Island Line Railway - current state and the future

[yorksrob]

They manage fine as it is; ticket prices are reasonable for the level of service, and various discounts are on offer. In addition, the bus services general go where people want to travel, unlike the railway.

Yes, until some bandit comes along and runs the current operator out of town. There is no guarantee that a decent service will continue, and the Council has no realistic mechanism to ensure that it does. Anything else is cloud-cuckoo land.

 

[Olaf]

All well and lovely, but the solution is relatively straightforward. Obtain some second hand rail from the mainline, tack on a rolling stock order to the next underground order, integrate the route with the rest of the South West and merge the franchise with the South Western one (eventually).

None of this is particularly outlandish or revolutionary. A stub the line may be, but it still links the larger settlements.

Unfortunately at some point, when it comes to allocating and spending the money, aspirations will have to be reconciled with the real world. None of the suggestion you make actual addresses the problems of sourcing and justifying the funding of capital expenditure that will be required at some point, for minimal return when there are better candidate projects both on the Island and elsewhere.

 

[Olaf]

I'm afraid I don't really understand how renewing operational infrastructure, long after it is due for renewal is somehow 'throwing money down a sink hole'.

It is simple; You do not invest capital unless there is an adequate return on the investment. The expenditure could be kept low by spending just enough to keep it going, but at some point significant funds would be needed to replace life-expired infrastructure, and to provide even the minimum level of service to be expected. However, doing taht is just kicking the can and it would be irresponsible not to step back and make a decision on the lines future. It is then that you go back to square one around justifying the funds vs all other potential investments.

 

[Olaf]

Spending money on HS2 doesn't fix congestion railway congestion problems on the Cardiff line, yet its proponents wouldn't suggest that that is a reason not to build it.

We are told that choice is a good thing. Those who say that we should spend all the budget on road building, rather than ensuring that the full range of transport links are maintained properly, are the dogmatic ones.

Unfortunately those justifying funding will not be able to fall-back on such tenuous assertions.

 

[yorksrob]

Unfortunately at some point, when it comes to allocating and spending the money, aspirations will have to be reconciled with the real world. None of the suggestion you make actual addresses the problems of sourcing and justifying the funding of capital expenditure that will be required at some point, for minimal return when there are better candidate projects both on the Island and elsewhere.

I'm afraid that this is nonsense.

According to the Office of Rail Regulation, passenger numbers on the route were 1.21 million in 1997-98.

These figures reached a peak of 1.6 million in 2006-07, and have since fallen back to 1.31 million in 2014-15:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_Line,_Isle_of_Wight#/media/File:IslandLine_1998–2015.png

There is nothing to suggest that this is a catastrophic decline rather than a re-adjustment to previous levels. These levels are perfectly respectable in comparison to many regional railways across the country that support the tourist industry. There is also no guarantee that passenger numbers won't increase again in the future.

I feel that those who are proposing closure for a cycle track (not much use, if you're bringing luggage from the mainland) are pursuing a sinister agenda that left unchallenged could cause harm to the wider regional railway.

 

[yorksrob]

It is simple; You do not invest capital unless there is an adequate return on the investment. The expenditure could be kept low by spending just enough to keep it going, but at some point significant funds would be needed to replace life-expired infrastructure, and to provide even the minimum level of service to be expected. However, doing taht is just kicking the can and it would be irresponsible not to step back and make a decision on the lines future. It is then that you go back to square one around justifying the funds vs all other potential investments.

I did make the point in an earlier post that as infrastructure and rolling stock on the island tend to last much longer than elsewhere, this should be reflected in the benefit-cost analysis, which should result in greater benefits accrued over a longer asset life.

 

[Olaf]

Somebody's obviously using the service. So, the railway relies more heavily than most on outsiders arriving from the mainland. That's absolutely no reason not to maintain it.

It will be Islander's money that could be spent elsewhere such as road junction improvements around Newport vs the minority of islander's that are within the catchment area. The numbers are also declining and there is a reasonable and more frequent service bus service that provides better access.

The only reason the railway will cost so much to bring back to standard is because renewals have been neglected. It's about time this was reversed, otherwise the 'powers that be' will have carte blanche to run down infrastructure to justify closing it down.

That would not carry much weight as an argument since you still run into the problem of an inadequate return. Past investment has probably run into the same problem, except that now the obstacles around justification are more acute.

 

[Fleetwood Boy]

Yes, until some bandit comes along and runs the current operator out of town. There is no guarantee that a decent service will continue, and the Council has no realistic mechanism to ensure that it does. Anything else is cloud-cuckoo land.

How about this for an idea. New legislation allows councils to agree Enhanced Partnerships with bus companies. Basically a legally binding agreement that each party signs up to. It allows some protection from new market entrants poaching the best routes. In return the council could ask Southern Vectis to guarantee minimum service levels, maximum fares, etc.

So I’m return for this, close the railway and require Southern Vectis to offer an enhanced service. Hand over the existing railway alignment FOC to the IOWSR for them to use as they wish.

Spending is saved, services improved and there’s a chance a heritage type rail operation would remain to serve at least some of the tourist demand?

 

[Olaf]

Yes, until some bandit comes along and runs the current operator out of town. There is no guarantee that a decent service will continue, and the Council has no realistic mechanism to ensure that it does. Anything else is cloud-cuckoo land.

Bandit?

Southern Vectis provides a good service which is well used.

 

[yorksrob]

It will be Islander's money that could be spent elsewhere such as road junction improvements around Newport vs the minority of islander's that are within the catchment area. The numbers are also declining and there is a reasonable and more frequent service bus service that provides better access.



That would not carry much weight as an argument since you still run into the problem of an inadequate return. Past investment has probably run into the same problem, except that now the obstacles around justification are more acute.

The islanders economy is intrinsically linked to the rest of the country and as reliant on people coming in and out from elsewhere as anywhere else, and as I've said before, there is no guarantee that a decent bus service will be maintained forever more. Removing an alternative transport method for good on the basis of a currently good bus service would be nothing more than a wreckless gamble.

 

[yorksrob]

Bandit?

Southern Vectis provides a good service which is well used.

Oh, they might well be good, but we all know that bus companies can come and go and swallow each other up.

 

[Olaf]

I'm afraid that this is nonsense.

You did not identify a practical means of continuing the service without having to address the prospects of a significant capital outlay on the line. This is what the IWC and SWR are going to have to address.

I feel that those who are proposing closure for a cycle track (not much use, if you're bringing luggage from the mainland) are pursuing a sinister agenda that left unchallenged could cause harm to the wider regional railway.

It is simply an impartial assessment of the available evidence. Funds could be better spent elsewhere on the Island. In terms of the "Regional Railway" that has been protected by de-coupling it from the rail service on the Island.

 

[Olaf]

I did make the point in an earlier post that as infrastructure and rolling stock on the island tend to last much longer than elsewhere, this should be reflected in the benefit-cost analysis, which should result in greater benefits accrued over a longer asset life.

Can you quantify that? Does it make any significant impact on the outcome?

 

[Olaf]

How about this for an idea. New legislation allows councils to agree Enhanced Partnerships with bus companies. Basically a legally binding agreement that each party signs up to. It allows some protection from new market entrants poaching the best routes. In return the council could ask Southern Vectis to guarantee minimum service levels, maximum fares, etc.

So I’m return for this, close the railway and require Southern Vectis to offer an enhanced service. Hand over the existing railway alignment FOC to the IOWSR for them to use as they wish.

Spending is saved, services improved and there’s a chance a heritage type rail operation would remain to serve at least some of the tourist demand?

I think in the case of the Isle of Wight, the most effective protection is that any new potential competitor would encounter high start-up costs, would have a higher cost-base, and would be competing with an established operator that is part of a seasoned parent company in a small market with potentially lean earnings.

 

[Olaf]

The islanders economy is intrinsically linked to the rest of the country and as reliant on people coming in and out from elsewhere as anywhere else, and as I've said before, there is no guarantee that a decent bus service will be maintained forever more. Removing an alternative transport method for good on the basis of a currently good bus service would be nothing more than a wreckless gamble.

Sure, but no of that is going to factor highly in the decisions to be made about funding the service and capital investment going forward.

 

[Olaf]

Oh, they might well be good, but we all know that bus companies can come and go and swallow each other up.

You are clutching at straws; even if there is a change in bus operator, it is not going drive people to the railway unless it meets the customer needs.

 

[yorksrob]

Can you quantify that? Does it make any significant impact on the outcome?

Firstly rolling stock.

The current ex-tube rolling stock is over seventy years old, as was the previous ex tube stock. Even in steam days, the wooden bodied rolling stock tended to be super-annuated in comparison. This suggests that there is every possibility that:
a) The line can exist on a further batch of old rolling stock with a much reduced capital cost, or:
b) if stock is bought new, it can last the full seventy years, which means that you get around twice as much benefit for the capital cost.

Second, infrastructure.

From what has been said on here, the track hasn't had a proper renewal for some time (possibly before electrification in 68 ?). It clearly on a much longer replacement cycle than the rest of the network, so again, any calculation of the benefits of replacement track should take into account the likelihood that it will be in use much longer than elsewhere.

 

[yorksrob]

You are clutching at straws; even if there is a change in bus operator, it is not going drive people to the railway unless it meets the customer needs.

Not at all. I took a bus at the weekend from Windermere to Conniston at the weekend. They tried to charge me a whopping £9.50 for the single fare. There is effectively nothing to stop a rival moving in on Vectis' territory (or for that matter, any incumbent leaving the market for that reason) and leaving the way for a rival, who might decide to put prices up or cut a number of services as unprofitable.

This is not clutching at straws - this is everyday life in the world of de-regulated buses.

 

[yorksrob]

Sure, but no of that is going to factor highly in the decisions to be made about funding the service and capital investment going forward.

Well it ought to be. Could you honestly imagine decisions being made on the future of the Settle-Carlisle route without reference to the tourist industry ?

 

[Olaf]

Firstly rolling stock.

Would any of the available ex-rolling stock be available and meet legislative requirements?

Second, infrastructure.

So what percentage extra lifetime would you attach to any replacement track? What would that be worth? What proportion of the total capital outlay would that represent?

 

[Olaf]

Not at all. I took a bus at the weekend from Windermere to Conniston at the weekend. .

So what bearing does that have on justifying the retention of a railway service for a small proportion of the Island's population?

 

[yorksrob]

In terms of the "Regional Railway" that has been protected by de-coupling it from the rail service on the Island.

The rest of the Regional Railway is much larger than the island line. The island line has effectively been sacrificed by being cut adrift. This should never have been allowed to happen to a piece of national infrastructure.

 

[Olaf]

Well it ought to be.

But it is n't.

 

[yorksrob]

Would any of the available ex-rolling stock be available and meet legislative requirements?

Well, the line is on the doorstep of the largest metro system in the world. Something will come up sooner or later. And don't forget building new rolling stock but factoring in that it will last twice as long.

So what percentage extra lifetime would you attach to any replacement track? What would that be worth? What proportion of the total capital outlay would that represent?

I'm sure a transport economist would be better placed to calculate this than me, but as a rule of thumb, if something lasts twice as long, you could reasonably expect to get twice the use from it. A third longer, a third more use etc.

 

[Olaf]

The rest of the Regional Railway is much larger than the island line.

Clearly.

The island line has effectively been sacrificed by being cut adrift. This should never have been allowed to happen to a piece of national infrastructure.

There are particular problems to be faced with the Island Line and the current approach brings about a sensible engagement with the realities of continued support for the service. A interim arrangement could be made by doing just enough to keep it going, but only by ignoring the reasonable assumption that significant expenditure is required. Clearly the IWC has started to look at this.

It is possible that a way can be found to continue the service into the long term but that will only be achieved via considered approach of realistic technical and financial solutions.

 

[yorksrob]

So what bearing does that have on justifying the retention of a railway service for a small proportion of the Island's population?

I'm merely pointing to the fact that however good the bus service is now, there is no way of guaranteeing that that will be the case in the future. Without any regulation, you don't know who will be running the buses in five or ten years time.

 

[ainsworth74]

And don't forget building new rolling stock but factoring in that it will last twice as long.

New stock which will doubtlessly be considerably more complex than the existing rolling stock and therefore almost certainly considerably more expensive to maintain and, when things break, fix.

 

[yorksrob]

Clearly.



There are particular problems to be faced with the Island Line and the current approach brings about a sensible engagement with the realities of continued support for the service. A interim arrangement could be made by doing just enough to keep it going, but only by ignoring the reasonable assumption that significant expenditure is required. Clearly the IWC has started to look at this.

It is possible that a way can be found to continue the service into the long term but that will only be achieved via considered approach of realistic technical and financial solutions.

So the line has its own challenges. In spite of this, I believe firmly in safety in numbers. I think the line would be far better off under the protective wing of the national network. The track gauge, the signalling systems, these are all found elsewhere on the mainland. Even the rolling stock isn't particularly unique.

A line should be drawn under the experiment of letting it be run into the ground.

 

[Olaf]

Well, the line is on the doorstep of the largest metro system in the world. Something will come up sooner or later. And don't forget building new rolling stock but factoring in that it will last twice as long.

So, now you are saying new build. If there is no suitable used stock that meets legal requirements, then a new build may be possible with funding. Funding is likely possible for procurement, but then that does not address justification of the funding.

I'm sure a transport economist would be better placed to calculate this than me, but as a rule of thumb, if something lasts twice as long, you could reasonably expect to get twice the use from it. A third longer, a third more use etc.

Where is the evidence of the infrastructure lasting twice as long? It is claimed that the infrastructure is in a poor state, or are you redefining scope of life-expired?

 

[yorksrob]

New stock which will doubtlessly be considerably more complex than the existing rolling stock and therefore almost certainly considerably more expensive to maintain and, when things break, fix.

Perhaps they could do a dumbed down version. This is a quagmire of complicated technology we've allowed the whole railway to fall into. It will have to muddle through with it. That's no reason to not do the same with the island line.