URBAN TRANSIT NEWS

The operating company, Bristol Electric Railbus Ltd., has plans for extensions initially on to the Create Centre, which is home to Bristol City Council’s Environmental department as well as many other environmental organisations. Neither the Great Britain nor the Create Centre is well served by public transport (other than by ferry) so there is the possibility of becoming a useful public service. Further extensions to Long Ashton P+R or to connect with a suggested reopening of the Portishead rail line are under consideration.

Originally timed to open mid-Summer 1998, the opening date was recently eased back to October 1998 and now looks almost certain to fall back further, possibly to to 1999. Tram No.1 was delivered in February, but No. 2 only arrived today, 3 weeks behind schedule. Four should have been delivered by now. Trams should be being delivered at the rate of one per week. Without an adequate fleet of trams the 50 drivers who have already been recruited cannot be trained and familiarised with the route, which necessarily involves several months effort. The Railway Inspectorate also require at least 6 weeks full operation without passengers before it will allow new systems to open for public service.

Phil Bateman, spokesman for operators Travel Midland Metro (a National Express Group plc group member) is reported as commenting: "Everybody here is frustrated. It's a good system, an exciting system, and we are all champing at the bit to get on with it."

Wight Track, a campaigning group launched in February 1998, and proposing a low cost solution based on battery or diesel powered light rail vehicles, believe that the "Island Metro" group's ideas are ill-considered and unrealistic, involving, as they do, overhead electrification of all the railway lines on the island and building some 5 miles of new track in addition to the reopening of disused lines which is proposed by Wight Track. The Chairman of the Council agreed, at the conclusion of the meeting, to take to his council the idea of undertaking a feasability study.
LRTA Secretary General Bob Tarr commented: The Isle of Wight is a unique situation - not only is it a small island separated from mainland Britain, but its population varies greatly between winter, when it has only 124,600 resident population (1994) and summer, when that population is swelled by several times as many tourists - most of whom are probably car borne (thus the traffic congestion problems). The largest town on the island has only 25,000 population (Newport, the island's administrative capital). The problems of sustaining the present railway infrastructure on the island are considerable, let alone developing it. The Wight Track Group's approach of a deliberately low cost approach seems to give the best chance of achieving the aim of a better and more extensive rail service on the island. Island Metro's proposal of a £60m scheme looks like a flight of fancy - who will come up with the £60m? There seems zero chance of any significant government money given other demands on the mainland, the Island Council, even if it was willing to tax island residents with the cost would need government approval for the capital expenditure and, for any new or re-opened lines, powers from the government. Railtrack, which owns the existing Island Line lines might make a modest investment, as might Stagecoach PLC which operates them - but only if it gets a renewed franchise. The best bet (literally!) might be the National Lottery Fund - but as this works on the basis of levering funds from other sources a guess might be that if £50m was in place from other contributors, maybe £10m might be got from the Lottery if a good enough case could be made. Whether the practical realities of importing and refurbishing and getting H.M.Railway Inspector's approval to the use of old Eastern European trams are realised by Island Metro is yet another doubt. Altogether the Island Metro proposal looks to me like a timewasting distraction from the real task of working out how, over a period of years a phased development programme, probably in chunks of not more than £4m to £5m at a time and totalling perhaps a third or a half Island Metro's total of £60m, can be achieved - this is likely to be difficult enough! Island Metro is not known to have a wealthy philanthropist backing it, and the commercial case for investment to be repaid from passenger revenues is not likely to justify more than a small percentage of the £60m. Friday 10 April 1998.