Island Line Railway - current state and the future

[A0wen]

The plus side is that first have a good track record with smaller branch lines compared with stagecoach

Any evidence to back up that assertion?

EMT - which is the only franchise which really had any number of smaller branch lines - seems to have been well looked after with half-decent stock on most of them.

 

[edwin_m]

Unless they're separate body-on-chassis surely that would fail current crash standards?

That would depend on the construction of the replacement bodywork, and whether they count as new for the purposes of grandfather rights (see also class 230).

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The Island Line didn't exactly fare well under nationalisation either - that saw the route mileage cut back to what's left today and the continual recycling of 50 year old tube trains. Hardly delivering a step change improvement.

The 66 - 67 plans saved the Island lines from total closure - something that was promulgated back in the 1950's , so the present operations , loss maker as it is for more than 8 months a year , is a fortunate survivor.

Put it this way , if there was a share issue - with no operating subsidy , how many of the readers of this forum would invest their own money. Even full modernisation to light rail and /or new trains would hardly increase the patronage and cost-benefit ratio.

 

[yorksrob]

Any evidence to back up that assertion?

EMT - which is the only franchise which really had any number of smaller branch lines - seems to have been well looked after with half-decent stock on most of them.

First has had stewardship of a number of branchlines in the South West of England for some time, and they seem to be doing fine at the moment.

 

[yorksrob]

The 66 - 67 plans saved the Island lines from total closure - something that was promulgated back in the 1950's , so the present operations , loss maker as it is for more than 8 months a year , is a fortunate survivor.

Put it this way , if there was a share issue - with no operating subsidy , how many of the readers of this forum would invest their own money. Even full modernisation to light rail and /or new trains would hardly increase the patronage and cost-benefit ratio.

I probably wouldn't put my money into a share option as that would assume I would expect a financial dividend from the route. However, as taxpayer, I am more than happy for a proportion of my tax payments to go towards supporting these socially necessary lines.

 

[A0wen]

First has had stewardship of a number of branchlines in the South West of England for some time, and they seem to be doing fine at the moment.

And Stagecoach had the Lymington Branch when they had SWT and EMT has the Matlock branch - those seem to have faired OK as well - it was the assertion that First have looked after branches better than Stagecoach have I was challenging as I'm not sure there's evidence to support it.

 

[mallard]

And Stagecoach had the Lymington Branch when they had SWT and EMT has the Matlock branch - those seem to have faired OK as well - it was the assertion that First have looked after branches better than Stagecoach have I was challenging as I'm not sure there's evidence to support it.

The Lymington branch has been downgraded to 2-carriage diesel operation in recent years and Matlock lost its Birmingham service when EMT took over the ex-CT routes in the area... Hardly stellar performance from this forum's favourite Scottish bus company.

 

[A0wen]

The Lymington branch has been downgraded to 2-carriage diesel operation in recent years and Matlock lost its Birmingham service when EMT took over the ex-CT routes in the area... Hardly stellar performance from this forum's favourite Scottish bus company.

To be fair to Stagecoach - on Lymington they didn't really have alot of choice as there were no spare 450s available to cover it. So rather than bustitute they used a 159. And given the length of journey I doubt that could be considered a hardship for the regular users of the line.

On running to and from Birmingham for Matlock - I assume this was changed due to reliability issues ? I'm guessing the majority of users of that branch are heading to Derby in any case, so reliability of service is probably more important than getting a direct train to Birmingham. Those services also go to Nottingham, which given the geography of the area may well be more attractive to Matlock users than Birmingham was.

And the way the CT services were split among other operators - EMT don't have any other services heading to New Street - so it would have been 'out on a limb'.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I probably wouldn't put my money into a share option as that would assume I would expect a financial dividend from the route. However, as taxpayer, I am more than happy for a proportion of my tax payments to go towards supporting these socially necessary lines.

I guess the status quo will be retained protem - and the issue passed down the line. Not helped by the USP of being an island , where everything has to be imported. Good track ballast being an issue over the years. What are the upgrade costs ? - circa £50m for retaining much of what there is now. Traffic volumes - less than a million. Multifunctional staff already in use - so hard to see how costs can really come down as an operation part of the network.

For the record , I do not have an issue with the line - but there are other ones where some hard decisions may be needed sometime - not just the Conway Valley , but also Barton on Humber - and probably a few others - as and when major investment is needed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Conwy Valley probably has more potential because it's in an area of very weak bus provision. Though I could see it being truncated to Betws at some point. Perhaps the FfR would be interested in meeting it at Betws.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The Conwy Valley probably has more potential because it's in an area of very weak bus provision. Though I could see it being truncated to Betws at some point. Perhaps the FfR would be interested in meeting it at Betws.

I would agree - to be brutally honest , only the CEGB works at Trawsfynydd really protected the line in the past , now no other freight and about as basic a service as possible with 1 unit. (there was an Rail Partnership bid way back for a doubling of the service , but the demand was shockingly low -the sponsors had no other ideas , so it failed)

I could see the more viable bit being developed ,as you note , I doubt the FR have any appetite to expand their very large NG empire in the top NW corner of Wales...!

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you truncated to Betws you could run 2 hourly clockface with one unit which I am certain would up usage significantly. Memorable timetables always do. And it avoids the tunnel, which I suspect will be the root of any big problem that results in closure.

But anyway this is a bit OT

 

[StephenHunter]

How often do the bus services run?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How often do the bus services run?

On the Island?

Pretty good for a rural network: http://www.islandbuses.info/

The 2 and 3 duplicate the Island Line, half hourly each, so 4 buses per hour total.

 

[yorksrob]

I guess the status quo will be retained protem - and the issue passed down the line. Not helped by the USP of being an island , where everything has to be imported. Good track ballast being an issue over the years. What are the upgrade costs ? - circa £50m for retaining much of what there is now. Traffic volumes - less than a million. Multifunctional staff already in use - so hard to see how costs can really come down as an operation part of the network.

For the record , I do not have an issue with the line - but there are other ones where some hard decisions may be needed sometime - not just the Conway Valley , but also Barton on Humber - and probably a few others - as and when major investment is needed.

As you say, fifty million for retaining the line as present - in the scheme of infrastructure projects, this doesn't seem excessive, particularly as it helps the island to accommodate seasonal travel flows which might prove difficult to accommodate otherwise.

Personally I don't see any reason why there need to be any hard (for 'hard', read bad) decisions about the extent of the passenger network, particularly at a time when private operators are taking a three percent cut for profits.

 

[Olaf]

All the more reason why the line needs to be wrapped up in the South Western franchise.

You are still in denial.

There are separate plans for the Wessex route.

 

[Olaf]

In an ideal world i would have hoped for a massive investment plan but privatisation has not helped the island line.

It was not privatisation that has taken it's patronage away. The local economy is looking pretty bleak, and railway is not the only infrastructure that needs capital investment. However, a fall of the GBP against the EUR might help boost trade if more people decide on staycations rather than going to Spain etc - but I do not expect it will be sufficient to save the line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It was not privatisation that has taken it's patronage away. The local economy is looking pretty bleak, and railway is not the only infrastructure that needs capital investment. However, a fall of the GBP against the EUR might help boost trade if more people decide on staycations rather than going to Spain etc - but I do not expect it will be sufficient to save the line.

Particularly given that many of those taking said "staycations" are more likely to go over to the island and travel around by car.

 

[yorksrob]

As you say, fifty million for retaining the line as present - in the scheme of infrastructure projects, this doesn't seem excessive, particularly as it helps the island to accommodate seasonal travel flows which might prove difficult to accommodate otherwise.

It was not privatisation that has taken it's patronage away. The local economy is looking pretty bleak, and railway is not the only infrastructure that needs capital investment. However, a fall of the GBP against the EUR might help boost trade if more people decide on staycations rather than going to Spain etc - but I do not expect it will be sufficient to save the line.

A bleak local economy is all the more reason to retain the line. Infact, in some respects it increases the social need.

 

[yorksrob]

You are still in denial.

There are separate plans for the Wessex route.

Then the population needs to ensure that closure remains a politically unpalatable option for the Establishment.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

If you truncated to Betws you could run 2 hourly clockface with one unit which I am certain would up usage significantly. Memorable timetables always do. And it avoids the tunnel, which I suspect will be the root of any big problem that results in closure.

But anyway this is a bit OT

That tunnel may be problematical ....another scare this am about a rockfall , but the service ran after examination.

I could see it being "not closed" - but strategically retained north of B-Y-C , odd specials perhaps. Not sure how the FR would take that , but the interchange - expected be another Portmadog - does not see to have happened , certainly never seen more than a trickle myself. Who knows ? Slightly OT anyway

 

[Bletchleyite]

A bleak local economy is all the more reason to retain the line. Infact, in some respects it increases the social need.

With 4 buses per hour, what social need does it fulfil? Cycle transport? You could adapt buses for that.

 

[Olaf]

As you say, fifty million for retaining the line as present - in the scheme of infrastructure projects, this doesn't seem excessive, particularly as it helps the island to accommodate seasonal travel flows which might prove difficult to accommodate otherwise.

Fortunately there is a more reasoned approach to dishing-out tax-payer funds.

A temporary patch-up would just be kicking the can, but a responsible authority such as IWC will have to look at the other demands on it's funding and the scale of the liabilities that keeping the railway going places on it. It should put the Islanders first, and reallocate funds to improving the roads.

 

[Olaf]

Particularly given that many of those taking said "staycations" are more likely to go over to the island and travel around by car.

Yes, probably; The national split is about 8% of trips are via rail. It is far lower on the Island. However, and increase of visitors should see some level of increase in patronage.

 

[yorksrob]

Fortunately there is a more reasoned approach to dishing-out tax-payer funds.

A temporary patch-up would just be kicking the can, but a responsible authority such as IWC will have to look at the other demands on it's funding and the scale of the liabilities that keeping the railway going places on it. It should put the Islanders first, and reallocate funds to improving the roads.

Which will simply add to road congestion and (currently) pollution.

The island line should be supported as what it is - a detached part of the national rail infrastructure supporting a socially deprived economy.

 

[Olaf]

Which will simply add to road congestion and (currently) pollution.

Which is why the funds should go to the roads budget to benefit the Many not the Few.

 

[yorksrob]

Which is why the funds should go to the roads budget to benefit the Many not the Few.

Unfortunately road development is generally no good for reducing road congestion. It leads to increased traffic. Providing an alternative is the only way to reduce it, particularly where you have substantial seasonal flows. The 'few' are tourists who are vital to the economy of the many.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

The island line should be supported as what it is - a detached part of the national rail infrastructure supporting a socially deprived economy.

Does the 'socially deprived economy' hinge entirely on it being a railway line? If it could be converted to a green, modern and efficient separated way for cyclists and buses, would this not fulfill the same function?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Does the 'socially deprived economy' hinge entirely on it being a railway line? If it could be converted to a green, modern and efficient separated way for cyclists and buses, would this not fulfill the same function?

A fair question , if some or all of the present subsidy to Island Line (per mile , quite high one gathers) - and invested in a much enhanced and presumably cheaper bus service , would the overall Island economy benefit. ? - maybe some extra road investment steered away from the notional £50M investment in "status quo"....the present rail link does not seem to be improving a challenged local economy , and apart from the small pilgrimage of 1938 TS afficionados , (yes - I have been there for this reason) , would there be a Benthamite solution.

 

[yorksrob]

Does the 'socially deprived economy' hinge entirely on it being a railway line? If it could be converted to a green, modern and efficient separated way for cyclists and buses, would this not fulfill the same function?

For me, no. I'm generally healthy, but I can't see myself cycling those sort of distances as a matter of course, and I suspect the majority are the same.

For buses, if they won't connect with the existing railway, I don't see why they would suddenly divert down it as a busway. A better option would be to enable the local authority to specify existing bus services connect with the train and enforce a policy of intermodal ticketing (but the free market brigade would probably have palpitations at such an idea).