Petition launched to demand re-opening of Dumfries-Stranraer railway line

[najaB]

Nobody is going to build a new railway with 1tp4h frequency. That is delusional.

Just as delusional as believing that such a small population would be able to support anything like an hourly train service.

 

[Sandy R]

1) because that's how long it takes to plan major new railway construction from concept to commissioning. 5 years to do feasibility, develop, consult the public, refine, outline design, get consent, get funding. Another year or two to do detail design, mobilise and buy the land off people who don't want to sell. 3-4 years to build. Up to a year to test. That's 10-12 years, but some can overlap. It was the same for Borders, major parts of the WC upgrade, ELL, Airdrie - Bathgate, HS1, HS2 etc etc.

2) correct. That is why you are required to use official government forecasts.

3) £845m at 2015 is already £858m at 2016. Guess what it would be, at 2% a year, by 2024 (likely mid point of construction, as required for assessment in business cases).

4) it works for me. Unlike this proposal. *out*

g

1,279 people in 10 1/2 days disagree with you.

122 per day.

By the time I finish typing this response the number will be up.

The Dumfries-Lockerbie petition has gathered just 789 since May 2nd, that's 89 days.

That's less than 9 per day.

On paper that may look a better proposal, links Dumfries to Edinburgh in around 1 hour 20 minutes, only 14/5 miles of line to reinstate etc etc.

Sometimes things get done that don't look good on paper, look unfeasible, but are wanted, through determination, desire and will.

As ive already said if the Scottish government can find £3 billion (albeit over 13/14 years) to dual the A9 in its entirety in a rural area, a quarter of that can be spent here.

There are political reasons ,which I have already outlined ,that will count against the money coming here, but they may not be insurmountable.

Im well aware a BCR done on local traffic alone would be laughed out of the window, but when all the other factors are taken into consideration, its a different story.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just as delusional as believing that such a small population would be able to support anything like an hourly train service.

Where did I say hourly ?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Nobody is going to build a new railway with 1tp4h frequency. That is delusional.

What service frequency do you need to make the line viable, what is the demand going to be for freight and for passenger ?

The key questions you need to answer are

What's the current volume and tonnage of freight going through Cairnryan ?

What are its principle destinations, are they rail connected and if not, what cost to connect them. Does connecting them make rail more attractive than road in any case ?

Freight which could use rail - can it be converted to piggyback freight or can it be containerised ?

What speed and transport time would be needed to offset increased cost, if that can be done ?

Then you need to work out the available capacity on the route, including the signalling constrains and how you would add additional capacity.

I've had a look at the capacity of the ferries, and a look at the sort of weights and tonnages of freight you could manage on the route, and from what I can see, without extensive doubling of the alignment, you won't have enough paths per hour to move all the freight coming into Cairnryan, though that's on the assumption of converting everything that's not a car to containerised or piggyback freight.

If you can't shift almost all of the freight to rail (highly likely) then you don't have enough on the railway to make the line viable, with or without doubling of the route.

This is assuming very high utilisation of freight capacity on the ferries - what are the numbers P&O and Stena quote for utilisation ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Im well aware a BCR done on local traffic alone would be laughed out of the window, but when all the other factors are taken into consideration, its a different story.

Do the BCR and give us the figures, and don't fudge the cost.

If you need data on permanent way costs (though you've got it all already), electrification, rolling stock, signalling, pathing constraints etc, we're all here and will provide you with all the information you need.

 

[Sandy R]

I do have some local knowledge, although you'll forgive me if I don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of provisional bus routes in a town in which I don't currently live. I do not know of any plans for park and ride facilties near the hospital, but I think that is an ideal location.



There is no active railway line next to the hospital. I would be happy for a station to be built if there was an active railway line running nearby. It would be utterly foolish to build a line to a new hospital based on there being an old trackbed nearby. And I've already explained why I think a line to Stranraer is foolish.



My point exactly! It's delusional to think that anything greater than 1tp2h is warranted, and it's delusional to think that any such project will therefore be built.

Limerick to Galway proves you wrong.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What service frequency do you need to make the line viable, what is the demand going to be for freight and for passenger ?

The key questions you need to answer are

What's the current volume and tonnage of freight going through Cairnryan ?

What are its principle destinations, are they rail connected and if not, what cost to connect them. Does connecting them make rail more attractive than road in any case ?

Freight which could use rail - can it be converted to piggyback freight or can it be containerised ?

What speed and transport time would be needed to offset increased cost, if that can be done ?

Then you need to work out the available capacity on the route, including the signalling constrains and how you would add additional capacity.

I've had a look at the capacity of the ferries, and a look at the sort of weights and tonnages of freight you could manage on the route, and from what I can see, without extensive doubling of the alignment, you won't have enough paths per hour to move all the freight coming into Cairnryan, though that's on the assumption of converting everything that's not a car to containerised or piggyback freight.

If you can't shift almost all of the freight to rail (highly likely) then you don't have enough on the railway to make the line viable, with or without doubling of the route.

This is assuming very high utilisation of freight capacity on the ferries - what are the numbers P&O and Stena quote for utilisation ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Do the BCR and give us the figures, and don't fudge the cost.

If you need data on permanent way costs (though you've got it all already), electrification, rolling stock, signalling, pathing constraints etc, we're all here and will provide you with all the information you need.

I've never proposed electrification, you did.
I also didn't say anything like the majority of freight could be carried on the line, only a percentage. I'm not going to suggest a figure because I already know the doom and gloom merchants on here will shoot it down in flames regardless of its accuracy/inaccuracy.
FYI the line was a double track alignment between Dumfries and CD, 19.75 miles.
People need to stop putting words in my mouth, as per above, someone suggested I said a passenger frequency of 1tph, when I said no such thing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Traffic is not that bad in Dumfries (certainly no worse than lots of other towns with multiple railway lines), and if parking is a problem perhaps the solution is to build more parking spaces. It's much cheaper and easier than building a rail line.

The railway line, if built, would have a low frequency (think 1tp2h at the very best, more likely 1tp3h or 1tp4h). It is delusional to think that these low frequencies are going to encourage huge shift onto rail in a rural and remote area. Most people in D&G will always need to have cars, unlike in the Central Belt where a denser population allows for a better public transport infrastructure.

I live in Dumfries and at peak times traffic is bad.
I for one don't want to see a single extra car parking space in Dumfries just encouraging more traffic into the town, we live in the 21 st century now, and should be looking at greener alternatives.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hence my suggestion earlier to buy everyone a car and pay for a driver - cheaper than this railway and provides ongoing employment too.


Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

It perhaps would be cheaper, but a disaster for the environment, pollution, road accidents, , public health etc etc

 

[najaB]

As ive already said if the Scottish government can find £3 billion (albeit over 13/14 years) to dual the A9 in its entirety in a rural area, a quarter of that can be spent here.

You mean the road that is the main link between the Central Belt and the approximately 200K people who live in the highlands? That is already the most dangerous road in Scotland, largely due to the long single carriageway sections?

Where did I say hourly ?

You didn't. But if you are promoting a railway on the basis of modal shift from the car and bus, then hourly is the minimum requirement. Why would I switch from an hourly (or better) bus service to a one train every two hours service?

 

[Sandy R]

I'm still unconvinced you know what you're talking about.

Beattock, which is a major headache for diesel hauled freight, has a gradient ranging from 1 in 74 to 1 in 88. That's why we prefer it's used by electric locomotives on freight. I'm sure there's plenty of drivers around here who can tell you exactly how slow you'll reach the summit with a Class 66 diesel locomotive at the helm (hint - it can be single digit mph), and how they'll be having to reduce power on their electric locomotives to stop them exceeding the linespeed with the same length and weight of train.

Your route has 6 miles of 1 in 80 between Palnure and Gatehouse of Fleet, 1 in 73 for 3 miles outside Dumfries and plenty of miles or two miles stretches where it's 1 in 75 up and 1 in 75 down the other side of a peak. The 1 in 85 incline just out of Stranraer isn't going to be good news for freight either.

Those are the sort of inclines which will catch out a diesel locomotive on occasion, with them coming to a halt and needing banked, autumn and leaf fall season in particular will be an issue, obviously the same issues affect an electric locomotive, but if it's slipping doing 50mph, it will have enough momentum to get out of the most trouble, a diesel doing 15mph will be coming to a halt.

It's a not infrequent occurrence on things like the Highland Main Line with the Tesco/Russell boxes - loaded with anything upto 20 swapbody containers - has had difficulty in the past reaching Inverness. The sleeper has run into trouble on the WHL heading to Fort William with the four coach sleeper.

The reality is you'll need to electrify the route if you're remotely serious about getting significant quantities of freight off the road network and providing competitive journey times. You would also really want to use the regenerative braking capabilities of a modern AC locomotive given the gradients involved, and given adhesion issues, I'd suggest something like the Class 92.

Electrification will be expensive for the reasons I've outlined, particularly the feeding arrangements at the Stranraer end of the route.

The business case for the route would need significant freight traffic - the Class 92 is a 5MW locomotive, the Class 88 is 4MW, running, whilst you won't need the most powerful feeding arrangements, it will still need substantial feeding arrangements. You've also got to electrify the route from Dumfries in both directions - Kilmarnock would be the limit of electrification by the time this scheme was at the build stage.

Kilmarnock to Gretna Junction is ~270 single track kilometres (stk) of electrification, Dumfries to Stranraer I'd cost at around 100 stk but would need to know the precise length of track on the route to be electrified, so double track, passing loops, sidings, bay platforms etc.

Ive never proposed electrification, wouldn't have a hope in hell of happening with those extra costs added in.

 

[najaB]

It perhaps would be cheaper, but a disaster for the environment, pollution, road accidents, , public health etc etc

Electric vehicles powered by renewable energy then. Still cheaper.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ive never proposed electrification, wouldn't have a hope in hell of happening with those extra costs added in.

Without electrification, (a) freight is almost certain not to happen due to the adverse gradients; and (b) all that diesel haulage will be "a disaster for the environment, pollution, road accidents, public health, etc."

 

[Sandy R]

You mean the road that is the main link between the Central Belt and the approximately 200K people who live in the highlands? That is already the most dangerous road in Scotland, largely due to the long single carriageway sections?
You didn't. But if you are promoting a railway on the basis of modal shift from the car and bus, then hourly is the minimum requirement. Why would I switch from an hourly (or better) bus service to a one train every two hours service?

The current bus service is variable, but over the course of the day, approximately two hourly.
I'll stick my neck out here (watch the naysayers shoot me down in flames)
and suggest a basic two-hourly all line service, supplemented by hourly peak services, or two-hourly all line with hourly at the eastern end where more of the population is.
Alloa (pop19,000 approx) has a an hourly , to be increased to half hourly ALLEGEDLY) service.
The combined pops of CD, Dalbeattie, Kirkcudbright are 13,000 , with surrounding areas, 16,000 which may just about support that.

And at that im packing it in. If I stay on this forum much longer i'll be jumping off the Bridge Street bridge in Lockerbie in front of the one of the hourly Pendolinos whizzing through.

Id mistakenly thought this was a PRO-rail forum. How naïve of me, eh ?

 

[najaB]

Id mistakenly thought this was a PRO-rail forum. How naïve of me, eh ?

Pro-rail, but also pro-reality. If you have a look around you'll see plenty of support for schemes that have realistic chances of actually happening.

Being pro-rail doesn't mean blind support for every random proposal throw billions of pounds at (re)opening lines that have no business case behind them.

 

[me123]

Limerick to Galway proves you wrong.

Huh? Limerick to Galway is in Ireland. It's had lots of state support. It links towns that are both bigger than Dumfries, and that both manage to support a rail service a major city (Dublin). It's not directly comparable.

I live in Dumfries and at peak times traffic is bad.
I for one don't want to see a single extra car parking space in Dumfries just encouraging more traffic into the town, we live in the 21 st century now, and should be looking at greener alternatives.

Everyone thinks traffic in their town is bad, when in reality it's bad just about everywhere in the peak times. Building railway lines is not always the answer.

The traffic in Dumfries is nowhere near as bad as the congestion in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee, East Kilbride, Hamilton, Paisley, Kilmarnock, Coatbridge...

 

[Sandy R]

You mean the road that is the main link between the Central Belt and the approximately 200K people who live in the highlands? That is already the most dangerous road in Scotland, largely due to the long single carriageway sections?
You didn't. But if you are promoting a railway on the basis of modal shift from the car and bus, then hourly is the minimum requirement. Why would I switch from an hourly (or better) bus service to a one train every two hours service?

The bus service isn't hourly , as I just said , broadly two-hourly
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Huh? Limerick to Galway is in Ireland. It's had lots of state support. It links towns that are both bigger than Dumfries, and that both manage to support a rail service a major city (Dublin). It's not directly comparable.



Everyone thinks traffic in their town is bad, when in reality it's bad just about everywhere in the peak times. Building railway lines is not always the answer.

The traffic in Dumfries is nowhere near as bad as the congestion in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee, East Kilbride, Hamilton, Paisley, Kilmarnock, Coatbridge...

Which are all bigger towns than Dumfries.
So 'not directly comparable'.

 

[me123]

Ok, let's add to that list...

Elgin, Motherwell, Bathgate, Renfrew, Wishaw, Bellshill, Dumbarton... all smaller than Dumfries, all busy in the rush hours. All but one even has rail links.

But then, they're smaller than Dumfries, so presumably you'll say they're still not directly comparable. This whole exchange reminds me of the realistic prospects of reopening a line between Dumfries and Stranraer... going absolutely nowhere.

 

[HSTEd]

In Irish Sea crossing isn't ever going to happen.

I'm not so sure, Northern Ireland will continue to be an economic basket case, partially due to terrible transport links forever if nothing is done.
A crossing would allow cheaper and easier access to markets in Great Britain, especially if it was a drive through crossing as I would prefer in an ideal world, and it would also be the kind of statement of intent that might actually preserve the union in the current climate.

It would also allow people living in Northern Ireland to work in the significantly richer Scottish central belt and commute back to Northern Ireland - which could significantly increase economic activity in Northern IReland by injecting money that simply does not exist otherwise.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm not so sure, Northern Ireland will continue to be an economic basket case, partially due to terrible transport links forever if nothing is done.
A crossing would allow cheaper and easier access to markets in Great Britain, especially if it was a drive through crossing as I would prefer in an ideal world, and it would also be the kind of statement of intent that might actually preserve the union in the current climate.

It would also allow people living in Northern Ireland to work in the significantly richer Scottish central belt and commute back to Northern Ireland - which could significantly increase economic activity in Northern IReland by injecting money that simply does not exist otherwise.

It would require that the UK government gives a toss about Northern Ireland. Bear in mind the province has effectively a written constitution which means it could leave the UK at short notice should a majority of the people wish it to be so.

How long would such a massive investment take to break even? How long is Northern Ireland even guaranteed to be a part of the U.K.? (Clue: *guaranteed*? Zero years)

It's a poor long term investment from UK Gov't perspective so it won't happen.

 

[JohnB57]

I'm not so sure, Northern Ireland will continue to be an economic basket case, partially due to terrible transport links forever if nothing is done.
A crossing would allow cheaper and easier access to markets in Great Britain, especially if it was a drive through crossing as I would prefer in an ideal world, and it would also be the kind of statement of intent that might actually preserve the union in the current climate.

It would also allow people living in Northern Ireland to work in the significantly richer Scottish central belt and commute back to Northern Ireland - which could significantly increase economic activity in Northern IReland by injecting money that simply does not exist otherwise.

I have spent a lot of time in Ireland, north and south, over the last three years and I would pass two comments on that.

Firstly, there is no empirical evidence that the province is a "basket-case". Belfast has its own inner city problems but they don't seem any worse than those in any other similar city throughout the British Isles. Rural communities seem no worse off on average than those in England, Wales and Scotland. There is a perception however that things are much better in Great Britain - prices cheaper, wages higher, etc - but in my experience this is not true if you look at similar areas both side of the water.

Secondly, you think the people of NI (and RoI, because it would affect them as well) would want a fixed crossing? I think not - and in their position, I'd fight against it too. Ireland is what it is because it's an island.

 

[Sandy R]

Pro-rail, but also pro-reality. If you have a look around you'll see plenty of support for schemes that have realistic chances of actually happening.

Being pro-rail doesn't mean blind support for every random proposal throw billions of pounds at (re)opening lines that have no business case behind them.

'Billions' ??? Havers.

1,284 on the petition now.

Facebook page 1,963 likes.

Borders line, Stow station, Conon Bridge station, all financial basket cases, still got built because of local demand.

If you want to criticise a real basket case , have a look at the petition for Kirkby Stephen to Tebay. Lunacy.

1,287 and rising.......

People power.

 

[HSTEd]

It would require that the UK government gives a toss about Northern Ireland. Bear in mind the province has effectively a written constitution which means it could leave the UK at short notice should a majority of the people wish it to be so.

And how is this different than the glorious precedent set with regards to Scotland and thus every other part of the UK?
Northern Ireland is actually less likely to be able to secede because even the committed unionist side must agree for a vote to be called.

How long would such a massive investment take to break even? How long is Northern Ireland even guaranteed to be a part of the U.K.? (Clue: *guaranteed*? Zero years)

SO no infrastructure must be built anywhere because no part of the UK is guaranteed to be part of the UK by the time it is even finished, let alone broken even.

 

[Sandy R]

Ok, let's add to that list...

Elgin, Motherwell, Bathgate, Renfrew, Wishaw, Bellshill, Dumbarton... all smaller than Dumfries, all busy in the rush hours. All but one even has rail links.

But then, they're smaller than Dumfries, so presumably you'll say they're still not directly comparable. This whole exchange reminds me of the realistic prospects of reopening a line between Dumfries and Stranraer... going absolutely nowhere.

All bar one close to Glasgow.
Not comparable.

As for D-S, we'll see.

You seem to claim the knack of predicting the future.
No doubt you're therefore a Lottery millionaire.
As well as a doom and gloom merchant.

 

[JohnB57]

You seem to claim the knack of predicting the future.
No doubt you're therefore a Lottery millionaire.

If you can't see the difference between an informed, fact-based prediction and the National Lottery, you're doomed.

 

[HSTEd]

Firstly, there is no empirical evidence that the province is a "basket-case". Belfast has its own inner city problems but they don't seem any worse than those in any other similar city throughout the British Isles. Rural communities seem no worse off on average than those in England, Wales and Scotland. There is a perception however that things are much better in Great Britain - prices cheaper, wages higher, etc - but in my experience this is not true if you look at similar areas both side of the water.

It has the highest economic inactivity of working age people of any of the 12 NUTS-1 regions and the third lowest GDP per capita. It's government only functions because of a huge subsidy from mainland GB.

It is certainly not an economic success.

Secondly, you think the people of NI (and RoI, because it would affect them as well) would want a fixed crossing? I think not - and in their position, I'd fight against it too. Ireland is what it is because it's an island.

Perhaps then, if they don't want closer ties with mainland GB, we should cut off the something like £11bn/annum net subsidy that props up the public sector and public services in NOrthern Ireland. Not building infrastructure because of a fear of the outsider coming is not a great position for an economy to be in.

 

[AlterEgo]

And how is this different than the glorious precedent set with regards to Scotland and thus every other part of the UK?
Northern Ireland is actually less likely to be able to secede because even the committed unionist side must agree for a vote to be called.

SO no infrastructure must be built anywhere because no part of the UK is guaranteed to be part of the UK by the time it is even finished, let alone broken even.

I didn't mention Scotland precisely because I believe it'll be outside the UK within ten years.

Your second paragraph is daft. Northern Ireland cannot afford a link to Scotland. Therefore the cost must be underwritten by the UK government rather than the local assembly. NI is different to the rest of the UK because it exists within the union solely on a consent basis, the changing of which is subject to things like social change, cultural association and politics.

The UK policy towards Northern Ireland is solely to implement the institutions agreed in the Belfast Agreement; it actually has no other objective. For better or worse, the governance of Northern Ireland is being devolved to the people who live there. Westminster takes a hands-off approach. Again, this has pros and cons, but I'm afraid one of the cons means that investing billions into a province which has economically underperformed since its inception, and which may or may not vote within the next 50 years to leave the UK, would be a poor use of public money.

In a 300-page document outlining the priorities of the 2015-2020 parliament (available from no good bookshops but from parliament itself), Northern Ireland gets a single page.

I wouldn't apply the same principle to Rochdale, or Weymouth, or Hull - those places aren't comparable in any way to NI.

 

[me123]

All bar one close to Glasgow.
Not comparable.

Not many straws left for you to clutch on to, are there? Can you explain to me how proximity to Glasgow means that heavier traffic is acceptable (or whatever ridiculous point you're trying to make)? I'm not even sure how this is remotely relevant to the discussion any more. You're now picking arguments for the sake of picking arguments.

(BTW, Bathgate is closer to Edinburgh than it is to Glasgow).

I'm not wasting my time on this any more. If you think 1,284 people signing a petition is noteworthy, then good for you. It's not. If you want to waste your time promoting this, then on you go. I don't mean this in a bad way, because it's great to see someone fighting for their local community, and D&G is a community worth fighting for, but I sincerely hope you fail. The money that would be spent on this could be put to much better use elsewhere in your community.

PS - 4, 15, 22, 27, 38, 51. Give it a punt tonight.

 

[JohnB57]

It has the highest economic inactivity of working age people of any of the 12 NUTS-1 regions and the third lowest GDP per capita. It's government only functions because of a huge subsidy from mainland GB.

It is certainly not an economic success.


Perhaps then, if they don't want closer ties with mainland GB, we should cut off the something like £11bn/annum net subsidy that props up the public sector and public services in NOrthern Ireland.

I very carefully used the word "empirical". NI's recent history has left its mark but as a visitor, you wouldn't know it. And I think - and I believe the people of NI do too - that the ties are just fine as they are.

We need to concentrate on helping people to thrive where they are, not where we think they should be.

 

[najaB]

1,287 and rising.......

So based on a cost of c £1B that's around £1M investment per person who has indicated support. Forget a car and driver, it would be cheaper to buy a helicopter and pilot!

You don't get it, do you? Many of the forum members who have contributed to this thread build and maintain railways for a living. I would trust their 'back of an envelope' figures over a Facebook campaign page every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

The BCR of reinstating Dumfries-Stranraer just doesn't make any economic sense, there isn't a large untapped demand, and there's no regeneration argument to be made either.

There simply isn't the container-based freight for it to make sense as a strategic freight route over simply improving the already rail-connected route to Heysham.

As much as I'd like to be able to travel over this route, there are many, many places that would provide much greater social and economic benefit for the same or smaller investment.

When Levenmouth, Peterhead and St Andrews are back on the network, Glasgow crossrail has been completed, the Lentran loop is up and running, Aberdeen to Inverness and the HML have improved/doubled, the GSW has been electrified as has Glasgow to Inverness and Edinburgh to Aberdeen, the Almond chord and Greenhill flying junction have been in use for a while and the Fife Bypass line is complete... then I could see Dumfries-Stranraer being on the table for reopening.

 

[Sandy R]

Not many straws left for you to clutch on to, are there? Can you explain to me how proximity to Glasgow means that heavier traffic is acceptable (or whatever ridiculous point you're trying to make)? I'm not even sure how this is remotely relevant to the discussion any more. You're now picking arguments for the sake of picking arguments.

(BTW, Bathgate is closer to Edinburgh than it is to Glasgow).

I'm not wasting my time on this any more. If you think 1,284 people signing a petition is noteworthy, then good for you. It's not. If you want to waste your time promoting this, then on you go. I don't mean this in a bad way, because it's great to see someone fighting for their local community, and D&G is a community worth fighting for, but I sincerely hope you fail. The money that would be spent on this could be put to much better use elsewhere in your community.

PS - 4, 15, 22, 27, 38, 51. Give it a punt tonight.

Transport here is very poor, that's why im doing this.
1300 signatures from an area like this is in such a short space of time is significant.
This is a railway thread so im making no comment on 'elsewhere in the community'. Others can campaign for that.
(No doubt there are many in the Highlands who think the colossal amount of money being spent on the A9 dualling would be better spent on healthcare, maintaining local roads etc etc etc)

 

[Greenback]

I admire your optimism and your belief, I really do.

 

[Sandy R]

So based on a cost of c £1B that's around £1M investment per person who has indicated support. Forget a car and driver, it would be cheaper to buy a helicopter and pilot!

You don't get it, do you? Many of the forum members who have contributed to this thread build and maintain railways for a living. I would trust their 'back of an envelope' figures over a Facebook campaign page every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

The BCR of reinstating Dumfries-Stranraer just doesn't make any economic sense, there isn't a large untapped demand, and there's no regeneration argument to be made either.

There simply isn't the container-based freight for it to make sense as a strategic freight route over simply improving the already rail-connected route to Heysham.

As much as I'd like to be able to travel over this route, there are many, many places that would provide much greater social and economic benefit for the same or smaller investment.

When Levenmouth, Peterhead and St Andrews are back on the network, Glasgow crossrail has been completed, the Lentran loop is up and running, Aberdeen to Inverness and the HML have improved/doubled, the GSW has been electrified as has Glasgow to Inverness and Edinburgh to Aberdeen, the Almond chord and Greenhill flying junction have been in use for a while and the Fife Bypass line is complete... then I could see Dumfries-Stranraer being on the table for reopening.

If you actually read my previous comments I already said there are others in the queue before this. I totally agree re. Levenmouth (I worked there in 2003/4 and suffered the bus journey from Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy) St Andrews and Buchan. But that does not mean this isnt a worthy scheme for this area,and the areas beyond that it will help.

I happily defer to superior engineering knowledge, but other on this thread are ignoring factors that will make this line cheaper per mile to build than the same length of line in , say the Central Belt. I therefore do not accept people talking about this project costing 'billions. The line would be much cheaper to build per mile than the Borders line for the reasons I have already outlined.


This line doesn't have to intersect with motorways, bulldoze its way through major towns etc etc as some of the projects you mention above do.

There are many other reasons, such as social inclusion, transport poverty, stopping rural depopulation etc etc that I haven't even mentioned so far.

I will continue with this.

That doesn't mean im ignoring what has been said on here. I have learnt a few things I didn't know, some of which has been helpful, but some of which is seen from either an urban viewpoint or in some cases, people who haven't a clue about D&G, and comment from people who don't even live in Scotland.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So based on a cost of c £1B that's around £1M investment per person who has indicated support. Forget a car and driver, it would be cheaper to buy a helicopter and pilot!

You don't get it, do you? Many of the forum members who have contributed to this thread build and maintain railways for a living. I would trust their 'back of an envelope' figures over a Facebook campaign page every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

The BCR of reinstating Dumfries-Stranraer just doesn't make any economic sense, there isn't a large untapped demand, and there's no regeneration argument to be made either.

There simply isn't the container-based freight for it to make sense as a strategic freight route over simply improving the already rail-connected route to Heysham.

As much as I'd like to be able to travel over this route, there are many, many places that would provide much greater social and economic benefit for the same or smaller investment.

When Levenmouth, Peterhead and St Andrews are back on the network, Glasgow crossrail has been completed, the Lentran loop is up and running, Aberdeen to Inverness and the HML have improved/doubled, the GSW has been electrified as has Glasgow to Inverness and Edinburgh to Aberdeen, the Almond chord and Greenhill flying junction have been in use for a while and the Fife Bypass line is complete... then I could see Dumfries-Stranraer being on the table for reopening.

Ps I already said the BCR isn't viable, and ive already said that didn't stop Borders, Conon BridGe etc. being built.

 

[och aye]

I get the feeling this thread is going to turn into:

Carmarthen to Aberystwyth Reopening? - MK2

 

[najaB]

I happily defer to superior engineering knowledge, but other on this thread are ignoring factors...

I point out again, they do this for a living. They aren't ignoring anything and have given you comprehensive explanations why the fact there's an extant trackbed for some of the route doesn't make it a cheap as you think it will.

Ps I already said the BCR isn't viable, and ive already said that didn't stop Borders, Conon BridGe etc. being built.

The Borders railway BCR wasn't fantastic, but it wasn't anywhere close to the basket case of Stanraer-Dumfries. There is no freight of any significance that couldn't be transferred to the rail-connected port at Heysham, no passenger benefits that couldn't be achieved at a tiny fraction of the cost by targeted bus improvements and no political impetus to make the investment.

Let's go with your wildly optimistic cost of £500M. That would buy something like 5000 buses. Or, more realistically, 50 new buses and £495M left to spend elsewhere on the rail network.

Edit: Forgot to add, Conon Bridge wouldn't have been built if not for the refurbishment work on the Kessock bridge.

 

[Sandy R]

So based on a cost of c £1B that's around £1M investment per person who has indicated support. Forget a car and driver, it would be cheaper to buy a helicopter and pilot!

You don't get it, do you? Many of the forum members who have contributed to this thread build and maintain railways for a living. I would trust their 'back of an envelope' figures over a Facebook campaign page every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

The BCR of reinstating Dumfries-Stranraer just doesn't make any economic sense, there isn't a large untapped demand, and there's no regeneration argument to be made either.

There simply isn't the container-based freight for it to make sense as a strategic freight route over simply improving the already rail-connected route to Heysham.

As much as I'd like to be able to travel over this route, there are many, many places that would provide much greater social and economic benefit for the same or smaller investment.

When Levenmouth, Peterhead and St Andrews are back on the network, Glasgow crossrail has been completed, the Lentran loop is up and running, Aberdeen to Inverness and the HML have improved/doubled, the GSW has been electrified as has Glasgow to Inverness and Edinburgh to Aberdeen, the Almond chord and Greenhill flying junction have been in use for a while and the Fife Bypass line is complete... then I could see Dumfries-Stranraer being on the table for reopening.

'then I could see Dumfries-Stranraer being on the table for reopening. '

That'll do me.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I point out again, they do this for a living. They aren't ignoring anything and have given you comprehensive explanations why the fact there's an extant trackbed for some of the route doesn't make it a cheap as you think it will.
The Borders railway BCR , but it wasn't anywhere close to the basket case of Stanraer-Dumfries. There is no freight of any significance that couldn't be transferred to the rail-connected port at Heysham, no passenger benefits that couldn't be achieved at a tiny fraction of the cost by targeted bus improvements and no political impetus to make the investment.

Let's go with your wildly optimistic cost of £500M. That would buy something like 5000 buses. Or, more realistically, buses and £495M left to spend elsewhere on the rail network.50 new

Edit: Forgot to add, Conon Bridge wouldn't have been built if not for the refurbishment work on the Kessock bridge.

'no passenger benefits that couldn't be achieved at a tiny fraction of the cost by targeted bus improvements '
Miraculously, this applies only to D&G, not the Borders ?

'There is no freight of any significance ....'
There is ZERO freight on the Borders line.

'wildly optimistic cost of £500M'

I said £550-600 m. Check back. And in light of some of the info on here, I would now revise that upwards somewhat. But not to 'billions' (your quote).

'50 new buses and £495M left to spend elsewhere on the rail network.'
For that read either 'Im not from D&G and want the money spent on my pet project' and/or ' Borders deserves a railway, and £354-£400 million spent on it, but Galloway doesn't and can just have a few extra buses at £5 million.'

'Conon Bridge wouldn't have been built if not for the refurbishment work on the Kessock bridge.'

Corrrect. Stow ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I point out again, they do this for a living. They aren't ignoring anything and have given you comprehensive explanations why the fact there's an extant trackbed for some of the route doesn't make it a cheap as you think it will.
The Borders railway BCR wasn't fantastic, but it wasn't anywhere close to the basket case of Stanraer-Dumfries. There is no freight of any significance that couldn't be transferred to the rail-connected port at Heysham, no passenger benefits that couldn't be achieved at a tiny fraction of the cost by targeted bus improvements and no political impetus to make the investment.

Let's go with your wildly optimistic cost of £500M. That would buy something like 5000 buses. Or, more realistically, 50 new buses and £495M left to spend elsewhere on the rail network.

Edit: Forgot to add, Conon Bridge wouldn't have been built if not for the refurbishment work on the Kessock bridge.

Re the cost I DID not mention it was cheaper because of the 'extant trackbed.' Why would I ? The Borders line had an extant trackbed.

I'll put it all in the one go.

1. No city bypass to redirect/rebuild. This was a huge percentage of the cost of the Borders line.

2. Cheaper land costs.

3. Less multiple crossings of rivers etc. (How many times does the Borders line cross/recross the Tweed ?)

4. Economies of scale. A 65 miles line does not cost 2.1 times the cost of a 30.75 mile line. It costs less.

5. One station per 12 miles, rather than one station per 4.4 miles (average) on the Borders line equals less cost per mile.

6. Less dynamic loops/Passing loops per mile as the line would not have a half hourly service, again , less cost per mile.

7. No mine workings to fill in (another cost of the Borders line, re Monktonhall, very expensive).

Etc etc etc.