IBM (Halt) Closure & Possible Re-opening

[Esker-pades]

Did we ever establish if IBM is even subject to the normal station closing procedure? Isn't the reason it's hard to close stations due to the various Acts of Parliament that opened the lines in the first place? In which case a station is a station built after the fact even subject to such requirements?

I've made contact with Transport Scotland asking exactly that (and other things). I haven't heard back yet .

 

[Altnabreac]

Its not an "experimental" station so therefore not subject to the Speller amendment so I believe that the normal closure procedure should still apply. Only Scotrail/Transport Scotland can answer the question as to why as to why the formal closure procedure has not been invoked.

I think the point here is that there doesn't seem to be anyone at Scotrail or Transport Scotland who is proposing closure. All the quotes are merely about no more trains calling.

The Scotrail website says:
Trains will no longer call at this station from 9 December 2018. The closest alternative stations are Inverkip and Branchton.

The Register article says:
"Trains will no longer call at IBM Halt station from 9 December 2018. This has been agreed with Transport Scotland and key stakeholders and partners along the route. The closest alternative stations are Inverkip and Branchton. Our current timetable will remain largely unchanged and there will be time between the stations before and after IBM Halt that would allow trains to call again at the station should the IBM site be redeveloped."

So what has been agreed is that trains will no longer call at the station. The question to avoid the closure procedures being invoked is what is the appropriate taxi / bus etc replacement service offering? As the site access is privately owned it may be that the appropriate level of replacement service is zero. Key stakeholders and partners almost certainly includes the Local Authority and the land owner. it may well be that the landowner could force Scotrail / TS to provide a taxi service for their representatives should they wish.

I suspect the landowner is actual quite keen to ensure urban explorers, train enthusiasts and local neds are not coming down to the vacant site on the train to drink and set fires so are quite happy for calls to be suspended and do not require or desire any replacement service. Equally however the presence of a station will add greatly to the long term development value of the land so they will not want the station to be closed (and indeed they would almost certainly object to any closure proposal, as would the local authority). If I were the developer / Local Authority I would have requested from Scotrail / TS a commitment that the station will reopen at zero cost to me once the development on the site commences.

So it seems that mothballing may be in everyone's interests at present whereas closure would not be in anyone's interests. Therefore a closure proposal has not been pursued but everyone is happy for calls to be withdrawn at present.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

I suspect the landowner is actual quite keen to ensure urban explorers, train enthusiasts and local neds are not coming down to the vacant site on the train to drink and set fires so are quite happy for calls to be suspended and do not require or desire any replacement service.

I don't think any urbexer would want to trash an abandoned railway station.

 

[InOban]

I quite agree. There's no destination to which any replacement taxi might take anyone.

And I would expect that the current road gate with pavement bypass will be replaced with a full-width barrier, and something similar at the station, thereby restricting its use as a creative space/adventure playground.

I should point out that the economy of Inverclyde has been poor ever since the virtual disappearance of the shipbuilding industry, and indeed the closure of IBM. The population is in gradual decline so I don't see any urgent need for new housing.

 

[380gk]

I quite agree. There's no destination to which any replacement taxi might take anyone.

And I would expect that the current road gate with pavement bypass will be replaced with a full-width barrier, and something similar at the station, thereby restricting its use as a creative space/adventure playground.

I should point out that the economy of Inverclyde has been poor ever since the virtual disappearance of the shipbuilding industry, and indeed the closure of IBM. The population is in gradual decline so I don't see any urgent need for new housing.

It’s in the only area of Inverclyde where the population has increased over the years.

No doubt some smart marketing company will be able to market it as north Inverkip and make a fortune out of it.

That’s aside from the potential land contamination, the fact it’s one big marshy valley and has no natural sunlight and pretty poor road infrastructure apart from the immediate short section of dual carriageway at it...

Incidentally there are plans to buil hundreds of new homes at the old Inverkip Power station site.

Should that and the IBM site be developed, it would lead to one big continuous urban area from Port Glasgow down to Skelmorlie.

 

[A Challenge]

Its not an "experimental" station so therefore not subject to the Speller amendment so I believe that the normal closure procedure should still apply. Only Scotrail/Transport Scotland can answer the question as to why as to why the formal closure procedure has not been invoked.

It was originally a private station, so may not be open to the public, and therefore not subject to public closure proceedings.

Not running a service is no different to closure legally under the Act.

 

[Mag_seven]

It was originally a private station, so may not be open to the public, and therefore not subject to public closure proceedings.

Is this in writing anywhere?

 

[A Challenge]

I don't know, hence my 'may'.

 

[MadMac]

Is this in writing anywhere?

I vaguely recall a note in the public timetable along the lines that it was only for access to IBM's premises and as such, technically wasn't a "public" station.

 

[PR1Berske]

We ask these questions about ownership and correct procedures from our 2018 vantage point, during which Freedom of Information and the Internet has made us almost over confident with regards to finding out exactly what we want, from acres of official paperwork. When this station was opened, and served by un-advertised timetables for employees only, the expectations on the companies/authorities involved to keep records were far lower than they are today. We may never really find out what the official status of IBM Halt actually is or was. The lack of any official confirmation of a closing procedure being commenced would point to that great British tradition: the legal curiosity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I vaguely recall a note in the public timetable along the lines that it was only for access to IBM's premises and as such, technically wasn't a "public" station.

There's a sign on the platform to that end too. That's why I think this case is different. If it was only ever officially open to IBM employees and contractors, then now nobody may use it, therefore it might as well close.

 

[alangla]

Reading DarloRich’s comments, I take it he’s never been to Drumfrochar? Personally I reckon that in 2 years time IBM will still be in better nick than there. Honestly, what’s with all the angst on here? It’s a tiny shack serving nothing that’s going to be safeguarded for future development, there’s nothing to suggest that this is going to lead to a mass wave of closures given the number of passengerless sheds that still get decent services and places like Briech

 

[MadMac]

It’s a tiny shack serving nothing that’s going to be safeguarded for future development, there’s nothing to suggest that this is going to lead to a mass wave of closures given the number of passengerless sheds that still get decent services and places like Breich

No argument. However, some folk have understandable concerns that established procedures being circumvented could "open the floodgates". All that should be necessary is a statement along the lines of "In view of the fact this station no longer serves its original purpose, services to and from it will be suspended until further notice pending the position regarding potential future development of the site becoming clearer, at which time this station's role will be revisited".

 

[bramling]

No argument. However, some folk have understandable concerns that established procedures being circumvented could "open the floodgates". All that should be necessary is a statement along the lines of "In view of the fact this station no longer serves its original purpose, services to and from it will be suspended until further notice pending the position regarding potential future development of the site becoming clearer, at which time this station's role will be revisited".

I’ve read this thread with interest, indeed not being local it came as a bit of a surprise as the last time I rode through there by train IBM halt seemed rather busy, clearly things have changed since.

I can see both sides of the argument. It sounds like there’s little point in serving the station, indeed I’d be peeved if I were a regular on the line and my journey was held up by a couple of minutes every time for a station call which currently serves no purpose. Likewise there really isn’t much point in providing alternatives for users who clearly don’t exist and aren’t likely to exist for the forseeable future. However I can also see the quite reasonable argument that it could be the start of a slippery slope.

I think on balance what’s being done is probably the appropriate choice, however it’s certainly a situation to keep an eye on.

 

[xotGD]

To me, zero trains each week is a lot more sensible than one train each week. Stations should either have a worthwhile service or no service.

Mothballing assets which may see future use is sensible - whether that is a station, a freight terminal or a branch line. Better than letting someone build a warehouse in the way.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I don't think any urbexer would want to trash an abandoned railway station.

The golden rule of urbex is leave only footprints and take only memories, pictures & videos.

 

[pdeaves]

Philosophical question: is 'no trains calling' (as opposed to proper closure) fundamentally different to when there is extended engineering works (recent example of Filton Bank) where intermediate stations have no trains calling?

 

[Mag_seven]

All that should be necessary is a statement along the lines of "In view of the fact this station no longer serves its original purpose, services to and from it will be suspended until further notice pending the position regarding potential future development of the site becoming clearer, at which time this station's role will be revisited".

I don't think its as simple as that - if you want to close a station you must go through the required closure process. It may be that IBM has some sort of exemption, but evidence of that exemption needs to be provided.

 

[gingerheid]

reflecting on this, I think this might be an example of Scots law (and in particular the interpretation of the word service reached during the 1995 West Highland Sleeper case) giving us a more sensible result, and I don't think there is an element of slippery slope.

The withdrawal of the West Highland Sleeper was prevented by the court refusing to accept that operation of alternative trains on sections of track unique to the sleeper (that would have represented a parliamentary service in England and Wales) represented a service at all, because they were not intended to provide a service to anyone.

If we were to carry that logic across to IBM my argument would be that it is impossible to provide a service at that station, because there is nothing to serve. This is an argument that would be uniquely impossible to apply anywhere else.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Philosophical question: is 'no trains calling' (as opposed to proper closure) fundamentally different to when there is extended engineering works (recent example of Filton Bank) where intermediate stations have no trains calling?

It's an indefinite closure as apposed to a temporary one like you listed and permanent closure. So whenever the need for trains to call arises again, they can just reopen the station.

 

[t_star2001uk]

I found this Picture. Taken in April 2018 and posted on https://www.geograph.org.uk

Credit: Thomas Nugent

 

[sprunt]

I think on balance what’s being done is probably the appropriate choice, however it’s certainly a situation to keep an eye on.

It may well be - what would be nice would be some communication to that effect, rather than a cursory "No more trains here from December 9th." That's what seems pretty poor here - it shouldn't be hard to tell people what's happening, why, and what will/may happen in the future.

 

[sannox]

It may well be - what would be nice would be some communication to that effect, rather than a cursory "No more trains here from December 9th." That's what seems pretty poor here - it shouldn't be hard to tell people what's happening, why, and what will/may happen in the future.

SPT stated in their last committed report -
"Mothballing of IBM station, Inverclyde - With the current redevelopment of local industries within the Spango Valley in Inverclyde, patronage to/from IBM station on the Wemyss Bay line is no longer considered sufficient to justify services stopping at the station. As a result, all stops at IBM are to be suspended from 9 December 2018 whilst redevelopment options are being progressed for the wider Spango Valley area."

 

[Mag_seven]

SPT stated in their last committed report -
"Mothballing of IBM station, Inverclyde - With the current redevelopment of local industries within the Spango Valley in Inverclyde, patronage to/from IBM station on the Wemyss Bay line is no longer considered sufficient to justify services stopping at the station. As a result, all stops at IBM are to be suspended from 9 December 2018 whilst redevelopment options are being progressed for the wider Spango Valley area."

All very well and good but where is the formal closure process?

 

[InOban]

The station isn't being closed. Services are being suspended, as they are at Wedgewood and Barlaston (Have I got the names right?)

 

[Mag_seven]

The station isn't being closed. Services are being suspended, as they are at Wedgewood and Barlaston (Have I got the names right?)

But they have replacement buses (provided by local bus routes).

 

[Altnabreac]

It may well be - what would be nice would be some communication to that effect, rather than a cursory "No more trains here from December 9th." That's what seems pretty poor here - it shouldn't be hard to tell people what's happening, why, and what will/may happen in the future.

SPT stated in their last committed report -
"Mothballing of IBM station, Inverclyde - With the current redevelopment of local industries within the Spango Valley in Inverclyde, patronage to/from IBM station on the Wemyss Bay line is no longer considered sufficient to justify services stopping at the station. As a result, all stops at IBM are to be suspended from 9 December 2018 whilst redevelopment options are being progressed for the wider Spango Valley area."

All very well and good but where is the formal closure process?

So what you're saying is that Scotrail foolishly consulted with people such as the local authority, the transport partnership, Transport Scotland, the landowners and potential developers instead of consulting a wide variety of random rail enthusiasts.

Disgraceful behaviour!

 

[LOL The Irony]

But they have replacement buses (provided by local bus routes).

As does IBM. And there's no reason to visit IBM as Felix's pictures show, there's nothing there.

 

[Altnabreac]

But they have replacement buses (provided by local bus routes).

But this is a station where the only legal users are those accessing the privately owned industrial site. And the legal users appear to have been consulted and do not wish there to be any replacement bus service. So problem solved.

 

[InOban]

BTW the bus service is every 30 minutes, twice the frequency of the train.