Future of Island Line

[Bletchleyite]

Stupid question - might a real solution actually be to rebuild the pier so it can take heavier road traffic e.g. full-size buses?

 

[Rational Plan]

The real need on the Island is for a fixed link, preferably for vehicles. Then Islanders and their businesses would not be held to ransom by the ferry companies and you'd have an anytime service not affected by the weather.

It would allow a lot of people to commute off the Island and not have to move.

The ultimate fantasy would be have the Island line become a mini metro line direct to Portsmouth & Southsea. But the cost would be so high, It does not bare thinking about.

A road based solution is financially possible, but the politics are tricky as a lot of retirees and holiday home owners don't need jobs and so don't really care about the local jobs market and like the cut off nature of the Island. But for the first time in years the idea is starting to gain traction, which will mean its something that might be built within 30 years, knowing the Island.

 

[MarkyT]

The real need on the Island is for a fixed link, preferably for vehicles. . .

A road based solution is financially possible, but the politics are tricky as a lot of retirees and holiday home owners don't need jobs and so don't really care about the local jobs market and like the cut off nature of the Island. But for the first time in years the idea is starting to gain traction, which will mean its something that might be built within 30 years, knowing the Island.

Why for vehicles? A road link, whilst in theory very good for the tourist business, could lead to very significant increases in road traffic which might then lead to severe congestion screwing up bus service quality and eventually require a substantial programme of new road construction on the island and improvement of existing roads. The Lewis-Mogridge position then applies. Could the potential toll income from a tunnel really cover it's capital expenditure, including the link roads necessary to join it to existing road networks either side? Could it, in doing so, just become another cash cow monopoly exploiting the market? Some subsidy to the ferry operation, particularly the pedestrian ferries could be a much more sustainable option and that, properly planned, could underpin improvements, even expansion of the rail services to connect with them, or even the railway's conversion to a new advanced technology system (my posts passim).

 

[jon0844]

And yet who are all of the thousands of people using the line every year. Scotch mist?

Tiny two car trains are easy to make look well loaded, but if there are two trains per hour then it's not moving that many people. If it's losing £3 in every £4 then there's a problem brewing. Even in the peaks when I assume they use more than one train, what's the total number of people moved per hour?

Of course the Government can force an operator of a profitable route to run this at a loss, and I'm not against that one bit. These were the mistakes made in the past, where shutting the non profitable lines affected usage of the profitable ones. I hope we won't do that again, hence why some old lines are being reopened and rail usage is continuing on the up.

But there IS a problem and a lot of solutions are going to be very expensive. It will be interesting to see if the new franchise just keeps things ticking along, or if a bidder will actually propose any form of improvements. Upping the service frequency, to me, is a must.

If you can get trains running every 15 minutes (on a clockface timetable ideally) then things suddenly get a lot more practical.

But, I can't help but feel that the buses have the edge and always will. Yes, a bus operator can end a route as quickly as it started one, but at least new ideas can be tried and tested, rather than having people discuss loads of plans for the railway that will take decades to be agreed upon, funded, and implemented.

 

[fairysdad]

Stupid question - might a real solution actually be to rebuild the pier so it can take heavier road traffic e.g. full-size buses?

If an option is to stop the Island Line from using the pier (something which I wouldn't advocate btw!), would the lack of railway infrastructure allow heavier vehicles on?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But, I can't help but feel that the buses have the edge and always will. Yes, a bus operator can end a route as quickly as it started one, but at least new ideas can be tried and tested, rather than having people discuss loads of plans for the railway that will take decades to be agreed upon, funded, and implemented.

It could certainly be argued that giving the subsidy to Southern Vectis would buy more improvements per pound than Island Line.

 

[MarkyT]

It could certainly be argued that giving the subsidy to Southern Vectis would buy more improvements per pound than Island Line.

But if rail services were curtailed, what would be done with the rail alignment? Would it be worth considering using parts of it it as a busway? It could be used as a cycleway, or small key sections could be sold off piecemeal for dense housing development to ensure no segregated transport system can ever again be reintroduced.

 

[jon0844]

I think that any future rail line closures should come with a requirement NOT to build on it. By all means put down a cycle way, or a busway, even a road - but no fixed structures that would prevent its reinstatement in the future.

So many disused lines could have been reopened fairly easily had we not built on its of them.

Imagine if all the money 'lost' on the railway was diverted to the buses. Far from cutting subsidies, you'd be able to run many more buses and even the loss making routes would still leave you financially better off.

I think what's going to happen is the Island Line will be kept but with no money put away for the inevitable, so it will be like buying a car and running it into the ground. Sooner or later, it's going to be only fit for scrap and then you'll need a lot of money to buy a new one.

Perhaps there's hope that some European funding could be found or something else to save the day?

 

[DelW]

Stupid question - might a real solution actually be to rebuild the pier so it can take heavier road traffic e.g. full-size buses?

If an option is to stop the Island Line from using the pier (something which I wouldn't advocate btw!), would the lack of railway infrastructure allow heavier vehicles on?

The pier is actaully three separate structures:
eastern: 2 x rail tracks (one disused)
central: pier tramway (derelict, unused for many years)
western: road access, timber deck, listed structure

The road pier, which was redecked a few years ago, is so spindly that the 'rebuilding' needed would probably cost more than building (another) new pier alongside, as well as affecting the listing. The tramway pier is probably too far gone for any reasonable re-use. The railway pier could possibly be converted for bus use, but with an inevitable hiatus between last train and first bus. It might be possible to switch trains onto the disused eastern track while building a single bus lane on the alignment of the western track, but there would probably be all sorts of practicality and safety issues.

 

[yorksrob]

Tiny two car trains are easy to make look well loaded, but if there are two trains per hour then it's not moving that many people. If it's losing £3 in every £4 then there's a problem brewing. Even in the peaks when I assume they use more than one train, what's the total number of people moved per hour?

Of course the Government can force an operator of a profitable route to run this at a loss, and I'm not against that one bit. These were the mistakes made in the past, where shutting the non profitable lines affected usage of the profitable ones. I hope we won't do that again, hence why some old lines are being reopened and rail usage is continuing on the up.

But there IS a problem and a lot of solutions are going to be very expensive. It will be interesting to see if the new franchise just keeps things ticking along, or if a bidder will actually propose any form of improvements. Upping the service frequency, to me, is a must.

If you can get trains running every 15 minutes (on a clockface timetable ideally) then things suddenly get a lot more practical.

But, I can't help but feel that the buses have the edge and always will. Yes, a bus operator can end a route as quickly as it started one, but at least new ideas can be tried and tested, rather than having people discuss loads of plans for the railway that will take decades to be agreed upon, funded, and implemented.

That's at least four buses worth an hour added to the road. There are a few routes with hourly two carriage trains yet which form an important part of the transport system. The island line should be seen in a similar vein.

But I agree, it would be worth investing a little to achieve that clockface timetable. Anyhow, there may also be other steps to be taken such as better revenue collection that could improve the revenue situation.

 

[gazthomas]

I for one wonder why there isn't a bridge to the island

 

[jon0844]

I for one wonder why there isn't a bridge to the island

A cost that makes fixing the Island Line look like pocket change? And would in fact still require extra spending to do up the railway if that was going to be part of the fixed crossing too?

 

[Cambus731]

Also there are no Grey Squirrels on The Isle of Wight.
It would be virtually impossible to construct a bridge that wasn't able to prevent them from reaching and colonising the island which would be disastrous for the indigenous Red Squirrels present there

 

[tbtc]

At least the evidence (of the Island Line revenue only covering a quarter of its costs) means that people are forgetting about the idea of it justifying brand new London Underground stock – I think that kind of investment seems a long way away.

Interesting to consider the drop in passenger numbers over the past decade. It can’t be due to the singling or the 20/40 timetable since they happened in BR days, so that can’t explain why numbers were *higher* a decade ago (unlike virtually every other line in the UK which sees higher numbers today than a decade ago).

There are 140,000+ people who live on the Island all year round, don't you think public transport on the Island should also reflect their needs too?

Yes - and that public transport that reflects their needs is called Southern Vectics

Residents, especially those commuting for work, depend on the Red Jet, Catamaran and Hovercraft and they need to be accessible by public transport

How many people commute daily by boat? What percentage of the island’s population commute to the “mainland” every day, compared to the percentage of the island’s population who are retired? Stating “140,000+ people” is an irrelevance – the number that matter is the number who actually commute daily.

How do the other ferry operations on the island manage without direct train link? I used the Yarmouth crossing last summer and people seemed to cope without a train (plenty of buses around to mop up demand).

With my Penryn-style layout as illustrated above

Maybe it’s just me, but Penryn seems to be getting quoted on almost every other thread I read nowadays – it’s so on trend right now... I’m waiting for the Hipster backlash!

Having spent the majority of my life living/associated with the Island and probably one of the few posters who has both worked for Southern Vectis and been an operator it is not rocket science to suss out what has been happening. Too many posters are 'bogie freaks' and because of a love of trains are trying to make the railway fit. On the Island car and to some extent bus are king. The railway is an irrelevance to the vast majority of us because of the closures in the 1950's and 1960's. It just doesn't serve where we want to go

That sounds a fair assessment – a lot of people on here do so love to work backwards to try to find a problem that has the answer of “a new railway”, but that really doesn’t seem to be the right solution for the Isle of Wight, for the reasons you’ve outlined.

And yet who are all of the thousands of people using the line every year. Scotch mist?

Whilst the bucket and spade clientèle has declined over the decades (as it has in pretty much every resort on the South coast), I see no evidence in the passenger numbers that the route is in terminal decline.

You can see *no* evidence?

Okay, here’s some...

• Shanklin is down from 383,000 journeys a year (2006/2007) to 318,000 journeys a year
• Lake is down from 77.995 journeys a year (2004/2005) to 61,840 journeys a year
• Sandown is down from 298,000 journeys a year (2011/2012) to 241,000 journeys a year
• Brading is down from 69,074 journeys a year (2005/2006) to 55,594 journeys a year
• Smallbrook Junction is down from 11,478 journeys a year (2011/2012) to 11,408 journeys a year
• Ryde (St J Rd) is down from 251,688 journeys a year (2011/2012) to 202,188 journeys a year
• Ryde (Esplanade) is down from 489,000 journeys a year (2006/2007) to 302,000 journeys a year

You can spin those numbers however you want, but that looks like quite a decline at every station on the line, compared to general sustained growth (3%pa? 5%pa?) at most Network Rail stations.

Overall passenger numbers on the island *are* down (1,459,140 in 2006/2007, 1,444,772 in 2011/2012, 1,192,030 in 2013/2014), and the “fare box” only covers a quarter of its costs (despite there being no investment costs to apportion and the stock being “free” – didn’t Stagecoach buy it for a quid – i.e. no ROSCO costs).

How long would you give a railway with those kind of dropping numbers? Until it drops under a million journeys a year? Nine hundred thousand? Lower? Because once you are in that vicious circle...

I’m sure someone will tell me that for every one passenger in the rear unit with the guard, there are at least six ticketless people in the front unit (but that it isn’t their fault that they don’t have a ticket) and we have to take a holistic approach and factor in some unquantifiable other benefits that a railway has (which a bus service couldn’t provide) etc etc, but I’d hope most people would accept that this is a dead donkey of a line.

If the other “South Coast Resorts” saw similar declines in passenger numbers then you’d have a point, but they seem to be gaining passengers year on year.

So many disused lines could have been reopened fairly easily had we not built on its of them

The recent troubles on the “Borders” line (over budget, significantly delayed, descoped to a mainly single track line south of Gorebridge) don’t reassure me that it’s “easy” to re-open old alignments with nothing on the track bed (compared to building brand new alignments e.g. HS1).

Since new lines have to be built to new standards, re-opening routes really isn’t as straightforward/ cheap as enthusiasts would like to believe.

 

[yorksrob]

That sounds a fair assessment – a lot of people on here do so love to work backwards to try to find a problem that has the answer of “a new railway”, but that really doesn’t seem to be the right solution for the Isle of Wight, for the reasons you’ve outlined.



You can see *no* evidence?

Okay, here’s some...

• Shanklin is down from 383,000 journeys a year (2006/2007) to 318,000 journeys a year
• Lake is down from 77.995 journeys a year (2004/2005) to 61,840 journeys a year
• Sandown is down from 298,000 journeys a year (2011/2012) to 241,000 journeys a year
• Brading is down from 69,074 journeys a year (2005/2006) to 55,594 journeys a year
• Smallbrook Junction is down from 11,478 journeys a year (2011/2012) to 11,408 journeys a year
• Ryde (St J Rd) is down from 251,688 journeys a year (2011/2012) to 202,188 journeys a year
• Ryde (Esplanade) is down from 489,000 journeys a year (2006/2007) to 302,000 journeys a year

You can spin those numbers however you want, but that looks like quite a decline at every station on the line, compared to general sustained growth (3%pa? 5%pa?) at most Network Rail stations.

Overall passenger numbers on the island *are* down (1,459,140 in 2006/2007, 1,444,772 in 2011/2012, 1,192,030 in 2013/2014), and the “fare box” only covers a quarter of its costs (despite there being no investment costs to apportion and the stock being “free” – didn’t Stagecoach buy it for a quid – i.e. no ROSCO costs).

How long would you give a railway with those kind of dropping numbers? Until it drops under a million journeys a year? Nine hundred thousand? Lower? Because once you are in that vicious circle...

I’m sure someone will tell me that for every one passenger in the rear unit with the guard, there are at least six ticketless people in the front unit (but that it isn’t their fault that they don’t have a ticket) and we have to take a holistic approach and factor in some unquantifiable other benefits that a railway has (which a bus service couldn’t provide) etc etc, but I’d hope most people would accept that this is a dead donkey of a line.

If the other “South Coast Resorts” saw similar declines in passenger numbers then you’d have a point, but they seem to be gaining passengers year on year.

We're still starting from a reasonably high base. At this stage, who's to say that the decline in numbers isn't an adjustment to some external factor that will level off.

We used to have phrase in the 1980's, "Use it or lose it" and this could well be the case for the route in the future. However, at this stage, there still seems scope for improvements in revenue protection, multi-modal ticketing (if Greater London can do it, surely the Isle of Wight can !), and who knows what will happen if the current Government get rid of free bus passes for the elderly.

By reaching for the axe at this early stage, you are merely dreaming up solutions in search of a problem.

 

[MarkyT]

. . . The recent troubles on the “Borders” line (over budget, significantly delayed, descoped to a mainly single track line south of Gorebridge) don’t reassure me that it’s “easy” to re-open old alignments with nothing on the track bed (compared to building brand new alignments e.g. HS1).

Since new lines have to be built to new standards, re-opening routes really isn’t as straightforward/ cheap as enthusiasts would like to believe.

Yes, but in the difficult critical places where it counted the old formation WAS mostly clear for the Borders line reinstatement, through the towns and villages en route. If the route had been comprehensively destroyed like many alignments through built up areas then how could the railway have served (say) Galashiels, in a difficult valley setting, at all without demolishing a large part of the town or tunnelling under it? At best they might have managed a railhead somewhere on the outskirts. Whether the whole thing was worth the inflated price is another story.

Build 50 privately owned freehold houses in such a critical place and you usually seal the fate of the entire right of way forever, even when 99% of it remains free of development.

 

[Argosy]

Stupid question - might a real solution actually be to rebuild the pier so it can take heavier road traffic e.g. full-size buses?

Well if it wasn't for WWI we'd have it. Originally planned from Lymington to Yarmouth.

 

[Chris125]

The railway is an irrelevance to the vast majority of us because of the closures in the 1950's and 1960's. It just doesn't serve where we want to go.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have never lived along the route. Those that do, myself included, would argue that in many cases it does serve where we want to go - when it comes to shopping for example Newport has declined markedly in recent years, bus fares have become exorbitant (£9 return from Sandown/Shanklin) and Gunwharf Quays has made Portsmouth a far more attractive shopping (and leisure) destination.

Stupid question - might a real solution actually be to rebuild the pier so it can take heavier road traffic e.g. full-size buses?

If we were talking about a railway on the mainland would the 'solution' to a railway requiring significant injection of money be spending perhaps as much if not more on replacing it with buses so people are forced onto a slower, less reliable, more expensive service? It risks pushing a lot of them into their cars or off the Island entirely.

At least the evidence (of the Island Line revenue only covering a quarter of its costs) means that people are forgetting about the idea of it justifying brand new London Underground stock – I think that kind of investment seems a long way away.

What evidence? There's been no breakdown or context given, which is important given how different responsibilities are shared between NR and SWT, and without knowing what they are counting it's impossible to compare with other sections of the national network.

It will always be relatively expensive as a self-contained operation, but that should be a reason to help the Island and it's economy, not use the consequences of it's geography and decades of patch-and-mend as an excuse to disadvantage it further.

How many people commute daily by boat? What percentage of the island’s population commute to the “mainland” every day, compared to the percentage of the island’s population who are retired? Stating “140,000+ people” is an irrelevance – the number that matter is the number who actually commute daily.

It's not irrelevant because the Island's jobs market and educational opportunities are limited in size and variety - allowing people to commute to the mainland, Portsmouth and Southampton in particular, is essential to the health of the Islands economy. I'd imagine it's a very significant proportion of the Island's higher earners, that's for sure.

You can spin those numbers however you want, but that looks like quite a decline at every station on the line, compared to general sustained growth (3%pa? 5%pa?) at most Network Rail stations.

The line has been impacted by a series of weather-related partial and complete closures in recent years, most recently the 10 week blockade south of St Johns to stabilise the cutting at Sandown, but ferry and bus traffic has also suffered - the impact on the Island was greater and took longer to recover from than the South East generally and transport demand naturally reflects this.

...but I’d hope most people would accept that this is a dead donkey of a line.

You'd actually 'hope' that people write it off? Even if there was an underlying decline beyond what can be explained by the state of the local economy and a series of disruptions by the weather, there hasn't been any attempt to reverse it. Would you, or anyone else, take the same attitude with loss-making lines on the mainland? Think how many could be replaced by buses tomorrow, and you'd free up some mainline DMUs too.

 

[Argosy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have never lived along the route. Those that do, myself included, would argue that in many cases it does serve where we want to go - when it comes to shopping for example Newport has declined markedly in recent years, bus fares have become exorbitant (£9 return from Sandown/Shanklin) and Gunwharf Quays has made Portsmouth a far more attractive shopping (and leisure) destination.

Only St Helens

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Apart from the tunnel does the line's geology make it any more prone to landslips, flooding etc?

 

[The Ham]

An interesting development:
https://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2016/08/12-government-yields-to-protests-over.html

THE Department for Transport has performed a u-turn over a proposal to make the Isle of Wight's only National Rail route 'self-sustaining'.

The prospect was outlined in the Invitation to Tender for the next South Western franchise, which envisaged a separation of Island Line from the main franchise, with the longer-term objective of making the route between Ryde and Shanklin subsidy-free.

The ITT said the objective was to: "Work with the Isle of Wight Council to secure a long-term sustainable solution for the future of the Island Line during the course of the next franchise that will enable it to become a self-sustaining business.”

Protestors started a legal challenge to this proposal, saying that with costs running at two or three times revenue and assets -- including the trains -- in need of renewal, closure could become inevitable, which would damage the island's transport infrastructure and the local economy.

They also pointed out that the South Western franchise is the only one to yield a substantial net profit for the government, with recent premiums topping £100 million a year even after all public support, including a share of Network Rail's direct grant, is taken into account.

Following the publication of the ITT, Island Line users Warren Drew and David Pugh submitted a formal Letter Before Claim to the DfT at the end of July, threatening a Judicial Review. They challenged the 'irrational policy objective' for Island Line.

Writing in the August edition of Railnews, protestor David Pugh had pointed out that "running Island Line as part of a wider franchise offers economies of scale which would be impossible to achieve otherwise. To maintain current service levels in a standalone arrangement would undoubtedly be at a greater public cost, unless key elements around safety and staffing were drastically reduced".

Mr Pugh and Mr Drew, who lead the campaigning group KILF (the Keep Island Line in the Franchise campaign), have now received a response from a government lawyer in which he expresses the DfT’s regret at “the misunderstanding that appears to have arisen from the phrasing of the seventh Franchise Objective and has therefore decided to amend the wording of that Franchise Objective to remove any scope for confusion”.

The revised proposal says that the plan now is to “work with the Isle of Wight Council to secure a long-term sustainable solution to the future of the Island Line during the course of the next franchise that will enable it to become a more sustainable business”.

David Pugh, who is a former council leader on the island, said: "It was indefensible and inequitable, and it is good that the Government has now recognised that.

“This is a victory for all those Island Line users who made representations to the DfT on this point but had been ignored until now.

“This result is even more significant in light of the refusal of our local MP to provide support, leaving us to fight our own corner in Whitehall. Last year Andrew Turner dismissed KILF as a “self-appointed protest group”, yet we have now achieved a major step in the right direction for our local rail service – which is more than he has done as the Island’s representative in Westminster.

“With a new rail minister in place, we are hopeful that the DfT will now start to take a more pragmatic and realistic approach."

 

[yorksrob]

It appears that sense has prevailed !

 

[Wolfie]

overtaken by events

 

[WatcherZero]

No one seriously thought the island line could be self sustaining by the end of the franchise. The dft wording was taken too literally and they agreed it could be interpreted as such changing it to, 'more sustainable future'.

 

[Chris125]

Potential positive news for Island Line today.

According to Island Echo a new loop/30min interval service and 'more modern' trains could be on the cards, which would be a welcome and common-sense enhancement.

On the Isle of Wight a number of improvements will be made to Island Line, including the aim of running a half-hourly service to meet cross-Solent services thanks to the introduction of a new passing loop. More modern stock and signalling are also expected.

First MTR South Western say they have an exciting package of proposals to discuss with the Isle of Wight community, but they need further consultation with local stakeholders and Department for Transport (DfT) first.

The IW County Press also report that passengers can expect to see:

• Better connections with cross-Solent channel and mainland train services
• A £50,000 customer and communities fund will be set up for improving local stations and passenger experience
• Through-ticketing will be available through the web and mobile apps, along with more information about connecting services
• A new Delay Repay compensation scheme for delays of 15 minutes or more, and discount for purchasing 12 consecutive monthly season tickets.
• A Student Connect smart ticket for 16-18 year olds. The ticket will offer one-third off weekly or longer tickets, and further term-time discounts for under 16s
• A marketing campaign will be launched to raise the profile of Island Line and the Isle of Wight. The company will work with Visit Isle of Wight, Hovertravel, Wightlink and Red Funnel.

 

[yorksrob]

That's certainly good news !

 

[Helvellyn]

Potential positive news for Island Line today.

According to Island Echo a new loop/30min interval service and 'more modern' trains could be on the cards, which would be a welcome and common-sense enhancement.



The IW County Press also report that passengers can expect to see:

• Better connections with cross-Solent channel and mainland train services
• A £50,000 customer and communities fund will be set up for improving local stations and passenger experience
• Through-ticketing will be available through the web and mobile apps, along with more information about connecting services
• A new Delay Repay compensation scheme for delays of 15 minutes or more, and discount for purchasing 12 consecutive monthly season tickets.
• A Student Connect smart ticket for 16-18 year olds. The ticket will offer one-third off weekly or longer tickets, and further term-time discounts for under 16s
• A marketing campaign will be launched to raise the profile of Island Line and the Isle of Wight. The company will work with Visit Isle of Wight, Hovertravel, Wightlink and Red Funnel.

Um last time I checked through ticketing is available on the SWT website via both Wightlink (Harbour - Ryde Pier Head) and Hovertravel (Southsea - Southsea Hoverport - Ryde Hoverport - Ryde Esplanade). You can also buy tickets to East and West Cowes (via Southampton Central and on with Red Funnel) and to Yarmouth (via Lymington Pier and cross with Wightlink).

Now unless the detail is going to offer something radical with fares/ticket types I'm bemused by this being a big announcement.

Interesting to see what they plan to do with the actual Island Line though.

 

[birchesgreen]

Surely the only possible "more modern" stock would be new? The 73TS won't be available until the mid-2020s i believe.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Basically , keep the stalwart 38TS going then ?

 

[HSTEd]

Best bet would be a 3S aerial tramway going direct to Portsmouth Harbour from Ryde Harbour station.
Vehicle every 30 seconds and it removes the need for a non-vehicle ferry, with a much shorter effective journey time.