RailUK Forums
RailUK Forums > UK Railway Forums > Infrastructure & Stations

Click to visit us on Facebook

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 23rd April 2013, 10:08   #196
Liam
Member
 
Join Date: 29 Dec 2010
Posts: 938
Default

Tweedbank: half of it is an Industrial estate, the other half is a new village expanded since the late 90's, Borders General hospital is nearby too. I think if they could have rebuilt the line as far as Melrose they would have, but the Melrose bypass is now on the old trackbed.
Liam is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored links - Registered users do not see these banners - join today!
Old 23rd April 2013, 10:10   #197
DaveNewcastle
admiring the bridges
Fares Advisor
 
DaveNewcastle's Avatar
 
Join Date: 21 Dec 2007
Location: Newcastle (unless I'm out)
Posts: 5,868
Default

Tweedbank is a relatively new 'business park' and residential estate to the east of Galashiels, in between the old Melrose Road and the new bypass, and between Galashiels and the huge Borders General Hospital. There's also a sports and leisure complex there, in the plain of the Tweed valley.

In recent decades, Galashiels has expanded eastwards into that plain and many of the hopes for its continued growth lie in this area. As it includes much undeveloped land, it is also easy to envisage a large car park, creating a park and ride facility for rail commuters from the broader Borders region.
DaveNewcastle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2013, 10:54   #198
Paul Sidorczuk
Xenophon philosopher
Established Member
 
Paul Sidorczuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: 17 Apr 2011
Location: Extremely posh, even by Cheshire standards (Better than Alderley Edge or Wilmslow)
Posts: 14,256
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveNewcastle View Post
In recent decades, Galashiels has expanded eastwards into that plain and many of the hopes for its continued growth lie in this area. As it includes much undeveloped land, it is also easy to envisage a large car park, creating a park and ride facility for rail commuters from the broader Borders region.
How is Galashiels seen in terms of strategic planning terms by the Scottish Government and what formal statements have been made by them on this matter.
__________________
"A cynic, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin" -H.L.Mencken.
Sent from my stone monolith using cuneiform and runic symbols.
Paul Sidorczuk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2013, 12:07   #199
cuccir
Established Member
 
Join Date: 18 Nov 2009
Posts: 1,778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveNewcastle View Post
As it includes much undeveloped land, it is also easy to envisage a large car park, creating a park and ride facility for rail commuters from the broader Borders region.
I think this is a crucial factor of it - it will mean that passengers from Jedburgh, Kelso, Selkirk and Melrose won't have to drive into Galashiels itself - could pretty much half the road-journey time compared to a station in the middle of Galashiels, once parking etc is taken into consideration.
cuccir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2013, 12:23   #200
snowball
Member
 
Join Date: 4 Mar 2013
Location: Leeds
Posts: 772
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liam View Post
Tweedbank: half of it is an Industrial estate, the other half is a new village expanded since the late 90's, Borders General hospital is nearby too. I think if they could have rebuilt the line as far as Melrose they would have, but the Melrose bypass is now on the old trackbed.
Here's Melrose station seen from the bypass.

The bypass would not prevent extending the line that far. It's when you try to go beyond Melrose station that it becomes a problem.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the reason for stopping at Tweedbank is that if the line went any further, extra units would be needed to cover the timetabled services, and this would not be worthwhile for the short extra distance to Melrose.
snowball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2013, 18:58   #201
reb0118
Fares Advisor
 
reb0118's Avatar
 
Join Date: 28 Jan 2010
Location: Bo'ness, West Lothian
Posts: 1,837
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davetheguard View Post

Is Tweedbank, a village, a new suburb/housing area, or is it the name of a local district?
This may help?
__________________
"In every city & every nation from Lake Geneva to the Finland Station" ~ Karl Marx
reb0118 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2013, 19:59   #202
railjock
Member
 
Join Date: 30 Jun 2012
Posts: 95
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davetheguard View Post
As someone who has never visited the area (mainly because it hasn't got a station!), but also as someone who has been closely following plans for the railway's welcome re-instatement, can I ask a question about Tweedbank itself?

Is Tweedbank, a village, a new suburb/housing area, or is it the name of a local district? My reprint of the 1955 railway atlas shows a station at Galashiels, followed by an unnamed junction for a branch to Selkirk, and finally Melrose station (before continuing on to Carlisle/ Tweedmouth). No station or halt in-between: no "Tweedmouth"

Hopefully, local posters will forgive my ignorance, and be able to answer my question.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I did of course mean "no station or halt in-between: no Tweedbank" in my previous post. (Not Tweedmouth).
It's basically a 'suburb' of Galashiels on the southern outskirts.
railjock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th April 2013, 07:27   #203
clc
Member
 
Join Date: 31 Oct 2011
Posts: 275
Default

Here's a link to the Final Business Case if it's of interest to anyone:
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/...ion_issued.pdf
clc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th April 2013, 10:37   #204
snowball
Member
 
Join Date: 4 Mar 2013
Location: Leeds
Posts: 772
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by railjock View Post
It's basically a 'suburb' of Galashiels on the southern outskirts.
More east than south.
snowball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th April 2013, 20:10   #205
railjock
Member
 
Join Date: 30 Jun 2012
Posts: 95
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowball View Post
More east than south.
Pedant.
railjock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th April 2013, 21:56   #206
route:oxford
Established Member
 
Join Date: 1 Nov 2008
Posts: 2,682
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowball View Post
[url=http://goo.gl/maps/Zk2Eh]The bypass would not prevent extending the line that far. It's when you try to go beyond Melrose station that it becomes a problem.
The bypass could always be moved to the other side of the river.
route:oxford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th April 2013, 23:17   #207
snowball
Member
 
Join Date: 4 Mar 2013
Location: Leeds
Posts: 772
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by route:oxford View Post
The bypass could always be moved to the other side of the river.
That would be vastly expensive and environmentally damaging. More likely they'd knock down a few houses. The difficult stretch is quite short.
snowball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th April 2013, 23:22   #208
Eagle
has feathers
Established Member
 
Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: 21 Feb 2011
Location: Leamingrad / Blanfrancisco
Posts: 7,108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by route:oxford View Post
The bypass could always be moved to the other side of the river.
Or the railway could go the other side of the river, and then you wouldn't have to tear the whole road up. There's no need for the railway to follow its old route, especially where it's built upon as here.
Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th April 2013, 00:32   #209
snowball
Member
 
Join Date: 4 Mar 2013
Location: Leeds
Posts: 772
Default

I agree that there's no need for the railway to follow its old route, and I'm not suggesting that there's any need to tear up the whole, or indeed any, of the bypass.

I'm suggesting that the simplest route through central Melrose would be to cling to the north side of the bypass. This would involve demolishing a few properties near the crossing over the B6359.

The location and orientation of the station at Tweedbank suggest to me that the powers that be are probably thinking along similar lines, and are not thinking of crossing the river (which incidentally would require two big expensive new bridges, one to get to the north side, and another to get back again once past Melrose).

However my familiarity with the area is limited and I am going from large-scale maps.

Edit: Looking at Google streetview and Bing bird's-eye view it might be just possible without demolition. Maybe the bypass was designed to leave a sufficient strip of land?

Last edited by snowball; 25th April 2013 at 01:03.
snowball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th April 2013, 08:15   #210
fegguk
Member
 
Join Date: 11 Sep 2012
Location: Hawick
Posts: 53
Default

Extending the railway beyond Tweedbank towards Hawick would be relatively straight forward though not particularly cheap. A few houses would need to be demolished though not that much environmental impact, far less than the roads that have been built over the last 40 years.

The Solum is more or less intact as far as the old station. A bridge would be required under the Tweedbank Melrose road B6360, a house has been built on the line at Darnick.

Beyond the station the by pass encroaches on the solum a few houses would need to be demolished here to realign the bypass further south and probably create a new road junction into Melrose. The railway could then follow its original route if the existing junction into the town off the bypass was closed.

It then would need to go under the bypass near the instead junction beyond which the road has been built on the railway solum. It would then need to go under the A68 south of the Ravenswood roundabout. Another bridge is required under the A68 (Newtown) bypass. It can probably be squeezed past the industrial units car park (new station sire?) and auction mart, beyond which the sheltered housing would need to be removed and the old bridge restored across the old A68. Beyond there has been very little development or new roads other a few over bridges which have been removed. Approaching Hawick a bridge would be required over Burnfoot Road. The station could be built near the Leisure centre.

Beyond Hawick it starts to get expensive again due to new roads and viaduct demolition.

Itís a question of whether a economic case can be made for extension rather than whether it technically feasible. This will depend ultimately on how successful the new line is.

Last edited by fegguk; 25th April 2013 at 08:18. Reason: spelling
fegguk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 16:05.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright © 2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© RailUK Forums 2005 - 2014