pitdiver
Member
I think some other members would confirm that the Marston vale Line (Bletchley to Bedford) certainly carries a lot less than 57 passengers per journey. Probably less than 7.
I think some other members would confirm that the Marston vale Line (Bletchley to Bedford) certainly carries a lot less than 57 passengers per journey. Probably less than 7.
Yes I would definitely agree with that. I have travelled on it on a few occasions Think I was one of two passengers I know it gets a few more at school times I would have thought that when Amazon opened at Richmond it might have got busier. I use it between Millbrook and Bedford or Millbrook and Bletchley. However if I'm bored I will go Flitwick-Bedford-Bletchley-Milton Keynes just for a ride. Then come back using the X5 and local buses. (ENCTS and Priv Travel on NR)I don't believe that, other than when either Thameslink or LM is up the wall, that route has *ever* (in its current form) carried 57 passengers per train or indeed anywhere remotely near that.
"Rail" 383 has "no plans in place for Ryde Pier Work" as an article header , the lease of which is up for renewal in 2019 , but the DfT would expect NR to make provision for routine maintenance and renewal works for CP6.
Maynard in same article also states that South Western Railway is to submit a costed option to the SoS by the end of March in relation to the future of Island Line operations. So there we are.
The Island Line does feed long distance (boat) services.
So the question is - how can the high costs be reduced? Looking at the German model of branch lines may help - DOO, payment of fares by TVM, complete destaffing etc? The big question is rolling stock and the pier.
(I know people don't like DOO, but if the choices are a DOO train or a DOO bus then surely people prefer a DOO train?)
Careful! You will anoy more people than me if you continue to argue that DOO is acceptable anywhere!
We were at Portsmouth harbour yesterday afternoon. I could see storm Brian giving Ryde pier head a very profound six hour structural survey. If it survived that it should overcome a few lightweight trains rumbling over it.
The IoW 57 is in the context of high opperating costs leading to a 80% subsidy and the need for bespoke trains. How many branch lines in the UK have a subsidy that high? Most have lower costs and feed long distance services.
If a route is vulnerable to closure, then I don't think it's right to ignore *any* option. Beeching made that mistake - it was "fully staffed" or "nothing". So "nothing" it was in most cases.
This isn't a 12-car London commuter service. It's broadly comparable with a bus service, particularly if the new stock is self-powered and the electrification decommissioned.
Its a bit of tangent but... with the decline of domestic tourism would Ryde-Newport-Cowes be more successful today than the line that was kept open? My dream scenario would be a Portsmouth-Gosport-Ryde-Ventnor/Cowes tram system (trams would be the only capable of climbing the gradient neccessary to tunnel deep enough to avoid Royal Navy objections). Its obviously an extremely unlikely prospect though!
I think some other members would confirm that the Marston vale Line (Bletchley to Bedford) certainly carries a lot less than 57 passengers per journey. Probably less than 7.
An all axles motored EMU is just as capable of climbing gradients as a tram.
This is now a false dichotomy.
I think if this line does have any kind of long term future, a rail tunnel to the mainland does need to be considered.
The population of the island is quite large, and it would likely turn the existing route into a series of railheads for Portsmouth.
Does this apply to normal EMUs or more specialist designs? The gradient required would need to be extremely steep, basically the maximum possible. Due to the height of the Ryde tunnel and building on the trackbed on street running would be necessary. For any scheme to be remotely viable it would require a large proportion of the IoW population to be able to use it to get to Portsmouth without a change. Gosport would need to be included too. Its not going to happen unfortunately! It would cost well over a billion.
Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_Line,_Isle_of_Wight) states that...
"passenger numbers ... have fallen rapidly to an estimated 1.31 million in 2014–15. This is the lowest annual estimate since 1998–99, and suggests passenger numbers have fallen by 22% in the last four years"
So, looking at RTT for the Esplanade, there's 66 services a day during the week, 66 services a day on a Saturday and 46 services a day on a Sunday.
442 services per week, so 22,984 journeys per year.
That's fifty seven passengers per journey. Enough to fill a single decker bus, with a handful standing, but certainly not enough for a single carriage 153.
Now, you can argue, as some "believers" do on here, that every single journey matters and it'd be an outrage if we closed a failed station like Breich because there are unquantifiable social benefits that always magically swing the number in favours of heavy rail continuing to serve tiny markets (even if it may look like a sledgehammer/ nut situation). Fair enough if you are in that camp - there's no point in arguing with people like that.
But do you really believe that fifty seven passengers per journey (and falling) is "perfectly respectable"? How low would it have to get until you decided that it's just not worth the hassle of an isolated non-standard bit of the SWR franchise?
Is there a threshold at which you'd finally admit it isn't worth the candle? When it gets under a million passengers a year? It's been loosing a hundred thousand passengers per year in recent times, so it's not unthinkable that it'll go under a million before long.
(and I know there's the "but if we only invested billions in upgrading it then more people would use it" argument - I've heard the Ray Liotta quote more than a couple of times - but your actual point was about the current falling passenger numbers still being "perfectly respectable" and "enough" to warrant the existing service)
Almost all modern EMU designs are capable of being built with a variable numbered of powered axles - and things like the S-Stock are built with all axles motored.
Indeed there have even been Shinkansen sets that have been built with all axles motored - and they are about as far from a tram as it is possible to get.
A billion pounds is not unthinkable for a population of ~140,000 only a few kilometres from a major load centre [Portsmouth].
That is a steal compared to the Borders Railway.
The obvious route would be to branch off the line between Portsmouth & Southsea and Portsmouth Harbour, proceed south-south-east in a bored tunnel, switching to an immersed tube once you are out under the sound.
You could surface adjacent to the existing Esplanade station, or route further in-shore if you like.
They are. The part of the quotation you've ignored is that ridership has effectively settled back down to 1998 levels.
I'm not arguing for a 'massive upgrade'. I'm merely arguing for the timely renewal of life expired infrastructure, as is accepted necessary on every railway in the United Kingdom. Of course, if amongst that work an additional loop could be installed to enable a half hourly service, I dare say passenger numbers would increase a fair bit.
Immersed tube would probably be vetoed by the Royal Navy. They won't want anything that reduces depth in case it is an opperational limitation in the future. I agree it would be a economic game changer for the Island without the negative effects of a road link but Isle of Wight is not in London so it has not even had a proper feasibility study. Using trains would still prevent a line to Cowes or Ventnor at a reasonable cost and I doubt a tunnel could be justified by linking the Island Line alone. Ryde tunnel height would still be a big problem although there would likely be enough economy of scale to maintain more modern tube stock.
That's one of the things I love about these forums...
In a handful of posts we've gone from "The line is a basket case and needs to close" to discussion of a fixed link tunnel!
That's one of the things I love about these forums...
In a handful of posts we've gone from "The line is a basket case and needs to close" to discussion of a fixed link tunnel!
I already suggested a 3S Ropeway, but people just laughCan I suggest a cable car link? If you can't go under, let's go over! Sorts out the Ryde tunnel at the same time!
Assuming 4 miles around Newport + Cowes, 2 miles around Yarmouth and Freshwater and proper priority systems in Ryde, Sandown, Shanklin and Ventnor I think £70m is a reasonable budget.
The IoW 57 is in the context of high opperating costs leading to a 80% subsidy and the need for bespoke trains. How many branch lines in the UK have a subsidy that high? Most have lower costs and feed long distance services.
Its far from a basket case.
It might not be the most used line and it is probably not economic.
But neither is it really that uneconomic.
Doing anything precipitous would be unwise - and the power demands are so low that I can't imagine electrification renewals coming out that expensive.
Sure its an 80% subsidy, but the subsidy is still small in absolute terms.
2 miles of busway for Yarmouth and Freshwater (!) yet nothing to get buses up Ryde Pier and only 'proper priority systems' for Ryde, Sandown and Shanklin? This isn't credible.
How many branch lines are on an Island, entirely self-contained with their own depot and train fleet? How many are vertically integrated with responsibilities for the track and signalling?
Even if line-by-line figures were available you'd still be comparing apples and oranges because it's a unique operation, one that geography has always made (like most else here) relatively expensive to operate.
Immersed tube would probably be vetoed by the Royal Navy. They won't want anything that reduces depth in case it is an opperational limitation in the future. I agree it would be a economic game changer for the Island without the negative effects of a road link but Isle of Wight is not in London so it has not even had a proper feasibility study. Using trains would still prevent a line to Cowes or Ventnor at a reasonable cost and I doubt a tunnel could be justified by linking the Island Line alone. Ryde tunnel height would still be a big problem although there would likely be enough economy of scale to maintain more modern tube stock.
1998 levels.... That is incredibly poor. UK wide passenger rail use has more than doubled since then. Any decrease on any line is concerning. It is not a normal line. Its not a case of shipping across sprinters, the rolling stock solution will be expensive and thats before considering the pier. I wouldn't be surprised if First propose closing the pier or at least present it as costed option to the DfT. The line is an uneconomic mess that needs massive investment to opperate another 30-40 years. Over that period building a busway network is likely to be cheaper and serve a much larger number of people.
What % subsidy would make it a basket case in your eyes?
Unique opperation doesn't make the costs vanish. There are no disused track beds to build busways on from Ryde until the end of the line. As far as I am aware there is no suitable alternative route into the town either.
A billion pounds is not unthinkable for a population of ~140,000 only a few kilometres from a major load centre [Portsmouth].
That is a steal compared to the Borders Railway.
I think part of the problem is advertising - how many people know they can get to the Isle of Wight by train? When I tell people how easy it is from Worthing to Sandown most people are very surprised.
I don't think the train is that useful for locals but for tourists the potential is there. Great connections, not too expensive and a beautiful destination.
There is no fixed level of what amount of subsidy would constitute a 'basket case'. Society is free to decide what it is prepared to pay to provide a public service, or what cross-subsidies from other parts of the service are necessary. This calculation will very much depend on what benefits that service will bring to the area versus what costs users can bear.
You're kidding right? 140,000 is the TOTAL population of the IOW - for those on the western side crossing to Lymington or Southampton is still more viable.
Edinburgh is twice the size of Portsmouth and the Borders towns had NO rail provision to Edinburgh
The population density of the IoW is rather higher than the borders however.And Borders railway cost £ 350m - whereas a billion is, depending on the definition a thousand million (US) or a million million (UK).