IBM (Halt) Closure & Possible Re-opening

Hadders · 12 Dec 2018

Elwyn said:
The sometimes controversial Mr O’Leary wouldn’t fly into an airport with no passengers. And he would be absolutely right. So why do folk expect trains to stop at a station with almost no passengers? All the waffle about the legality of withdrawing services seems to me to avoid the commercial reality. At the moment, there’s no business there. What’s the point of stopping there?

I'm not against the station being mothballed or even closed. What I am against it Scotrail unilaterally closing (or mothballing it) without any consultation whatsoever. Not a massive problem for IBM as there aren't any passengers but what if it was Stranrear, Wick, Thurso or other lightly used stations on lines that are 'inconvenient' and costly for the railway to operate and maintain. A dangerous precedent is being set with IBM.

Proper notice and consultation should take place before a closure.

RailUK Forums

najaB · 12 Dec 2018

Hadders said:
A dangerous precedent is being set with IBM.

But it's not. IBM Halt was never open to the general public.

Clip · 12 Dec 2018

Hadders said:
What I am against it Scotrail unilaterally closing (or mothballing it) without any consultation whatsoever

You keep saying this but they have said a consultation with local stakeholders and the BTP occured and it was this that led to services being withdrawn - I still struggle why you want something else other than what has already been posted from the various news streams

Clip · 12 Dec 2018

These meetings included representation from ScotRail, Police Scotland, British Transport Police, Inverclyde Council Community Wardens, and local Councillors.

I mean how much hmore do you want Hadders and more importantly - why?

ForTheLoveOf · 12 Dec 2018

There is an established closure procedure. Why couldn't they simply use this instead? And why couldn't they just make it a Parliamentary service, rather than suspending it entirely? That would still make it just as unusable to the local yoofs.

No-one disagrees that the station currently has no purpose, however suspending services could have implications if or when the service is resumed. That is why there is a procedure.

If you make an exception for this kind of a station, where there is 'no justification', why don't you just make an exception for every other such kind of station? What's even the point of having a closure procedure then?

92002 · 12 Dec 2018

Hadders said:
I'm not against the station being mothballed or even closed. What I am against it Scotrail unilaterally closing (or mothballing it) without any consultation whatsoever. Not a massive problem for IBM as there aren't any passengers but what if it was Stranrear, Wick, Thurso or other lightly used stations on lines that are 'inconvenient' and costly for the railway to operate and maintain. A dangerous precedent is being set with IBM.

Proper notice and consultation should take place before a closure.

IBM halt was opened to service the adjacent IBM Facility. Which has now moved to another part of the area.

The area could be developed as an industrial estate in the future at which point it could be given a service.

It was really a private station and not covered by a closure process.

Jorge Da Silva · 12 Dec 2018

I think from what I gather it is a similar procedure to Barlaston where they have suspended services rather than closed the station. This is because of potential redevelopment which could see the station reopen.

156478 · 12 Dec 2018

Elwyn said:
Yes, but that was then. Today no-one’s using it. We need to recognise the facts. The station is just not commercially viable at the moment. That may change with future development of the nearby site, but for the moment, withdrawing services is obviously the right thing to do.

The sometimes controversial Mr O’Leary wouldn’t fly into an airport with no passengers. And he would be absolutely right. So why do folk expect trains to stop at a station with almost no passengers? All the waffle about the legality of withdrawing services seems to me to avoid the commercial reality. At the moment, there’s no business there. What’s the point of stopping there?

If you read my previous posts, I was always for closing the station.

Altnabreac · 12 Dec 2018

A quick summary:

It was opened as a private halt for IBM staff only in 1978;
It has appeared in public timetables since 1986;
There continues to be signage saying the station is only for IBM staff and contractors;
There is no IBM facility at the site any longer;
There is no public access from the station to the local road network across the now derelict private land.

So there are several factors there as to why the suspension of services, running of a parliamentary service or bus / taxi replacement service may be slightly different than at other sites.

In terms of the actual decision to suspend services:

The suspension of services was requested by local residents / Police Scotland in response to anti-social behaviour;
It was supported by local councillors, the local council, MSPs and the site owners;
Scotrail took this local feedback and asked Transport Scotland for permission to suspend services which was granted.

So again it wasn't really the operator who was driving this change but local people, police and elected representatives. Note that no one has proposed a formal closure of the station except for enthusiasts on this thread. Everyone locally is hopeful that redevelopment will take place and that the station will be useful again. To the extent that Scotrail haven't even proposed changing the timetable so that the station can be called at again without the need for any timetabling alterations. They have also agreed with Transport Scotland that they will continue to maintain the facilities at the station (limited though those are).

So no one actually wants a formal closure process with all the difficulties that would cause for reopening in future. It would add cost, complexity and time to getting the station up and running once required in future.

laseandre · 12 Dec 2018

I don't disagree that, at the moment, the station is pretty useless, however proper procedures have to be followed! What is the point of requiring a proper closure process, or continued replacement service, if these rules are just disregarded if it's inconvenient?

najaB · 12 Dec 2018

laseandre said:
What is the point of requiring a proper closure process, or continued replacement service, if these rules are just disregarded if it's inconvenient?

It's far from clear that (a) those procedures apply when a station is open and maintained but has no trains calling; or that (b) they applied to IBM Halt in the first place since it was, ostensibly, a private station.

156478 · 12 Dec 2018

laseandre said:
I don't disagree that, at the moment, the station is pretty useless, however proper procedures have to be followed! What is the point of requiring a proper closure process, or continued replacement service, if these rules are just disregarded if it's inconvenient?

The access slip roads from the A78 has been heavily barricaded onto the what has to be emphasised again vacant private land. So any form of a replacement service for virtually no-one will be a waste of time.

Clip · 12 Dec 2018

laseandre said:
I don't disagree that, at the moment, the station is pretty useless, however proper procedures have to be followed!

What procedures are there for mothballing a station then?

laseandre said:
What is the point of requiring a proper closure process, or continued replacement service, if these rules are just disregarded if it's inconvenient?

The station isnt closing so it doesnt have to follow the proper closure process

vlad · 12 Dec 2018

Jorge Da Silva said:
I think from what I gather it is a similar procedure to Barlaston where they have suspended services rather than closed the station. This is because of potential redevelopment which could see the station reopen.

At Barlaston services have been permanently bustituted for a number of years now (currently it's the D&G 14 which doesn't actually serve the station). As I understand it IBM has had its train service withdrawn with no alternative offered at all.

najaB · 12 Dec 2018

vlad said:
As I understand it IBM has had its train service withdrawn with no alternative offered at all.

The alternative is to stay on the train to either Branchton or Inverkip (depending on direction) as they are both closer to anywhere that anyone would actually want (or have a need) to go to than IBM Halt is.

InOban · 12 Dec 2018

And there is already a frequent bus service along the road which parallels the line.

alangla · 12 Dec 2018

Personally I reckon ScotRail should offer a sedan chair carried by the Abellio board to any legitimate user of the station. I suspect none of them will ever need to leave Utrecht to deliver on this though...

Hadders · 12 Dec 2018

Altnabreac said:
A quick summary:

It was opened as a private halt for IBM staff only in 1978;

It has appeared in public timetables since 1986;

There continues to be signage saying the station is only for IBM staff and contractors;

There is no IBM facility at the site any longer;

There is no public access from the station to the local road network across the now derelict private land.

So there are several factors there as to why the suspension of services, running of a parliamentary service or bus / taxi replacement service may be slightly different than at other sites.

In terms of the actual decision to suspend services:

The suspension of services was requested by local residents / Police Scotland in response to anti-social behaviour;

It was supported by local councillors, the local council, MSPs and the site owners;

Scotrail took this local feedback and asked Transport Scotland for permission to suspend services which was granted.

So again it wasn't really the operator who was driving this change but local people, police and elected representatives. Note that no one has proposed a formal closure of the station except for enthusiasts on this thread. Everyone locally is hopeful that redevelopment will take place and that the station will be useful again. To the extent that Scotrail haven't even proposed changing the timetable so that the station can be called at again without the need for any timetabling alterations. They have also agreed with Transport Scotland that they will continue to maintain the facilities at the station (limited though those are).

So no one actually wants a formal closure process with all the difficulties that would cause for reopening in future. It would add cost, complexity and time to getting the station up and running once required in future.

An official statement from Transport Scotland would suffice, given the circumstances but their silence is deafening.

Why is it so hard for then to issue a statement - have they got something to hide?

156478 · 13 Dec 2018

Hadders said:
An official statement from Transport Scotland would suffice, given the circumstances but their silence is deafening.

Why is it so hard for then to issue a statement - have they got something to hide?

They probably have more important things to worry about just now than having to make a repetitive statement about a station nobody uses or cares about, the station the local SNP MSP was more than happy to see temporarily closed, a statement that would just be repeating everything that everyone else has already said by ScotRail, The Greenock Telegraph, Inverclyde Now, The Local MSP and The Scotsman.

156478 · 13 Dec 2018

Hadders said:
An official statement from Transport Scotland would suffice, given the circumstances but their silence is deafening.

Why is it so hard for then to issue a statement - have they got something to hide?

A Transport Scotland spokeswoman said: “We are aware ScotRail are temporarily suspending services at IBM station following a number of concerns from the local community and stakeholders about antisocial behaviour. “This affects a very small number of passengers and can be revisited should the nearby derelict industrial site be repurposed in the future.”

Read more at: https://www.scotsman.com/news/trans...-anti-social-and-criminal-behaviour-1-4833257

xotGD · 13 Dec 2018

156478 said:
A Transport Scotland spokeswoman said: “We are aware ScotRail are temporarily suspending services at IBM station following a number of concerns from the local community and stakeholders about antisocial behaviour. “This affects a very small number of passengers and can be revisited should the nearby derelict industrial site be repurposed in the future.”

Read more at: https://www.scotsman.com/news/trans...-anti-social-and-criminal-behaviour-1-4833257

She should have said "cranks" rather than "passengers".

mde · 7 Oct 2019

It looks like there may be some progress on the IBM front, albeit, in the form of "plans" around redevelopment of the Spango Valley / Valley Park site.

The Easdale brothers (who also own McGill's Buses and other ventures) bought the site sometime ago, and, the local media is reporting that the plans will be on show later this month - included in them is a Park and Ride for the railway halt… presumably the latter would be contingent on public money coming forward to support its development.

Inverclyde Now said:
PLANS For Mixed-Use Development At Old IBM Site to Go On Show

MAJOR plans for a large part of the former IBM site at Spango Valley, Greenock go on display to the public later this month.

Greenock businessmen Sandy and James Easdale purchased 27 hectares (68 acres) of the property at auction late last year.

A mixed-use development is now being proposed by Advanced Construction GD Ltd.

It include residential, industrial/business, retail and leisure plus a park-and-ride facility. (The site has its own railway station although trains currently don't stop there.) There would be associated roads, access, open space and landscaping.

No further details have been revealed but, under pre-planning application rules, public information and exhibition events are being held on Wednesday 23 October and Tuesday 29 October, both from 2 to 8pm, at St Andrew's Church hall, Auchmead Road, Greenock.

The land involved stretches from the boundary at the former Greenock High School site to the area of the A78 overbridge, and includes the disused 'Blue Building' call centre.

The last IBM staff at Spango Valley moved out in September 2016 and there is no other commercial activity there.

https://inverclydenow.com/news/plan...use-development-at-old-ibm-site-to-go-on-show

The pre-application planning notice (which confirms the dates and venue listed in the media article) can be viewed on Inverclyde Council's planning portal under reference 19/0008/PREAPP.

och aye · 8 Oct 2019

I wonder if the station will be renamed or left as it is, like Singer.

Meerkat · 8 Oct 2019

Depending on what NR want to charge, but I would expect the developer to want the station renamed to match their carefully chosen wannabe evocative development name, both for advertising and emphasis on the commuting/green transport credentials. Spango Valley, or maybe Howford Glen

Whattraintoday · 8 Oct 2019

Meerkat said:
Depending on what NR want to charge, but I would expect the developer to want the station renamed to match their carefully chosen wannabe evocative development name, both for advertising and emphasis on the commuting/green transport credentials. Spango Valley, or maybe Howford Glen

And everyone will still call it IBM Halt

och aye · 12 Oct 2019

Plans for the site are to go on public display later this month:

https://www.heraldscotland.com/busi...asdales-100m-plan-ibm-site-go-public-display/

There a few photos and some drone footage of the current state of the site.

FenMan · 11 Feb 2020

The developers have now submitted their plans to the local authority for approval in principle.

https://www.insider.co.uk/news/developers-apply-build-100m-homes-21474206

Plans have been submitted for a £100 million homes, retail, business and leisure development on the former IBM site in Greenock.

Joint owners Advance Construction and McGills Buses owners the Easdale brothers are behind the scheme which includes 450 homes at Spango Valley.

Developer Advance Construction expects the project to create 130 building jobs then about 300 roles once it is completed. The proposals include a car park next to the mothballed IBM rail halt, which would allow the station to reopen to the public as a park and ride facility.

... article continues with a number of canned quotes

och aye · 10 Aug 2020

Some news about the redevelopment of the IBM site, including the station:

The proposals also include a new ‘Park and Ride’ facility adjacent to IBM train station, which would see the station reopened to the public, alongside areas of extensive greenspace, parkland and a network of new paths across the site.

Former IBM Greenock site cleared ahead of potential £100m rejuvenation

Groundwork to prepare the historic IBM Greenock site for a potential £100 million residential and commercial transformation has begun in earnest. The site at Spango Valley, which is owned by Sandy & James Easdale and Advance Construction, is currently subject to a planning application for

www.scottishhousingnews.com

Journeyman · 10 Aug 2020

That all sounds quite hopeful. Having the station there already is a huge bonus.

Bletchleyite · 10 Aug 2020

Journeyman said:
That all sounds quite hopeful. Having the station there already is a huge bonus.

One of the few good reasons to go "Parly" rather than full closure, I guess.

IBM (Halt) Closure & Possible Re-opening

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member