there is a bench inset into a flowerbed and planted with trees. Two of these trees and part of the wall would need removing. There is a phonebox on the corner that would need removing. The roundabout would need to be either removed or remodelled. There is a house (well, it's a house in TS. Might be something else in reality) which would need partial or full demolition to accommodate a smooth alignment. From there it's down East Street and over the top of the, presumably bricked up, tunnel.

 

Ok, got it, thanks. I think the "house" is the Ryde Castle, pub, restaurant and hotel complex. You would also have to demolish half of an industrial estate and possibly another pub, to access the tunnel mouth that way, unless you went down Monkton Street a bit.

 

I have no idea whether joining up the two bores of the tunnel is practicable, so leave that to other comments.

[sem34090]

My preferred, though (as far as I am aware) yet to be officially mentioned proposal:

 

Note: I have shown platform 3 as a loop off of platform two, as built, and a crossover between the IOWSR and Island Line. Please bear in mind my earlier comments here. The crossover twixt the IOWSR and Island Line is theoretically to permit possible specials on the 'main line' and to allow the IOWSR's engineering and maintenance facilities (and stock, like 03's and ballast wagons) to be used to maintain the 'main line'. Platform 3 is shown as a loop to aid flexibility, even though I would propose Shanklin - Ryde Trains terminating in Platform 2 and St John's - Pier Head trains terminating in Platform 3. Allowing the shuttle to access platform 2 and the Shanklin - Ryde services to access platform 3 would allow a more flexible service.

 

Any objections? This seems too much like common sense to me, or at least putting IL trains into platforms 3 and 2 and the IOWSR into one.

 

EDIT: Actually, putting IL trains into platform 3 and the shuttle into platform 2 makes more sense as then no rebuilding needs doing: platform 3 can remain a terminal road.

Edited May 14, 2018 by sem34090

[mdvle]

Somewhere back in this thread the conclusion was a significant part of the ridership on the Island Line left the Island, this thus be responsible for the fact that the line had a quite low average revenue per passenger.  If correct then the idea of adding another transfer into trips by using different stock for different parts of the line is not going to happen.

 

The arched roofs on the dual bore sections of tunnel is a good indication that the dividing wall is load carrying so removing the dividing wall is likely to be very expensive.

 

Whatever gets decided an important goal should be to make sure any future service improvements aren't prohibited by decisions made now.  If in 10 years it becomes feasible to have self driving trains a single car long run on a 5 or 10 minute interval then make sure the infrastructure is either still there or at least still possible.

[sem34090]

I also heard that Pier-Head to St Johns is the main journey, or even only as far as Esplanade. Hence why the novel stock that appeals to tourists and enthusiasts could be beneficial on that section. If my experience is anything to go by the trains pretty well empty out at St Johns, hence my concept of retaining the existing tube stock on this section: it would be easier on the pier, negate the tunnel issue and appeals to the tourists.

 

The amount of articles and youtube videos telling you about the surprising, interesting and cute old London Tube Trains on the Isle of Wight is quite astonishing...

[Zomboid]

If the steam trains are going to St Johns, I would aim to integrate them fully with the main line like the NYMR Whitby trains, rather than having a parallel track (lik the Spa Valley at Eridge). A bit of alteration at St Johns would be needed either way, including possibly bringing the loop platform back into use, either as a platform or at least as a run round.

[caradoc]

Some interesting ideas sem34090, although I'm not sure that making passengers travelling beyond St John's Road change trains there would help usage of the whole route.

[Joseph_Pestell]

That would be a good solution, but I have studied and studied the contours on that general route and cannot see any way of doing this without demolishing an awful lot of houses and creating a number of level crossings (or yet more tunnels and some steep gradients). Perhaps I have not looked at it properly. Do you have a more detailed route in mind?

Busy this morning with house extension. But will try to upload something later.

 

General principle though is that if light rail, level crossings and the like not a problem. There is a useful looking wide footpath with flower beds each side leading off the Esplanade which looks promising.

 

However, if one just filled in the tunnel and ran above it, that does involve some incursion onto private property and running the trams across an already complicated road junction. I have not looked at how practicable that would be - i.e. a rebuild of the road junction to accommodate the trams.

 

Single track would be an option from Esplanade to St John's if the ambition was just to provide a 2tph service (to match with the peak catamaran service). But I think that the aspiration for light rail should really be 4tph -  even if 2 of them terminate at Esplanade.

 

EDIT TO ADD: I don't think that I can download a meaningful map without breaching copyright. So, to try and describe what I am suggesting, after passing underneath the bridge by the Bus Museum, run the line along the west side of the Recreation Ground and then curve sharp right along the north side of the Recreation Ground to join the A road along Appley Hill and Esplanade. I think that it can be done with the demolition of one house.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Joseph_Pestell

[Joseph_Pestell]

Just seen another thread on here about Melbourne trams for sale. They would look rather good on the Esplanade.

[sem34090]

I agree with most of that, but I was also thinking about the cost of the whole thing - my proposal only requires minor trackwork alterations which are a lot cheaper than pier-strengthening, tunnel widening/demolishing, street running and full integration. Having the IOWSR separate does, in my mind, have the advantage that there is then no chance of IOWSR trains holding up the Island Line service. I also feel that losing the pier and the tunnel (with the tight curve from St Johns to the tunnel) would greatly increase the range of stock available for use on the rest of the line, including the possibility of SWR's soon-to-be-gone class 707 units - New trains on the Island! There's a novelty, even though I think Islanders would prefer the cushioned seats of the '38 stock to the breadboards of the 707!

 

My solution is far from perfect, its main flaw being a change at St Johns, but as far as I can tell it is the cheapest option so far put forward, and cheap is important at the moment. It also seems to me to be the proposal that would maintain the greatest happiness between all parties. Commuters would get a more regular service, tourists still get their novelty trains, the IOWSR gets its outlet into Ryde. The shuttle between St John's and Pier Head would most likely be slightly quicker than at present, as their would be a much reduced power drop at the pier, and the 1938 stock would retain a better condition due to its not being thrashed along the rest of the line, with its poorer trackwork, at 45mph. The main problem, as far as I can tell, is that the actual formation itself is giving out, particularly between Smallbrook & Brading, hence the atrocious ride on that section (my knees have never been the same since!). More modern stock, less low slung, would perhaps improve this somewhat, but the formation would still need upgrading.

 

Thus, a present a bullet-pointed summary:

• Disused track removed between Pier Head and Platform 2 at Esplanade to reduce weight on the pier.
• The current up line is used from the points at Esplanade up to Pier Head.
• The current down line is used from the points at Esplanade into St Johns. The current up line is removed here.
• The use of the down line would ease the curvature for all trains between Esplanade and St Johns.
• The simplified layout between Esplanade and St Johns would not require signalling, being worked by only one train at a time, so maintenance costs are reduced.
• The retention of vintage tube stock on this section would continue to prove a popular novelty with tourists, allowing the St John's - Pier Head section to perhaps make a profit. The light weight of the tube stock would also conserve the pier better, and the reduced run would increase train frequency between Pier Head and St John's.
• Reinstating the loop and Platform 2 at Brading would permit a half-hourly train service to be run, and retention of the loop at Sandown could even increase the frequency yet further. The removal of St-John's to Pier Head from the main line could also increase frequency.
• The IOWSR takes over the current up line between Smallbrook and St John's as (due to the loop at Brading and the altered service) trains no longer need to pass at St Johns. SWR would retain the current down line, and this could also, potentially have reduced signalling due to the removal of the points at Smallbrook.
• Keeping the IOWSR separate from the Island Line allows a bit more slack in the timetable for the IOWSR who don't then have the pressure of trying to avoid delay to the, now more frequent, Island Line service.
• Under this arrangement, very little modification would have to be done at St Johns. Island Line trains would be able to terminate in platform 2 or in a reopened platform 3, with IOWSR trains terminating in platform 1. The shuttle to the pier would terminate in platform 2, or (if reconnected at the up end) in platform 3. The crossovers between the up and down line could be removed or retained, depending on whether the IOWSR was to be permitted a mainline connection. SWR would retain Ryde Depot to maintain its 1938 and modern fleets.
• The fact that only three 1938 units are serviceable is no longer an issue, and perhaps one more unit can be stripped for spares.

Whilst, as I said, far from perfect I think this solution is perhaps more realistic than others have proposed, bearing in mind that cost is a huge restraint as is disruption to the existing service. As far as I can tell my proposal would cause no more disruption than a conventional track-renewal. Once new stock has arrived, the first priority would be to lay the loop at Brading. This is perhaps the biggest and most costly exercise here. Once this is in place, new stock can begin operation between St John's and Shanklin, and the '38 stock can be retired to the Ryde shuttle. From this point, the shuttle would use only the down line as far as the crossover at Esplanade, then the up line along the pier. Trains could continue to run whilst the, now disused, up line is removed as far as Esplanade and the, long disused, down line is removed from the pier. The second (up) bore of Ryde Tunnel could be bricked up or (perhaps more sensibly) turned to a public footpath or cycleway, as could the old up formation. Once all of this work is complete, or even as soon as the loop at Brading is commissioned, IOWSR services could run into St Johns, either top-and-tail, push-pull or with a loco kept in the loop at Smallbrook to back down onto the Havenstreet end of the train.

 

So, does anyone have a price estimate for the reinstating  of the loop at Brading? That would be the bulk of the cost here, the rest being track removal in the main.

[009 micro modeller]

Wouldn't the power supply problems still be an issue, particularly for class 707s?

[Joseph_Pestell]

I agree with most of that, but I was also thinking about the cost of the whole thing - my proposal only requires minor trackwork alterations which are a lot cheaper than pier-strengthening, tunnel widening/demolishing, street running and full integration. Having the IOWSR separate does, in my mind, have the advantage that there is then no chance of IOWSR trains holding up the Island Line service. I also feel that losing the pier and the tunnel (with the tight curve from St Johns to the tunnel) would greatly increase the range of stock available for use on the rest of the line, including the possibility of SWR's soon-to-be-gone class 707 units - New trains on the Island! There's a novelty, even though I think Islanders would prefer the cushioned seats of the '38 stock to the breadboards of the 707!

 

My solution is far from perfect, its main flaw being a change at St Johns, but as far as I can tell it is the cheapest option so far put forward, and cheap is important at the moment. It also seems to me to be the proposal that would maintain the greatest happiness between all parties. Commuters would get a more regular service, tourists still get their novelty trains, the IOWSR gets its outlet into Ryde. The shuttle between St John's and Pier Head would most likely be slightly quicker than at present, as their would be a much reduced power drop at the pier, and the 1938 stock would retain a better condition due to its not being thrashed along the rest of the line, with its poorer trackwork, at 45mph. The main problem, as far as I can tell, is that the actual formation itself is giving out, particularly between Smallbrook & Brading, hence the atrocious ride on that section (my knees have never been the same since!). More modern stock, less low slung, would perhaps improve this somewhat, but the formation would still need upgrading.

 

Thus, a present a bullet-pointed summary:

• Disused track removed between Pier Head and Platform 2 at Esplanade to reduce weight on the pier.
• The current up line is used from the points at Esplanade up to Pier Head.
• The current down line is used from the points at Esplanade into St Johns. The current up line is removed here.
• The use of the down line would ease the curvature for all trains between Esplanade and St Johns.
• The simplified layout between Esplanade and St Johns would not require signalling, being worked by only one train at a time, so maintenance costs are reduced.
• The retention of vintage tube stock on this section would continue to prove a popular novelty with tourists, allowing the St John's - Pier Head section to perhaps make a profit. The light weight of the tube stock would also conserve the pier better, and the reduced run would increase train frequency between Pier Head and St John's.
• Reinstating the loop and Platform 2 at Brading would permit a half-hourly train service to be run, and retention of the loop at Sandown could even increase the frequency yet further. The removal of St-John's to Pier Head from the main line could also increase frequency.
• The IOWSR takes over the current up line between Smallbrook and St John's as (due to the loop at Brading and the altered service) trains no longer need to pass at St Johns. SWR would retain the current down line, and this could also, potentially have reduced signalling due to the removal of the points at Smallbrook.
• Keeping the IOWSR separate from the Island Line allows a bit more slack in the timetable for the IOWSR who don't then have the pressure of trying to avoid delay to the, now more frequent, Island Line service.
• Under this arrangement, very little modification would have to be done at St Johns. Island Line trains would be able to terminate in platform 2 or in a reopened platform 3, with IOWSR trains terminating in platform 1. The shuttle to the pier would terminate in platform 2, or (if reconnected at the up end) in platform 3. The crossovers between the up and down line could be removed or retained, depending on whether the IOWSR was to be permitted a mainline connection. SWR would retain Ryde Depot to maintain its 1938 and modern fleets.
• The fact that only three 1938 units are serviceable is no longer an issue, and perhaps one more unit can be stripped for spares.

Whilst, as I said, far from perfect I think this solution is perhaps more realistic than others have proposed, bearing in mind that cost is a huge restraint as is disruption to the existing service. As far as I can tell my proposal would cause no more disruption than a conventional track-renewal. Once new stock has arrived, the first priority would be to lay the loop at Brading. This is perhaps the biggest and most costly exercise here. Once this is in place, new stock can begin operation between St John's and Shanklin, and the '38 stock can be retired to the Ryde shuttle. From this point, the shuttle would use only the down line as far as the crossover at Esplanade, then the up line along the pier. Trains could continue to run whilst the, now disused, up line is removed as far as Esplanade and the, long disused, down line is removed from the pier. The second (up) bore of Ryde Tunnel could be bricked up or (perhaps more sensibly) turned to a public footpath or cycleway, as could the old up formation. Once all of this work is complete, or even as soon as the loop at Brading is commissioned, IOWSR services could run into St Johns, either top-and-tail, push-pull or with a loco kept in the loop at Smallbrook to back down onto the Havenstreet end of the train.

 

So, does anyone have a price estimate for the reinstating  of the loop at Brading? That would be the bulk of the cost here, the rest being track removal in the main.

 

How long is a piece of string?

 

Re-instating the loop could be done quite cheaply if a pragmatic view were taken. In reality, modern requirements would mean it being massively over-specified to full mainline standards and therefore expensive.

 

That's why I would really like to see the Island Line be completely independent.

[Zomboid]

Wouldn't the power supply problems still be an issue, particularly for class 707s?

A 5 car 707 will draw considerably more power than a 2 car 483. The substation being at Ryde St Johns means that there will be no benefit to the trains in the pier - taking tracks out would make it worse in fact, as the running rails are a significant part of the circuit, so the resistance (hence volt drop) from the rectifier to the pier will increase. Perhaps not beyond acceptable levels, but it'll be worse than it is now.

[Zomboid]

How long is a piece of string?

 

Re-instating the loop could be done quite cheaply if a pragmatic view were taken. In reality, modern requirements would mean it being massively over-specified to full mainline standards and therefore expensive.

 

That's why I would really like to see the Island Line be completely independent.

A copy of the loop at Sandown would seem appropriate, I think the points there are sprung (or automated in some fashion that doesn't involve a motor), though to be fair I've no idea how reliable they are.

 

But you're right, it may well end up being specified to full WCML standards, and needlessly expensive as a result.

[IWCR]

The  main  purpose  of  any  modernisation will  be  to  reduce  costs,  keeping  two  different  types  of  stock  one  of  them  a  high  maintenance  heritage  type  wont  do  this.

The  load  carrying ability  of the  pier  structure  is  not  the  problem,  the  condition  of  it  is.  It  requires  a  lot  of  work  to  put  it  right,  this  needs  doing  regardless  of  the  stock using  it.  Keeping  the  existing  stock  running  on  it  will  not  avoid  the  neccesity  of  this  or  significantly  reduce  the  costs  compared  to  restoring  full  load  capacity. 

Assuming  the  pier  is  repaired  the  tunnel  route  to   St  Johns  requires  little  work  (hence  cost),  several  options  of  available stock  which  will  fit  the  tunnel  have  been  identified  so  why  make  expensive  changes?. 

 

Pete

[Mike Storey]

 

EDIT TO ADD: I don't think that I can download a meaningful map without breaching copyright. So, to try and describe what I am suggesting, after passing underneath the bridge by the Bus Museum, run the line along the west side of the Recreation Ground and then curve sharp right along the north side of the Recreation Ground to join the A road along Appley Hill and Esplanade. I think that it can be done with the demolition of one house.

 

That's the route I thought might be more viable, but I am not sure about the levels at Appley Hill at that point. Can't see enough detail.

[Joseph_Pestell]

The  main  purpose  of  any  modernisation will  be  to  reduce  costs,  keeping  two  different  types  of  stock  one  of  them  a  high  maintenance  heritage  type  wont  do  this.

The  load  carrying ability  of the  pier  structure  is  not  the  problem,  the  condition  of  it  is.  It  requires  a  lot  of  work  to  put  it  right,  this  needs  doing  regardless  of  the  stock using  it.  Keeping  the  existing  stock  running  on  it  will  not  avoid  the  neccesity  of  this  or  significantly  reduce  the  costs  compared  to  restoring  full  load  capacity. 

Assuming  the  pier  is  repaired  the  tunnel  route  to   St  Johns  requires  little  work  (hence  cost),  several  options  of  available stock  which  will  fit  the  tunnel  have  been  identified  so  why  make  expensive  changes?. 

 

Pete

 

I don't disagree. What I suggested above was in the context of a conversion to light rail.

 

If, as Adrian Shooter claims, Class 230 can fit through the tunnel (or the tunnel made to fit the 230), that has to be the cheapest and most viable option.

[jim.snowdon]

There is a lot to be said for treating the railway as a interurban tramway. Being able to take to the streets provides the potential for getting round the problem of Ryde tunnel as well as an option for street running on the original pier out to the pier head, allowing the railway pier to be abandoned. That also gets round the issues of seawater splashing up through the pier and onto the underside of the stock, something that has been a weakness of the 1938 stock compared to the Standard stock that went before them. It also offers the longer term possibility of getting to somewhere more useful at the Shanklin end.

Inter-running with the steam trains is not an impossibility, and is arguably an easier task than ensuring that any tramway is designed to sensible standards, rather than over-engineered to main line standards.

 

Jim

[009 micro modeller]

There is a lot to be said for treating the railway as a interurban tramway. Being able to take to the streets provides the potential for getting round the problem of Ryde tunnel as well as an option for street running on the original pier out to the pier head, allowing the railway pier to be abandoned. That also gets round the issues of seawater splashing up through the pier and onto the underside of the stock, something that has been a weakness of the 1938 stock compared to the Standard stock that went before them. It also offers the longer term possibility of getting to somewhere more useful at the Shanklin end.

Inter-running with the steam trains is not an impossibility, and is arguably an easier task than ensuring that any tramway is designed to sensible standards, rather than over-engineered to main line standards.

 

Jim

In this idea would you suggest reusing the tram pier (currently empty I think with cars on one side)? And is the design of this better than the current railway pier?

[Joseph_Pestell]

In this idea would you suggest reusing the tram pier (currently empty I think with cars on one side)? And is the design of this better than the current railway pier?

I note, in some of the historical references, mention of ships arriving at other quays in Ryde. But presumably those were tidal and so not suitable for an all-day ferry service.

 

I know hovercraft are expensive to operate but perhaps it would  be better to operate them to Ryde for all services and not have the expense and inconvenience of a long pier.

 

Edit to add: If both ferry services were to be hovercraft, the track at Esplanade could be singled with platform face each side of the train offering "cross-platform" interchange with the hovercraft on one side and the buses on the other.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Joseph_Pestell

[jim.snowdon]

In this idea would you suggest reusing the tram pier (currently empty I think with cars on one side)? And is the design of this better than the current railway pier?

I was thinking more of using the original pier, the part that carries the roadway, but I hadn't entirely realised that this is also an iron pier. The thought was that if you use a pier that is already in use, it saves the maintenance costs that would be incurred in either keeping the railway pier going or resuscitating the tramway pier.

 

Jim

[009 micro modeller]

I believe the space where the tracks for the pier tramway went is mostly empty at the moment.

[Coryton]

 

EDIT TO ADD: I don't think that I can download a meaningful map without breaching copyright. So, to try and describe what I am suggesting, after passing underneath the bridge by the Bus Museum, run the line along the west side of the Recreation Ground and then curve sharp right along the north side of the Recreation Ground to join the A road along Appley Hill and Esplanade. I think that it can be done with the demolition of one house.

 

How about Openstreetmap?

 

Ryde is here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11398930#map=17/50.73176/-1.15537