Island Line Railway - current state and the future

[Cowley]

Ok, I give up! The government will definately pay for a like for like replacement of everything to maintain the current service indefinately and that is without question absoutely the best solution for both the IoW and the UK taxpayer...

 

[yorksrob]

Public roads connect millions of people to millions of locations. Stansted is 2/3rds owned by the Greater Manchester councils (along with Manchester Airport, East Midlands and Bournemouth) so thats a bad example. Airports have a range of opperators so one company is not the sole beneficiary. Bus lanes used by one company would be a subsidy. That is one reason why I support local control of bus services. If a busway system was built for IoW then Vectis should be charged for use along with any other bus or coach opperator. Any system that was worth government funding to build would improve services and revanue that the opperator(s) would be prepared to pay. If Wightlink was prepared to make a financial contribution to retaining the train service to its terminal then I wouldn't object to it.

Side stepping the issue of whether the government should fund the cost of maintaining the current service for another 30+ years, do you think they will?

The railway connects millions of people to millions of people.

The road network has roads that connect one man and his dog to the world. They still have to be maintained.

 

[Chris125]

Ok, I give up! The government will definately pay for a like for like replacement of everything to maintain the current service indefinately and that is without question absoutely the best solution for both the IoW and the UK taxpayer...

We agree at last...

 

[bramling]

Couldn't agree more.

At the end of the day time will tell. I can only see a major change happening if someone comes up with a clever idea (eg an imported train from abroad that fits the bill) or the current situation comes to a head. Despite rumours of various things being life expired, there’s little in the way of hard evidence been presented to support the notion that things could be nearing that point. Money running out for the current setup shouldn’t be an issue as the line is part of a newly let franchise.

The only real change in the last two decades has been one train becoming long-term stopped and some other long-withdrawn trains being scrapped - plus apparently a considerable reduction in the amount of 4-car running. We don’t even know if the latter is down to fleet issues- it could well be for example that they no longer like the guards moving between cars or units whilst on the move so 4-car working is avoided in order to aid revenue collection.

I reckon there is at least an even probability this conversation could be taking place a decade from now, perhaps with the service reduced to hourly and the fleet size reduced further, or such like.

 

[GusB]

This is probably going to sound completely nuts - but would a former SPT Subway train fit on the Island Line? I'm aware that the Subway uses a smaller gauge, but we've seen ex-BR stock sent to different parts of the world where alternative gauges are used.

 

[Chris125]

The only real change in the last two decades has been one train becoming long-term stopped and some other long-withdrawn trains being scrapped - plus apparently a considerable reduction in the amount of 4-car running. We don’t even know if the latter is down to fleet issues- it could well be for example that they no longer like the guards moving between cars or units whilst on the move so 4-car working is avoided in order to aid revenue collection.

Guards stopped moving between carriages a few years back, I don't know what prompted this but IIRC it took over a year to provide a solution during which 4-car operation became impractical without a second guard.

Now they can signal the Right Away from the other carriage, having closed the doors and moved across, but that still limits them to one carriage between stations and so SWT appeared to dump 4-car operation entirely; presumably a smaller fleet saved more money than was lost by overcrowded trains guards struggle to sell tickets on.

I reckon there is at least an even probability this conversation could be taking place a decade from now, perhaps with the service reduced to hourly and the fleet size reduced further, or such like.

I think that's highly unlikely, the DfT wanted proposals to make the line more financially sustainable and SWR are about to consult on the plans they'll submit next spring so there's good reason to finally expect some progress.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The road network has roads that connect one man and his dog to the world. They still have to be maintained.

This is not always the case, citing the long section of the A625 road that led over Mam Tor which was repaired time after time, but was finally abandoned in 1979. Have a read of the history of that road in recent time.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

This is not always the case, citing the long section of the A625 road that led over Mam Tor which was repaired time after time, but was finally abandoned in 1979. Have a read of the history of that road in recent time.

On Google Earth, where does the abandoned section start/end? Just had a quick look for it and didn't spot anything resembling an abandoned stretch of road

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

On Google Earth, where does the abandoned section start/end? Just had a quick look for it and didn't spot anything resembling an abandoned stretch of road

Look at the ORIGINAL route of the A625.

 

[yorksrob]

This is not always the case, citing the long section of the A625 road that led over Mam Tor which was repaired time after time, but was finally abandoned in 1979. Have a read of the history of that road in recent time.

Wasn't that due more to the ground being fundamentally unstable, otherwise they wouldn't have abandoned an A road.

 

[yorksrob]

Look at the ORIGINAL route of the A625.

So essentially they re-routed it, as opposed to closing it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

So essentially they re-routed it, as opposed to closing it.

I was responding to the view expressed in an earlier posting that roads have to be maintained. Re-routing that takes a different line to the original road is essentially a new road, not the original one.

There are of course, roads on the North Sea coastline that nature gradually destroys, such as Beach Road in Happisburgh, that were lost to cliff erosion, where no amount of maintenance can save them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So essentially they re-routed it, as opposed to closing it.

It was effectively closed, there was no actual direct replacement. The (stunningly scenic) Winnats Pass has been there longer than the Mam Tor road (I believe) and the "re-routed A625" is just that number applied to other existing roads.

I suppose the rail equivalent would be something like lopping out the middle section of the Cumbrian Coast (something which I wouldn't be surprised to see at some point if there is severe sea damage).

Talking of the Mam Tor road it's here:
https://binged.it/2gLua95

You can see it just below Mam Farm.

 

[Dougal2345]

Ok, I give up! The government will definately pay for a like for like replacement of everything to maintain the current service indefinately and that is without question absoutely the best solution for both the IoW and the UK taxpayer...

Well you've been making your point strongly, but the problem with this thread is that it seems to be about two things:

(i) What the future is for the Isle of Wight railway
(ii) Whether reducing subsidy to the railways (at whatever cost to the service quality), is always the most desirable outcome - "the best solution for both the IoW and the UK taxpayer..." as you put it.

If we leave aside the talk of expanding the network in the IoW (a lovely idea but unlikely) what are we left with?

(i) Maintaining current electric heavy-rail system
(ii) De-electrification and D(E)MUs
(iii) Replacement with Trams
(iv) Replacement with guided busway
(v) Complete closure

Surely we all have to agree, costs aside, that (i) is the best option for IoW residents and visitors? (and the environment - hardly ever mentioned in this thread, sadly). Seriously, on the mainland I don't generally hear a cheer when "Rail Replacement Bus" is mentioned, so I'm not sure why that would be different on the IoW.

So what's the best option for the UK taxpayer? Well, frankly (as a UK taxpayer myself).... I really don't care a great deal. I haven't calculated the amount of my personal Income Tax that goes towards subsidising the IoW line, but I suspect it wouldn't buy me a jar of Marmite in a year, and that's not enough for me to make me want to become a cheerleader for closing down other people's railway line.

Personally if every loss-making branch in the country were to be closed, saving me maybe a ha'penny on income tax, I wouldn't support that. Closing a railway line affects huge numbers of people in a big way. If my local station (not IoW) were to be closed, I'd have to either learn to drive and buy a car (which I'd never do) or sell my house and move (probably finding my house's value has dropped by £50,000 now it no longer has a rail service).

If the IoW railway were to close tourism would drop and trade in the towns south of Ryde would wither.

And yet here many forum members are arguing passionately for a change, saying "it has to close", "buses are cheaper", "subsidy too high". etc.etc.. I'm just curious about the motivations for such statements - is it just a commitment to Thatcherite free enterprise, subsidy reduction and so on (not saying that that's a terrible thing by the way)?

 

[yorksrob]

I was responding to the view expressed in an earlier posting that roads have to be maintained. Re-routing that takes a different line to the original road is essentially a new road, not the original one.

There are of course, roads on the North Sea coastline that nature gradually destroys, such as Beach Road in Happisburgh, that were lost to cliff erosion, where no amount of maintenance can save them.

Yes, but they would not close a road just because it is used by one man and his dog.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, but they would not close a road just because it is used by one man and his dog.

No, though maintenance of such a road would be minimal, whereas your Class 153 needs to trundle up and down your branch line at least a few times a day (with its driver and guard on board) to make it useful to said one man and his dog, so the "background" cost is much higher even if the line itself probably only needs fettling once every blue moon.

Though I suppose that argument justifies doing something like chucking money into a decent rebuild of the Island Line such that the *only* cost for the next 20-30 years is driver, guard[1], fuel and a very small amount of fettling.

[1] DOO would be an option, but with only two units out at a time it's unlikely to save a lot of money as you'd only lose one member of staff, you'd need a TTE as well or fare dodging would be rife[2]. You'd save more by closing the ticket offices and selling all tickets on board.

[2] I'm making the assumption that it wouldn't be cheaper to go DOO, close the ticket offices and make it actually free of charge. In that case you'd just need two drivers and a few maintenance staff on the go at any given time.

 

[yorksrob]

No, though maintenance of such a road would be minimal, whereas your Class 153 needs to trundle up and down your branch line at least a few times a day (with its driver and guard on board) to make it useful to said one man and his dog, so the "background" cost is much higher even if the line itself probably only needs fettling once every blue moon.

Though I suppose that argument justifies doing something like chucking money into a decent rebuild of the Island Line such that the *only* cost for the next 20-30 years is driver, guard[1], fuel and a very small amount of fettling.

[1] DOO would be an option, but with only two units out at a time it's unlikely to save a lot of money as you'd only lose one member of staff, you'd need a TTE as well or fare dodging would be rife[2]. You'd save more by closing the ticket offices and selling all tickets on board.

[2] I'm making the assumption that it wouldn't be cheaper to go DOO, close the ticket offices and make it actually free of charge. In that case you'd just need two drivers and a few maintenance staff on the go at any given time.

Ah, but the Island line serves more than one man and his dog.

 

[Stroud Valleys]

You only have to look at ventnor and how badly the closure of the railway has affected the town compared with sandown and shanklin.

If any significant investment is going to be made into the island line to support it for a further 50 years, surely its best to have a long term view and assess whether other closed lines should be reopend again such as to ventor and newport and cowes.

 

[Chester1]

Well you've been making your point strongly, but the problem with this thread is that it seems to be about two things:

(i) What the future is for the Isle of Wight railway
(ii) Whether reducing subsidy to the railways (at whatever cost to the service quality), is always the most desirable outcome - "the best solution for both the IoW and the UK taxpayer..." as you put it.

If we leave aside the talk of expanding the network in the IoW (a lovely idea but unlikely) what are we left with?

(i) Maintaining current electric heavy-rail system
(ii) De-electrification and D(E)MUs
(iii) Replacement with Trams
(iv) Replacement with guided busway
(v) Complete closure

Surely we all have to agree, costs aside, that (i) is the best option for IoW residents and visitors? (and the environment - hardly ever mentioned in this thread, sadly). Seriously, on the mainland I don't generally hear a cheer when "Rail Replacement Bus" is mentioned, so I'm not sure why that would be different on the IoW.

So what's the best option for the UK taxpayer? Well, frankly (as a UK taxpayer myself).... I really don't care a great deal. I haven't calculated the amount of my personal Income Tax that goes towards subsidising the IoW line, but I suspect it wouldn't buy me a jar of Marmite in a year, and that's not enough for me to make me want to become a cheerleader for closing down other people's railway line.

Personally if every loss-making branch in the country were to be closed, saving me maybe a ha'penny on income tax, I wouldn't support that. Closing a railway line affects huge numbers of people in a big way. If my local station (not IoW) were to be closed, I'd have to either learn to drive and buy a car (which I'd never do) or sell my house and move (probably finding my house's value has dropped by £50,000 now it no longer has a rail service).

If the IoW railway were to close tourism would drop and trade in the towns south of Ryde would wither.

And yet here many forum members are arguing passionately for a change, saying "it has to close", "buses are cheaper", "subsidy too high". etc.etc.. I'm just curious about the motivations for such statements - is it just a commitment to Thatcherite free enterprise, subsidy reduction and so on (not saying that that's a terrible thing by the way)?

I would say that option 3 is the best for locals and visitors because it would enable on street running and easier extensions creating the possiblity of building an Island wide network.

I am a member of the Lib Dems so I am not a Thatcherite (unless your hard left then anyone to the right of Labour is an evil Tory)! My reasons for wanting change are that its obviously declining, it consumes more taxpayer funding than necessary and doesn't serve most of the Island while alternative systems could. I have a personal preference for rail but its only one part of the public transport mix. Getting people out of their cars is more important to me than maintaining the rail network (although the two often go together).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Getting people out of their cars is more important to me than maintaining the rail network (although the two often go together).

How then do you propose to cover the transport needs of people in a situation such as mine, which is two miles away from any train or bus service?

Your aspiration also loses the population at large the opportunity not to be held to ransom by certain trades unions when strikes on the rail and bus network are aimed at the population at large under their pretence of only being in dispute with the employers.

 

[DT611]

I would say that option 3 is the best for locals and visitors because it would enable on street running and easier extensions creating the possiblity of building an Island wide network.

However it's usership as a whole is likely to be quite low, as there are existing bus services that meet the demand for bus services. the costs of construction over all are still in the high numbers, so still wouldn't reduce tax payer contribution. the locals already have bus services, however on the part of the island we are currently talking about, the railway seems to provide a better over all service to the locals living along it.
+ if the government were to decide they no longer wish to pay for the current rail line to continue, they definitely aren't going to spend money on constructing an island wide busway system, it's not going to happen no matter how much you want it.

My reasons for wanting change are that its obviously declining, it consumes more taxpayer funding than necessary and doesn't serve most of the Island while alternative systems could. I have a personal preference for rail but its only one part of the public transport mix. Getting people out of their cars is more important to me than maintaining the rail network (although the two often go together).

busses are less likely to get people out of their cars then rail.
The fact is, there isn't going to be an island wide busway or railway.

 

[Robertj21a]

You only have to look at ventnor and how badly the closure of the railway has affected the town compared with sandown and shanklin.

If any significant investment is going to be made into the island line to support it for a further 50 years, surely its best to have a long term view and assess whether other closed lines should be reopend again such as to ventor and newport and cowes.

It's only a personal view but I see no likelihood whatsoever of any lines reopening, it would be a financial disaster. Quite apart from the costs of reinstatement (even if feasible) I very much doubt that the seasonal influx of visitors would be enough to generate a net profit, let alone all those many months when few people travel to/around the island. The buses cope very well, best to leave them to it.

 

[yorksrob]

And yet here many forum members are arguing passionately for a change, saying "it has to close", "buses are cheaper", "subsidy too high". etc.etc.. I'm just curious about the motivations for such statements - is it just a commitment to Thatcherite free enterprise, subsidy reduction and so on (not saying that that's a terrible thing by the way)?

I believe its a type of mental self flagellation that some rail enthusiasts feel they have to go through, to show how much of a 'realist' they are, as opposed to a rail enthusiast 'fantasist' (even though they are the ones fantasising about tearing up a working railway and replacing it with a busway - which itself would require a massive capital investment).

 

[DerekC]

I believe its a type of mental self flagellation that some rail enthusiasts feel they have to go through, to show how much of a 'realist' they are, as opposed to a rail enthusiast 'fantasist' (even though they are the ones fantasising about tearing up a working railway and replacing it with a busway - which itself would require a massive capital investment).

I suppose it depends what you think threads like this are for. One view seems to be that they are for rail enthusiasts to exchange ideas for rail-based solutions to the exclusion of all other possibilities. The other that sensible discussion of alternatives is permitted. I think it would be remiss of government not to look at the possibility of a busway in the case of IoW. Of course I hope that it turns out to be less cost-effective than railway renewal and renovation, but it might not. I haven't looked in the mirror to see whether the self-flagellation marks have faded yet!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I suppose it depends what you think threads like this are for. One view seems to be that they are for rail enthusiasts to exchange ideas for rail-based solutions to the exclusion of all other possibilities. The other that sensible discussion of alternatives is permitted. I think it would be remiss of government not to look at the possibility of a busway in the case of IoW. Of course I hope that it turns out to be less cost-effective than railway renewal and renovation, but it might not. I haven't looked in the mirror to see whether the self-flagellation marks have faded yet!

Something that ex Prime Minister Gladstone would do - apparently ...

 

[yorksrob]

Something that ex Prime Minister Gladstone would do - apparently ...

Along with rescuing 'fallen' women.

 

[A0]

You only have to look at ventnor and how badly the closure of the railway has affected the town compared with sandown and shanklin.

If any significant investment is going to be made into the island line to support it for a further 50 years, surely its best to have a long term view and assess whether other closed lines should be reopend again such as to ventor and newport and cowes.

I don't suppose you have any facts to back up that piece of conjecture?

Ventnor was always a much smaller place than the others up the coast, yet is still busy in high season.

I don't think you can say Ventnor has suffered particularly - unless you can provide some concrete evidence to the contrary.

 

[A0]

How then do you propose to cover the transport needs of people in a situation such as mine, which is two miles away from any train or bus service?

Your aspiration also loses the population at large the opportunity not to be held to ransom by certain trades unions when strikes on the rail and bus network are aimed at the population at large under their pretence of only being in dispute with the employers.

It also ignores the fact that many railways are close to or at capacity - funnily enough they tend to be the ones going to / from key traffic destinations such as major towns and cities.

Rail has never and will never be the solution for a high proportion of journeys - the only time it held a major market share was when it had a clear speed advantage to the alternatives which were a horse and cart or canal boat, which were significantly slower.

Now, even if the average speed is lower by road, rail is less convenient because it doesn't offer door to door travel, doesn't allow people to travel at their convenience and, as has been seen from the ad infinitum posts about the seats in the Voyagers or Class 700s, subjectively isn't as comfortable i.e. requiring a compromise on comfort that sitting in a car usually doesn't.

 

[Dougal2345]

Now, even if the average speed is lower by road, rail is less convenient because it doesn't offer door to door travel, doesn't allow people to travel at their convenience and, as has been seen from the ad infinitum posts about the seats in the Voyagers or Class 700s, subjectively isn't as comfortable i.e. requiring a compromise on comfort that sitting in a car usually doesn't.

Forgive me if I'm missing the point you're making, which I think isn't aimed at the IoW in particular, but is just a general point about the perceived shortcomings of rail travel?

I'm sure these discussions have been had many times before, but I'll do the usual quick rebuttals:

• Often rail offers a better door-to-door service than a car - if you're travelling to London to see a show for example, it would be difficult and extremely expensive to park nearby. Public transport will take you to within a few feet of the door.

• A taxi can be used at one or both ends of the journey to provide a door-to-door service, but only a small percentage of the entire journey is by road.

• Not as comfortable as a car? Most people do have to compromise on car comfort unless their funds are unlimited, but even a Rolls Royce doesn't allow you to stretch your legs and answer a call of nature when still travellling...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not as comfortable as a car? Most people do have to compromise on car comfort unless their funds are unlimited, but even a Rolls Royce doesn't allow you to stretch your legs and answer a call of nature when still travellling...

True, though stopping for a wee and a coffee isn't an entirely unpleasant experience in itself. I often break long train journeys up for a meal, a wander round or something.