IBM (Halt) Closure & Possible Re-opening

[Esker-pades]

Just to clear up any confusion...All trains currently stop there as per timetable.
It’s only from december that this changes.

I don't think that's true. Services from Wemyss Bay to Glasgow are not right now (if National Rail Enquires and Real Time Trains are to be believed). Trains from Glasgow to Wemyss Bay serve IBM as normal though.

 

[LOL The Irony]

As far as I know, no.

EDIT: The only mentions on search engines that relate to the station's closure are to Wikipedia and these forums.

First thing you see on Google is the link to the ScotRail site and it says this station is closing on the 9th of December before even going on the page.

 

[Mag_seven]

A lot of speculation as to why no formal closure procedure has been invoked (private station, police advice etc). Transport Scotland must provide a explanation as to why they believe they did not have to apply the formal closure procedure.

 

[Esker-pades]

A lot of speculation as to why no formal closure procedure has been invoked (private station, police advice etc). Transport Scotland must provide a explanation as to why they believe they did not have to apply the formal closure procedure.

I've sent an e-mail to both ScotRail and Transport Scotland about the current level of service, the future level of service (post-closure) and how the closure satisfies the current legislation.

 

[sprunt]

As others have said the law must be different for private stations. Manchester United halt hasn’t had any trains in about a year for example.

Would it be a significant difference that Manchester United has never had any regular timetabled services, only ad-hoc ones organised around the fixtures (including at short notice - I'm 90% sure I've travelled to at least one FA Cup replay there using the halt)?

I agree with @DarloRich - the closure process should be followed as not to do so sets a dangerous precedent.

Especially if it was on the orders of the police.

 

[MadMac]

(For the avoidance of doubt, IBM opened well before the Speller Amendment and was never ‘experimental’.)

Thanks! I had wondered if the “experimental” provision applied in this case.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Did they have to go through the formal closure process when Ampress Works Halt was closed?

That station had more or less identical circumstances didn't it?

 

[A Challenge]

Did they have to go through the formal closure process when Ampress Works Halt was closed?

That station had more or less identical circumstances didn't it?

Not really:

The station never appeared in any public timetable.[1]

 

[380gk]

I don't think that's true. Services from Wemyss Bay to Glasgow are not right now (if National Rail Enquires and Real Time Trains are to be believed). Trains from Glasgow to Wemyss Bay serve IBM as normal though.

I stand corrected!

That’s a very (very) recent alteration. One which hasn’t been publicised anywhere.

 

[Esker-pades]

I stand corrected!

That’s a very (very) recent alteration. One which hasn’t been publicised anywhere.

It is very reacent and un-published. I'm wondering if I can risk a quick trip tomorrow to check what's actually going on.

 

[185143]

I stand corrected!

That’s a very (very) recent alteration. One which hasn’t been publicised anywhere.

Probably because no one (until closure was announced) would notice!

However the lack of IBM being announced at Glasgow Central may cause the more observant to realise...

 

[mmh]

Can I be a little controversial and suggest that as well as all this angst over an unused and inaccessible station closing might be well-meaning, there's a small possibilty it's counter-productive?

There have been people suggesting questioning it with their MPs, MSPs or the Scottish Parliament directly, despite living nowhere near the place. It's highly likely that whoever you write to won't give a stuff, but there's also a small chance you write to someone who had no idea an under-used station was being closed but makes them wonder which other stations there are with no, or few, passengers and can lobby for them to be closed as a waste of money.

Be careful what you wish for. Trains will not stop there again come December. Drawing attention to anomalies on the railways is rarely a good thing - you're all doing the physical equivalent of pointing out a fare anomaly or a good point to split fares.

It's sad it's going, but it's already gone. Let it go with a little dignity rather than trying to prove some theoretical point.

 

[Elwyn]

Can I be a little controversial and suggest that as well as all this angst over an unused and inaccessible station closing might be well-meaning, there's a small possibilty it's counter-productive?

There have been people suggesting questioning it with their MPs, MSPs or the Scottish Parliament directly, despite living nowhere near the place. It's highly likely that whoever you write to won't give a stuff, but there's also a small chance you write to someone who had no idea an under-used station was being closed but makes them wonder which other stations there are with no, or few, passengers and can lobby for them to be closed as a waste of money.

Be careful what you wish for. Trains will not stop there again come December. Drawing attention to anomalies on the railways is rarely a good thing - you're all doing the physical equivalent of pointing out a fare anomaly or a good point to split fares.

It's sad it's going, but it's already gone. Let it go with a little dignity rather than trying to prove some theoretical point.

I couldn’t agree more.


I had to pinch myself reading this discussion, in case I was misunderstanding things. It’s a station that nobody uses, is almost impossible to use, and by not stopping there the timetable will be more resilient. Instead of commending the train company for using their common sense there’s a mighty storm in a tea-cup about it. The man on the top of the Clapham omnibus would think it daft that anyone should seriously suggest services should continue stopping there.


I can’t help thinking that legal advice will have been taken, and that there will be a reasonable legal basis for discontinuing the service. It may be because it’s not a public station and so the usual closure procedures don’t apply, or on health & safety grounds or whatever but writing letters and e-mails is not going to lead to any change. And what useful purpose would be served anyway. No-one wants to go there, not are they likely to for some years to come. That’s the bottom line. Stopping there is a complete waste of time and money.

 

[philthetube]

I fail to see any difference between closing IBM with a view to re-opening when needed and the closing of Dunrobin castle every september until that is re-needed, and I see no complaints about that. Should this cause big issues other companies deciding stations would be a good idea may be put off rail for their workers.

 

[Carntyne]

A lot of speculation as to why no formal closure procedure has been invoked (private station, police advice etc). Transport Scotland must provide a explanation as to why they believe they did not have to apply the formal closure procedure.

I think people need to calm down a bit. Provide an explanation to who? RailForums? I don't think this place features much in how Transport Scotland makes their decisions.

 

[pdeaves]

Thanks! I had wondered if the “experimental” provision applied in this case.

For interest's sake, the experimental stations and routes are shown here: http://www.railwaycodes.org.uk/misc/experimental.shtm

 

[Altnabreac]

People should probably be careful what they wish for. I suspect mothballing the station means it can be easily reopened if development ever takes place on site.

Forcing Network Rail to go through a formal closure process (though I suspect not needed in this case) could make any reopening much more difficult and expensive.

 

[DarloRich]

People should probably be careful what they wish for. I suspect mothballing the station means it can be easily reopened if development ever takes place on site.

Forcing Network Rail to go through a formal closure process (though I suspect not needed in this case) could make any reopening much more difficult and expensive.

but, surely, you cannot unilaterally declare a station "mothballed". Also if you can what confirmation is there that the station will be secured and maintained to a standard whereby it can open when required? You are naive if you think a closed ( sorry "mothballed") station will be kept to a standard suitable for prompt reopening.

 

[causton]

People should probably be careful what they wish for. I suspect mothballing the station means it can be easily reopened if development ever takes place on site.

Forcing Network Rail to go through a formal closure process (though I suspect not needed in this case) could make any reopening much more difficult and expensive.

The issue is not about IBM at all, really. The issue is, if they decide to close this station 'just because' this timetable change, what will they (and other TOCs) see if they can get away with closing next time round?

 

[DarloRich]

The issue is not about IBM at all, really. The issue is, if they decide to close this station 'just because' this timetable change, what will they (and other TOCs) see if they can get away with closing next time round?

Exactly - the precedent worries me. I am a user of a lightly used station on a a lightly used line. What is to stop LNWR "mothballing" the passenger service?

 

[gsnedders]

but, surely, you cannot unilaterally declare a station "mothballed". Also if you can what confirmation is there that the station will be secured and maintained to a standard whereby it can open when required? You are naive if you think a closed ( sorry "mothballed") station will be kept to a standard suitable for prompt reopening.

Could it not be the result of a multilateral discussion with IBM, whose staff and contractors the station exists for the sole use of? Given they no longer have anything at the site, it seems like IBM wouldn't care…

 

[A Challenge]

However the lack of IBM being announced at Glasgow Central may cause the more observant to realise...

That isn't a problem, it's to Glasgow that is marked as unadvertised.

 

[DarloRich]

Can I be a little controversial and suggest that as well as all this angst over an unused and inaccessible station closing might be well-meaning, there's a small possibilty it's counter-productive?

There have been people suggesting questioning it with their MPs, MSPs or the Scottish Parliament directly, despite living nowhere near the place. It's highly likely that whoever you write to won't give a stuff, but there's also a small chance you write to someone who had no idea an under-used station was being closed but makes them wonder which other stations there are with no, or few, passengers and can lobby for them to be closed as a waste of money.

Be careful what you wish for. Trains will not stop there again come December. Drawing attention to anomalies on the railways is rarely a good thing - you're all doing the physical equivalent of pointing out a fare anomaly or a good point to split fares.

It's sad it's going, but it's already gone. Let it go with a little dignity rather than trying to prove some theoretical point.

I couldn’t agree more.


I had to pinch myself reading this discussion, in case I was misunderstanding things. It’s a station that nobody uses, is almost impossible to use, and by not stopping there the timetable will be more resilient. Instead of commending the train company for using their common sense there’s a mighty storm in a tea-cup about it. The man on the top of the Clapham omnibus would think it daft that anyone should seriously suggest services should continue stopping there.


I can’t help thinking that legal advice will have been taken, and that there will be a reasonable legal basis for discontinuing the service. It may be because it’s not a public station and so the usual closure procedures don’t apply, or on health & safety grounds or whatever but writing letters and e-mails is not going to lead to any change. And what useful purpose would be served anyway. No-one wants to go there, not are they likely to for some years to come. That’s the bottom line. Stopping there is a complete waste of time and money.

The station is a complete waste of time and should close. No one argues otherwise however i fundamentally disagree with your position which seems to be the TOC should be allowed to do what they like regardless of legal process.

The issue, which i suspect you understand but choose to ignore, is that there is a formal process to be followed to close a station. It is not a unilateral decision of the TOC. The linked issue is that the precedent here will be used to justify "mothballing" other stations. We have a process for this and it should be followed.

By all means close the station, however do it properly.

 

[cactustwirly]

That isn't a problem, it's to Glasgow that is marked as unadvertised.

What? The service is completely withdrawn in both directions, from the 9th December.

 

[Esker-pades]

Probably because no one (until closure was announced) would notice!

However the lack of IBM being announced at Glasgow Central may cause the more observant to realise...

Trains from Glasgow to Wemyss Bay are unaffected. It's only trains arriving into Glasgow that have been altered.

 

[Esker-pades]

For those interested, I have a good few hours between lectures today, so I'm currently on my way to Glasgow and IBM Halt. I'll report back either tonight or tomorrow.

 

[causton]

What? The service is completely withdrawn in both directions, from the 9th December.

There is a bit of confusion here.

At the moment:
Services from Wemyss Bay to Glasgow Central are shown as stopping for operational purposes only - not a public stop. Whether this is deliberate or not, we do not know.

From the 9th December:
All services are shown as not stopping at IBM Halt. ScotRail have confirmed this and have said they are not providing any replacement transport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The issue, which i suspect you understand but choose to ignore, is that there is a formal process to be followed to close a station. It is not a unilateral decision of the TOC. The linked issue is that the precedent here will be used to justify "mothballing" other stations.

Will it? It wasn't for Breich, and the outcome was it not closing despite a huge cost in doing it up.

Unless they are trying to avoid getting their hands burnt in that manner - but there is no need to do IBM up, nor is anyone going to use it, not even a hiker. An "obscure stations" enthusiast will, but that's not a reason to have a station, rather it is something that occurs because there is a station. I bet the passenger figures have been near zero the past few months.

As I said I *suspect* the process isn't needed because it is a private station (even though it is in the timetable) and as such once the organisation who it was for has closed it has no reason to exist.

 

[Altnabreac]

The station is a complete waste of time and should close. No one argues otherwise however i fundamentally disagree with your position which seems to be the TOC should be allowed to do what they like regardless of legal process.

The issue, which i suspect you understand but choose to ignore, is that there is a formal process to be followed to close a station. It is not a unilateral decision of the TOC. The linked issue is that the precedent here will be used to justify "mothballing" other stations. We have a process for this and it should be followed.

By all means close the station, however do it properly.

You see that's where I'd disagree. The landowners have decided that commercial and industrial use of Spango Valley on the current scale is unsustainable and so the existing industrial uses have ceased and the site is currently proposed for full scale redevelopment. inverclyde Council's Main Issues Report in 2017 had some designs for both the central and southern portions of the site that would be served by IBM halt:
https://www.inverclyde.gov.uk/plann.../development-planning/main-issues-report-2017

In the emerging Local Development Plan (LDP2) there are proposals for 420 houses immediately adjacent to the halt with potentially more elsewhere in Spango valley.

So in the long term I think the station has potential. In the short term though mothballing seems eminently reasonable. It is a station with no public access, in the centre of a former industrial site about to undergo full scale demolition and redevelopment. There is no requirement for public access at present.

Personally I think mothballing the station until development is underway is a reasonable course of action. Of course the correct legal procedures should be followed but I certainly don't think the station needs closing as the re-development should secure it's long term future. It probably would need renaming from IBM to Spango Valley or similar.

 

[Mag_seven]

As I said I *suspect* the process isn't needed because it is a private station

All we need is confirmation from Transport Scotland that this is indeed the case. If not they must follow the correct process.