PAPER C
Purpose : For Decision
ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT SELECT COMMITTEE - 28 NOVEMBER 2001
ISLAND RAIL DEVELOPMENT
REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES
This report is an update in respect of rail development on the Island and gives details of the content of two important consultants reports, recently received. One was commissioned by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) looking into options for the future of the existing Ryde - Shanklin rail line. The other, prepared by the same Consultants on behalf of the Council, was asked to examine the longer term options of extending the line into Ventnor, Newport and Cowes and options for light rail use.
Both reports have been made available for consultation and Members are invited to endorse the response to the SRA report and make recommendations with regard the Council's own study.
BACKGROUND
The Islandline franchise was due to expire at the end of September 2001, but this has been extended for an additional two years, so as to give sufficient time for the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) to refranchise the line. This has allowed the Council the opportunity to consider options for the future rail development on the Island. Members will be aware that the Unitary Development Plan, adopted in May 2001, contains policies to support and encourage the retention and extension of the existing Ryde - Shanklin line and protect disused rail routes for future sustainable transport use. (Policy TR18)
Gibb Transport Consulting, has now finalised the two rail reports. The first one, commissioned by the SRA after consultation with the Council, looked at possible heavy and light rail options for the existing Ryde - Shanklin route, over a 10, 20 and 30 year timescale. The other commissioned by the Council was a high level, "scoping study" looking at the potential for the redevelopment of lines for light rail use and reopening routes back into Ventnor, Newport and Cowes.
Members will have already received copies of these reports, both of which have been made widely available across the Island. The SRA report has been made available on their website www.sra.gov.uk and both reports and questionnaire are available on the Council's website www.iwight.com.
The SRA have asked that any comments be sent to them, via the Rail Passenger Committee (RPC), to arrive no later than 30 November 2001. The Council has asked that any comments on it's own report be returned to it no later than 4 December 2001.
SRA report
The SRA report focussed on the Ryde - Shanklin line and considered a number of options for development of heavy and light rail, over a 10, 20 and 30 year timescale. The study looked at the existing service, current patronage, condition of rolling stock and infrastructure, such as track, signalling and bridges etc. Extensive consultation was carried out with a wide range of groups including the Council, Islandline, Railtrack, Wightlink, Rail Passenger Committee, Wight Track, IOW Transport 2000, Isle of Wight Tramway and Ventnor Regeneration.
The report considered a number of opportunities for improvement, including rolling stock replacement, driver only operation, construction of a passing loop at Brading and increasing the number of trains per hour.
It set out a number of options under each of the following headings:
Option A: Base Case - no infrastructure changes.
Option B: Heavy Rail investment - retaining 3rd Rail.
Option C: Light Rail investment - DC electric.
Option D: De-electrify - diesel light rail.
It evaluated each of the option groups using a benefit / cost ratio analysis and concluded that option B4, performed significantly better than the others by offering better accessibility, integration and access with Wightlink Ferries.
Option B4 was described as follows:
Invest in track upgrade, New loop at Brading, Driver only operation. Newer London Underground Rolling Stock. Fifteen-minute "clockface" frequency between Ryde Pier Head and Shanklin. No pier shuttle trains. Train should be 2 car with some 4 car operation on some summer Saturday trains.
The report suggested that the SRA should give consideration to talking to London Underground Ltd, regarding the purchase of 1983 or 1972 rolling stock. Consider how best to achieve maintenance and track renewal and progress service development and infrastructure enhancement options. It concluded that the SRA should consider the findings from the IOW Council sponsored study into route extensions.
Response to the SRA study
The SRA have asked the Rail Passenger Committee (RPC) to distribute copies and collect responses to the report on their behalf. The RPC have sought to simplify the process by distributing a questionnaire, a copy of which is attached. Members are requested to consider the questions raised by the RPC and the following is a synopsis of the questions posed by the RPC, together with a response for your approval. The numbers in brackets refer to the RPC questionnaire.
1 Report assumes no growth in passenger numbers - is this realistic?(1) The report is clear that the number of people using the trains is growing. However, for the purpose of making a robust case for investment it does not take account of other factors such as growth in the tourist market, the Council strategy to increase the numbers of people travelling to the Island without a car, and recent addition of popular attractions along the route, such as the Dinosaur Museum. Any growth in passenger numbers will only serve to reinforce the case.
2 Do you think that extending the railway to Ventnor, Newport and Cowes will substantially increase passenger numbers?(4) The results of the Council's study have indicated a very positive case for extending the line to Newport and slightly less so to Ventnor. It is logical to assume that reopening these lines is bound to increase patronage on the current line, although detailed consideration of this is outside the scope of the brief set by the SRA.
3 Do you think a fixed rail link should be investigated?(7) In terms of the future of Islandline, this question would seem to be irrelevant as a case for retention is clearly made without additional traffic from this source. Members will recall that the issue of a fixed link was raised as an objection to the Unitary Development Plan and discussed during the Public Inquiry. The Inspector was of the opinion that any fixed link would "raise issues far wider than those of concern to the Council because of the impact on the mainland, the Solent and existing ferry services". He did "not feel it appropriate to stipulate that only a rail link would be acceptable" and concluded that a proposal for a fixed link "would be called-in by the Secretary of State" and "that a public Inquiry would be needed". The Council debated the issue on 27 July 1999, where they resolved the following: "That this Council affirms its opposition to the concept of affixed link due to its effect on the social and physical environment of the unique character of the Island". Whilst the Council would be interested in the outcome of any such a study, it has made its position on a fixed link clear and has not identified funding another study as a priority within the aims and objectives of the Local Transport Plan.
4 Should driver only operation be introduced?(10) Whilst this is clearly an operational issue, discussions with the Islandline Manager and others has raised a number of concerns which I believe members may wish to support. These include concerns with regard to passenger safety, need to install and "man" barriers at all stations, potential difficulty in purchasing tickets on the train and using non standard tickets at barriers.
5 Is there a need to improve integration with ferries and buses?(13) The Local Transport Plan seeks to create an integrated transport system on the Island. Integration with ferries can be difficult at times, particularly where the ferry is delayed and the train cannot wait, due to timetable and physical constraints dictated by current line conditions. It is considered that the creation of a new passing loop at Brading would allow the train to operate a more flexible timetable. This option is addressed in the report in option B4. Which suggests a 15 minute service, thus reducing considerably the impact of late ferry running. The Council is seeking better rail / bus integration at Shanklin Station and would suggest that the new franchise should include the need for any operator to ensure bus connections are easily available from the station yard to Ventnor. The nearest bus stop is currently located some distance from the station and the current service appears to be operated as competition to the train, rather than as part of an integrated system. A bus link from Sandown Station to the town and Dinosaur Museum is also desirable.
6 Which of the option included in the report would you like to see implemented?(17) Option B4 appears to offer the best service, subject to earlier reservations regarding Driver only Operation. It includes the construction of a new loop at Brading and a fifteen-minute frequency.
7 Cost and benefits of railway operation.(21) The Local Transport Plan takes the view that the railway should be seen as part of an integrated transport system, offering benefits to those living on and visiting the Island. Option C would appear to best address these aspirations.
8 Can the Council or others help secure additional services or facilities?(21) The Council is already working with the operator to improve rail facilities. Projects to improve passenger safety have been put in place on a partnership basis and we are looking to redevelop Ryde Interchange and create park and ride facilities at Ryde St Johns and other Stations. It is hoped that other similar schemes may be achievable in the future.
9 How long should the new franchise be?(22) The adoption of a longer franchise (20 year minimum) would the allow the operator and Council the opportunity to better plan future investment and development and ensure integration with other transport services.
General comments
It is considered that the report fails to clearly set out the options for the 10, 20 and 30 year timescale or the advantages / disadvantages of them. Whilst I appreciate that the consultants were give a narrow brief, I believe the report has missed the opportunity to consider the long term potential of the line, in particular options for light rail, possible line extensions, and the need for better integration at Stations and at the Pier Head, and just focussed on the options for the impending franchise replacement in 2003.
Isle of Wight Council Rail Study
The Isle of Wight Council commissioned a high-level study and initial appraisal of options to expand the passenger rail network on the Island.
The report was undertaken by the same consultants who undertook the SRA report and complimented their study into the options for the Ryde to Shanklin route. The consultants examined current train provision, condition and financial feasibility. They looked at the potential to reopen lines to Ventnor, Newport and Cowes and considered a number of traction options including both heavy and light rail. The report highlighted that route options, choice of traction and financial considerations all played a large part when drawing up the final conclusions.
The report arrived at the following conclusions:
Option 1: Ryde - Shanklin, extension to Ventnor
The report stated that the reopening of the line to Ventnor using London Underground Ltd (LUL) rolling stock would "provide ample economic benefits to cover operating costs" but concluded that it provides "a slightly negative economic case when considering the substantial initial infrastructure outlays". The report estimated that the Shanklin - Ventnor extension would be in the region of �15 m (2001 prices to nearest �1m). New light rail options were ruled out on cost grounds.
Option 2: Ryde to Newport
The report looked at the possibility of reopening the line to Newport by sharing the Wootton to Smallbrook steam line. It ruled out using LUL stock on the basis that third rail electrification would not be compatible with the current line use at Havenstreet, but instead recommended the purchase of purpose built diesel railcars. Discussions with the representatives of the I W Steam Railway indicated that the line could be upgraded to the necessary 55mph line speed and the shared use of the heritage line could potentially allow for an hourly service during the day, with additional trains run at peak times, when the heritage steam line is not intensively used. Section 5.2 of the report estimated that the cost of reopening the line to a new Newport, "Barton Station", near Victoria Road would be in the region of �14million.
The report also examined the possibility of creating an alternative to the Quay by taking a route along the bulk of the original line, but diverting to cross the A3054, North Fairlee Road, and then alongside the river to a small halt on the Quay. This option would require the purchase and operation of light rail units capable of street running. The report costed this option at �16million and ruled it out on the basis that light rail vehicles would not be compatible with the heavy steam rolling stock at Havenstreet and would therefore be highly unlikely to fulfil the safety requirements of Her Majesty's Rail Inspectorate (HMRI) The possibility of bringing light rail into Newport Town Centre was considered and estimated to be in the region of �20 million. However problems of compatibility with the steam railway ruled this option out.
Option 3: Ryde - Newport - Cowes
The consultants examined the possibility of creating a rail line from the new Newport (Barton Station (described in option 2 above) and onto Cowes. It concluded that although such an option "would provide substantial economic benefits", it was clear that a considerable amount of work would be required to get a route through Newport and onto the old Cowes line. They concluded that the rail option "offered little benefit to the passenger" compared to the bus and were of the opinion that the economic benefits "are insufficient to cover the very substantial initial infrastructure outlays", costed at �34 million.
The consultants report suggested that the:
(a) Ryde - Newport route (option 2 - using purpose built diesel units ) should be further examined through a full feasibility study.
(b) Extension to Ventnor (option 1 - 3rd rail, LUL rail stock) should also be considered in more detail, particularly in terms of its transport benefits and social accessibility value.
The Consultants suggested that the report be used as a basis for further discussions with the SRA and Isle of Wight Steam Railway. They supported moves to ensure better integration with other transport modes and felt that better rail/ bus links should be investigated in particular the Shanklin to Ventnor link, prior to any rail link being established.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
It is anticipated that the development and improvement to the Ryde to Shanklin line will achieved primarily through the refranchising of the route prior to 2003. This is the responsibility of the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) and any future train operating company. This may not necessarily involve the Council in any expense.
Funding for any further, more detailed rail studies, as suggested by the consultants would have to be found from within existing budget allocations. Estimated cost for such studies could be in excess of �70,000.
RECOMMENDATIONS
SRA report
(1) That Members endorse the response to the SRA report
(2) That the SRA be asked that the following be included in the franchise agreement:
(i) That a sum of money be made available for the improvement of integrated transport on the Island.
(ii) That a sum of money be made available to fund necessary investigations into the extension of the railway from Ryde to Newport and Shanklin to Ventnor.
(iii) That better integration with other transport modes should be achieved with particular reference to the establishment of Shanklin to Ventnor and Sandown bus link.
IW Council Rail Study
That Members recommend to the Executive that:
(a) A further more detailed study be commissioned for the Ryde - Newport route as a matter of urgency.
(b) A further more detailed study be commissioned for a rail extension to Ventnor as a matter of urgency.
(c) The report should be used as a basis for further discussions with the SRA and DTLR.
(d) Comments received during the consultation process be fully considered at a future date.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Islandline Replacement Review - Executive Summary (Gibb Transport Consulting)
Rail Study for the Isle of Wight Council - Executive Summary (Jacobs Consultancy, previously Gibb Transport Consulting)
Unitary Development Plan - Transport Section, policy TR18
Local Transport Plan (2001-2006) - paragraphs C.2.26, C.2.27, D.6.5, D.6.6, D.6.7
Local Transport Plan - Annual Progress Report (2001) paragraphs D2, G9 and G13 (Ryde Interchange)
Contact point: Chris Wells, Local Transport Planner 823640
M J A FISHER
Strategic Director
Corporate and Environment Services
QUESTIONNAIRE ON OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF ISLANDLINE
(RPC Questionnaire)
In case you would find it helpful, we have compiled this questionnaire. But do not feel limited just to answering these questions if there are other comments that you would like to make.
1. The conclusions in the report are based on the assumption that there would be no growth in passenger numbers. Do you think that this is realistic?
2. If yes, why?
3. If no, why not?
4. The Isle of Wight Council has commissioned a separate study to consider the case for, and the costs of, extending Islandline to Ventnor with potential integration with the existing Isle of Wight Steam Railway to provide passenger services through Smallbrook from Ryde to Newport and possibly on to Cowes. Do you think that extending the railway in that way would substantially increase passenger numbers?
5. If yes, why?
6. If no, why not?
7. The consultants were not asked to consider the costs and feasibility of a fixed rail link to the mainland. Do you think this option should be investigated?
8. If yes, why?
9. If no, why not?
10. Most of the options presented in the report for investing in improvements to Islandline services are based on the assumption that the conductor/guards would go and that the trains would become driver only operated (DOO). Do you think that this is a good or bad idea?
11. If you think this is a good idea, why?
12. If you think this is a bad idea, why?
13. One of the key messages that came out of our February conference on Islandline was that existing connections with ferries and buses were poor. The report quotes Wightlink ferry company as suggesting that at least ten minutes should be allowed between leaving the train and boarding the ferry, instead of the present three to five minutes. Do you agree?
14. If yes, why?
15. If no, why not?
16. What improvements to Islandline would you personally like to see?
17. Which, if any, of the options put forward in the consultants' report would you like to see implemented?
18. Which of the following best sums up your view, and why?
a. Should the future of the railway depend on the costs and revenues specific to Islandline (ie the income received from ticket sales plus the subsidy received from the Strategic Rail Authority balanced against the costs of operating the railway)?
b. Or should it be based on the costs versus revenue to other transport operators who benefit from Islandline bookings, both on the mainland and on the Island itself?
c. Or should benefits such as reduced traffic congestion, better access for disabled people and benefits to the Island's tourist economy also be taken into account?
(NO QUESTIONS 19 & 20)
21. Is there a case for the Council or Island businesses, which would benefit from the railway, securing additional services or facilities which may not otherwise be affordable?
22. The report suggests that, while the present railway is safe, more money will need to be invested in maintaining the infrastructure to avoid costly problems in the long term but that a short train company franchise discourages this. Would you be in favour of a longer franchise - of 20 to 30 years - if more investment were made a condition of it?
23. If yes, why?
24. If no why not?
25. Do you have any other comments?