Study to consider Borders Railway extension

[fegguk]

I was not suggesting Hawick to Carlisle would generate another 600,000 but that Tweedbank to Carlisle might. As it would include people going from Hawick, St Boswells and Melrose Northward and between the Border towns. It would not need that many more to get close to these sort of numbers if the whole route was re-opened. If the main aim of the project was to promote economic development then you might want to expect higher number of people travelling to and from the Borders.

The main point of the post was to point out that reopening lines in general can to some extent be compared to large project like HS2 thanks to its very high cost per passenger capacity. The previous post weem to suggest this was not the case and that it was only worth investing in addition capacity in area that already have high usage levels and overcrowding. I do accept that the actual cost benefit case south of Hawick would be hard to justify in the current economic paradigm applies. However when you compare it to HS2 in simple terms it surprisingly dose not seem too bad, this may just reflect of how uneconomic HS2 actually is, rather than how great an idea Hawick Carlisle is.

I'll post this again as I'm afraid Hawick - Carlisle is never going to generate 600,000 journeys a year.

3.4.20 Summary of Key Points – Traffic and Transport
Borders Rail has experienced significant growth in passenger numbers, and is primarily used by commuters

3.5.19 Travel-to-Work Patterns (2011 Census)
Travel-to-work patterns for Scottish Borders residents
Midlothian (1,100 people or 2%)
City of Edinburgh (4,100 people or 8%)
Less than 100 people travel to Carlisle for work.

So given the 5,200 regular total commuters (not just those by rail) generated something in the region of 850,000 journeys to Galshiels / Stow / Tweedbank that gives us a multiplier of 164.

Apply that same multiplier to the 40 people from the Borders who work in Carlisle and you're looking at around 7,000 journeys per year. Now in reality Carlisle - Hawick would probably get a bigger proportion of tourist and long distance travellers so the 7,000 is a little low but I suspect the usage would be a lot closer to 7,000 pa than it will to 600,000 pa.

To make a viable rail re-opening you need a strong commuter base first to make it work.

 

[Altnabreac]

Yes but if Tweedbank - Hawick generates 95% of the journeys for 35% of the cost I’ve got an idea for how we can improve the BCR of this reopening...

 

[najaB]

However when you compare it to HS2 in simple terms it surprisingly dose not seem too bad, this may just reflect of how uneconomic HS2 actually is, rather than how great an idea Hawick Carlisle is.

The southern WCML is near or over capacity and a new pair of tracks are needed. They can follow the current, sub-optimal alignment or a new, more-efficient one.

That is what HS2 provides - it will be money well spent.

 

[Bald Rick]

HS2 £56billion for an estimated 109million passengers a year ie £511 per passenger for capacity used.

Cost for restoring the Waverley route all the way to Carlisle including the cost of the existing bit £1billion for an estimated 2million passengers a year (1.4M existing plus an extra 0.6M estimate) ie £500 per passenger capacity added.

In terms of the cost of adding extra useful capacity the two are not dissimilar. That’s not to say that the economic impact will be proportionally the same. Though if these figures are being used to justify it, it may suggest HS2 is an expensive option compares to others if it is similar to restoring this as some people see it no hope addition to the network.

But the HS2 passengers will be travelling much further, on average, than the BETWNH (Borders Extension That Will Never Happen). And it is passenger km that pays the bills and generates the benefits.

Besides, some of that “£1billion” for the full Borders line has long since been spent. So, even if you believe that the BETWNH can be done for £600m (which it can’t) and that it would generate 600k new to rail passengers per year (which it won’t), then that’s £1000 per passenger.

 

[The Ham]

But the HS2 passengers will be travelling much further, on average, than the BETWNH (Borders Extension That Will Never Happen). And it is passenger km that pays the bills and generates the benefits.

Besides, some of that “£1billion” for the full Borders line has long since been spent. So, even if you believe that the BETWNH can be done for £600m (which it can’t) and that it would generate 600k new to rail passengers per year (which it won’t), then that’s £1000 per passenger.

Firstly, is entirely possible for somewhere with a population of circa 15,000 within 5km of a station to generate 800,000 passengers per year (I know as this happens near where I live). Now in this case that would need to be spread over several stations, however a not an impossible task.

Secondly although current travel demand may not show much scope for southwards commuting, is that down to the lack of ease of travel? As if it is you could find that by building the line that you encourage more people to make the trip.

Then there's the potential for picking up travelers from local services entering into Carlisle, as depending on when the next IC service is and/or cost there's scope that some may find it better to take the secondary route (much as people use the WofE line as well as the B&H to travel to/from Exeter).

Over 1 year is £1,000 per passenger. Over 60 years it's £17 per passenger, which is a much more palatable figure.

 

[EIKN]

But Upgrading the Signaling systems in order that all those trains that for nearly 30 years could do 225kmh , Newer trains probably top out close to the ' Javelin Stock ( that must be being considered on the ECML as I read a magazine article about a Javelin set Running for a few days on ' test ' between London. ( I'm assuming but can't recall - Kings Cross ) and Edinburgh.
However like someone above mentioned the WCML and ECML are only twin track.
The ' HS2 ' Is never going to be extended to Scotland let alone Carlisle .
And to that end having to Share the line with slower Frieght , then the case for opening Carlisle to Hawick ( and of course onto Tweedbank ) plus Gala ( or likely Tweedbank I'd imagine to Berwick) , should shift a lot of that freight up the Borders route ,BUT a lot more double track or passing loops will be needed.
If it worked at a line with just one station ( Alloa - done so well the whole thing has been Electrified) , and that I was under the impression reading the History of the old route , that ' Express Service's, Ran to Carlisle then down the Settle - Carlisle to Leeds.
That already takes freight and surley must have enough capacity for shifting much more .
Granted the Class 68 based , upcoming Electric / Bi mode ' High speed ' Engine running at 125mph , would ' Speed up freight but according to the article on that it's not a huge order , granted the cascaded class 91's might be able to pull a heavy freight train at 140 mph, but could they do this over Shap or Beattock summits?.
The Carstairs route is already very busy.
That leaves the Borders line .
So if it's opened on the South Side they may as well re instate stations such as Longtown , after all getting into Carlisle nowadays from that Area can be very congested on the roads .
It cannot fail to attract passenger usage just as has every other UK reopening , or indeed ' New lines ' .
Also one has to take a longer view , that if in future with the ban on Internal Combustion engines ,rs May Brought forward to 2030 , might people decide it's easier to get the train to work , in Edinburgh or Carlisle for example, rather than trying to find a charging point .
Going slightly off topic but folk have to remember to ' plug it in before bed ' people forget to charge a mobile , so it could be argued there may well be more demand for public transport.
Busses are just too slow.
The train would be quicker , although , they may need to use more modern. Lighter , faster accelerating trains to ensure that the service makes sense .

 

[Journeyman]

I'm with Altanabreac: I'd love to see the whole of the Waverley re-open, and to be able to change at Riccarton Junction for Saughtree.... but as a business proposition commuting from the Borders to Carlisle is never going to do it. Would it have made a difference if the basic railway/long siding had gone into Kielder Forest a few years back? In economic terms it shouldn't have done (as such a line wouldn't have been 75mph+ to passenger terms), but emotionally and politically it could probably have made a difference.

And even stretching the point to maximise take up, you'd want to serve Langholm as one of the larger towns (of, er, 2300) en-route, which means either reinstating the branch, and having a time consuming double reversal, or a Esk Valley Base Tunnel to Newcastleton, which doesn't seem like the most likely prospect. (It's a bit hilly round there...)

So, a lovely idea, but if the line is extended to Hawick (and I think it should and suspect it will be), I'd be astonished if it headed south to Carlisle.

True. What passenger demand there is from Gala/Hawick to Carlisle is more than adequately handled by the X95 bus, which is never that full on that section (and even less full on the northern bit these days) and demand for commuter traffic in that direction is absolutely minimal. Back in BR days, an Edinburgh - Hawick single-track basic railway operated by DMUs was considered, but it was blatantly obvious that the Hawick - Carlisle section carried very little local traffic and was only any good for through freight and passenger services. Even then, a study revealed that the through St. Pancras - Edinburgh services were carrying very few passengers north of Kettering!

Much as I'm pleased to see the Borders Railway doing well, and I love travelling on it, I don't think it's going to become a traditional mixed traffic main line again, and its role is best suited, in today's climate, to being an Edinburgh outer-suburban service, with some potential for tourist traffic. I'm sure it'll make it to Hawick eventually, but further than that? I very much doubt it. To make it a useful diversionary route, you'd probably need double track and electrification throughout, which makes the cost absolutely eye-watering.

I can't help thinking that the Waverley Line is lumped in with Woodhead and the Great Central as a line with plenty of nostalgia and romance driving the desire to re-open, while ignoring the fact that ultimately these routes are of marginal value in a modern transport system, and the huge cost can probably never be justified.

 

[EIKN]

But with respect rail use , especially in Scotland has gone through the roof .
There are probably enough people in outlying areas , I think langholm that's not rail connected , plus Longtown and any settlements beyond Hawick would draw in Passenger traffic
Also what of folk who ' hate the commute from Hawick '.whomay work in Carlisle ?.
Also before my stint in Galloway I rented a place near Longtown , the leaflets through the door drew enough interest that there were litterally piles of signatures , I actually questioned the newsagent that Longtown didn't seem busy enough . She said that folk would come from the outer villages and so on who also signed .
There and again at the risk of a nasty comment there is that long debated siding to keilder. Far too often you'd see near misses with and or got stuck behind one , and on one occasion two , double trailer logging trucks .
Couple that with Tourism, it's not a mental idea but with a siding and passing loop with a halt and tourist information. Office and toilets , might serve walkers and the off steam special making that a year round thing possible ( no more strange than not having the main station end at Melrose using the existing station ,which IMHO would have been better than Tweedbank , sure that could have been the double track enough for the steam special terminus .
But to stop a mile or so short of Melrose was madness.
Instead the current line stops at some faceless industrial estate.
But going forward , I keep on I know .
But HS2 Will happen , but we'd see a human colony on Europa before we'd see the ' High speed New Build railways 'both ,East and West coast !.
With the large amount of freight and recently moved back from near Elvanfoot down south to Yorkshire, I used to enjoy driving the service road , and often saw postal trains freight and slower Transpennine stuff
That would be best served by their obvious similar conclusion by studying reopening basically a west to east route .utilising the Settle Carlisle route via Leeds would link again to the HS2 network ( assuming the final design isn't a terminus as apposed to am add-on to Leeds central station ).
We must take the longer view , as roads are ever more congested and far less spending on.much needed Schemes , one example being .

You have over 100 odd miles of three lane motorway from Scotch corner all the way to Darrington and it is angled to be extended, but while it's now on the HE Scheme site when it gets built is anyone's guess and the traffic on it and the Doncaster bypass plus deadly crashes sadly frquent, it's an example of how we need to move freight off the roads.
If this wasn't true then you would not have the huge ' iport' huge rail hub a stone's throw from Doncaster Sheffield Airport, and the Joint line which goes off east somewhere .
So to extend from Hawick to Gala , maybe not just about how things are now.
But we cannot know the impact the ban on traditional engines . It will mean a lot more Electrified rail routes ( the current borders route was built for this )and is listed I thought in CP6?.
But the point is by making all cars electric they are bound to heavily tax home chargers and public ones .
Couple that with city congestion zones. Edinburgh is on the list of a fair few I cannot name where they will be coming .
And suddenly the Through route looks a lot better than having a car ten, 15 or 20 years hence . Besides if you'd told someone in 1990 that so many lines had been reopened, that Scotland would have most of the central belt Electrified , that in one year countless different classes of brand new trains , many reverting to ' loco hauled'.
They would have thrown up the same arguments against those things as are raised here .
Indeed I recall the exact same debates saying the Borders line to its current terminus would be a white elephant and be gone in ten years .
Well it's just doubled useahe figures for the third year running .
Respectfully look at the long view .
Take that freight off the roads and main lines shift it onto reopened ' branch ' lines and you'll get a much faster journey time for the Northern limits of HS2 than we will have on its opening .

 

[BigCj34]

Should the line be considered between Hawick and Carlisle, surely the Langholm branch should be considered as well. The branch being a 20% of the length of the distance between Harwick and Carlisle, would add another further 2,300 onto the network on top of the 3,500 the extension would serve.

 

[Journeyman]

Should the line be considered between Hawick and Carlisle, surely the Langholm branch should be considered as well. The branch being a 20% of the length of the distance between Harwick and Carlisle, would add another further 2,300 onto the network on top of the 3,500 the extension would serve.

Building miles of new railway to serve populations of 2300 and 3500 is not even remotely viable.

 

[JohnR]

With respect, the fact that rail use has doubled since the 1980s is the only reason why some of these schemes are even remotely viable now.

 

[Journeyman]

With respect, the fact that rail use has doubled since the 1980s is the only reason why some of these schemes are even remotely viable now.

True, but Edinburgh - Gala/Tweedbank is viable because of population density and employment patterns. It will probably make an extension to Hawick viable in the near future, but Hawick - Carlisle? I really doubt it.

If we'd lost the West Highland during the Beeching era, there's no way there'd be a decent business case for reopening it, and the Hawick - Carlisle route is just about as sparsely populated.

 

[70014IronDuke]

...
The main point of the post was to point out that reopening lines in general can to some extent be compared to large project like HS2 thanks to its very high cost per passenger capacity. The previous post weem to suggest this was not the case and that it was only worth investing in addition capacity in area that already have high usage levels and overcrowding. ...

Mine was the previous post. My main point was to illustrate (via a somewhat sarcastic approach) the absurdity of the TV report which only consulted pro-reopeners and whose one offering to it being potentially expensive was the mention of the engineering difficulties - while at the same time comparing the extension to Crossrail and HS2, yet not pointing out the vastly superior numbers of trains and passenger-miles that these projects will take on. If SkyTV had done an equally biased report against any rail project, they would have been lambasted on here (and quite rightly so).

Further, of course, while claiming the "accelerated" growth on the current Borders Line - which, incidentally, is not universally true, see the Tweedbank usage figures - the programme signally failed to even glance at the vastly different populations and working habits of Tweedbank - Edinburgh and Tweedbank - Carlisle.

Like Journeyman and quite a few others, I would like to see the Borders Line extended, but - Hawick apart - I can't see it ever building even a half decent economic case in the forseeable future. However, weak and un-in-depth TV reporting as in the Sky programme does not really help anyone to form a better understanding of whether it is viable or not.

 

[JohnR]

No one would be happier than me to see Carlisle-Hawick reopen, and for Pendolinos to be dragged north on diversions over it.

The point is, it would cost the thick end of £600 million, and not be used for much else.

 

[Aictos]

granted the cascaded class 91's might be able to pull a heavy freight train at 140 mph, but could they do this over Shap or Beattock summits?.

Will never happen as they're designed for fast high speed passenger services not heavy freight services for which there are other more suitable locos available.

Also no loco exists that can haul heavy freight trains at 140mph, Class 390s and Class 91s can operate at 140mph in passenger service but it involves major upgrades to the signalling such as in cab signalling which is expensive I believe which is why it hasn't yet been done on the WCML or the ECML.

And as pointed out above, the infrastructure for 140mph running simply doesn't exist, the fastest you get any heavy freight is 60mph depending on the circumstances to 75mph.

 

[EIKN]

Yet the West highland line , where one could argue has a much more sparse population at ALL stations , even if you adding up the entire populations of Skye and North And South Uist( inbound ferry traffic of which a portion' maybe ' uses the train ).
Also apart from steam specials I do hope that we see loco hauled services , pulling ex MK3 /4 stock to the likes of Oban ( off topic I know ) but having travelled Glasgow to Kilmarnock on a 156 ( admittedly a converted MK3 Coach), I oddly enough love the class 158 , I find them smooth and comfortable , even they or a 170 equally nice apart from the fact that , that you get a bloody draught even in first class when the doors open ) , anyway back to the point the West Highland line relies on the Logging / paper mill and tourism .so prey tell what is the difference, the borders are stunning , even the lands around Longtown have distant views as you travel .
So why is it so hard to envisage a multi use end to end ' Borders extension, it's clear the Scottish government also see the benefit of the rail equivalent of the A66.
Look at it this way too your linking Edinburgh rail passengers to the lake District as well, not to mention you would be able to ( if a few long distance limited stop express services , loco hauled until it's electrified , onto the WCML , gives easier access to points west , Heathrow , rail services to Wsles for example .
On the East you have a direct link pretty much to tourist places like York and Whitby , and down to the Channel tunnel so N eastern extentsion, can also provide long distance ' expresses'.
It seems with respect that the only people who will use the line will use it solely for local journies .
I know from living in Callander , which could also do with at least that line reopened as far as the old station. Site ( The A84 Is dangerous and slow and yes full of logging trucks , and I do know what I'm taking about I lived at the edge of Kilmahog close to the old rail crossing point in a gatehouse to a castle and holiday park.
I had an all day view of the sheer numbers of logging trucks general freight non of it at the speed limit.

The A7, is the same and had seen almost no investment beyond the crazy idea of building part on the track bed of the old line , that will have to move anyway , also from. Tweedbank , if you all recall it was held up due to an immovable huge power line . I cannot see how they could build track over it , so other than a passing loop I can see the extension between there and Melrose at least as single track .
Electrifying the route will happen, it's down to be done .
But if the new route extentsion is Electrified all the way then that increases the chances of this working .
Also you say the bus is not well used , but who wants to sit on an uncomfortable speed limited , size restricted form of transport , a train. By definition is superior in every way.
And IL repeat again .
On another forum all these arguments against the extension beyond Hawick are like word for word from bus usage to talk of it not having enough populations north of Gala to make it work . The fact it's like sardines on every train tells you demand is there .

 

[deltic08]

deleted

 

[deltic08]

Will never happen as they're designed for fast high speed passenger services not heavy freight services for which there are other more suitable locos available.

Also no loco exists that can haul heavy freight trains at 140mph, Class 390s and Class 91s can operate at 140mph in passenger service but it involves major upgrades to the signalling such as in cab signalling which is expensive I believe which is why it hasn't yet been done on the WCML or the ECML.

And as pointed out above, the infrastructure for 140mph running simply doesn't exist, the fastest you get any heavy freight is 60mph depending on the circumstances to 75mph.

A blunt end cab was designed and built on 91s especially to haul sleepers and freight overnight on the ECML

 

[yoyothehobo]

I thought it was just assymmetric to improve streamlining as they would be in fixed rakes with no running round and dvts, but still had the cab just in case they were wrong way round. Considering how slowly accelerating a 91 is you wouldnt be able to get much freight away at all.

 

[Aictos]

Considering how slowly accelerating a 91 is you wouldnt be able to get much freight away at all.

Indeed which is why they will see out their days doing exactly what they've been doing on the ECML for the best part of 30 odd years hauling high speed IC services both on the ECML itself but also with any operator interested in them such as the open access operator LNWR using them on Euston to Blackpool.

A blunt end cab was designed and built on 91s especially to haul sleepers and freight overnight on the ECML

That might well have been in the design brief but they never actually have been used for these purposes and there's a difference between freight consisting of a dozen container flats and a heavy freight train full of coal, sand or ballast etc which is why I pointed out the silliness of the whole idea to have Class 91 running at 140mph with heavy freight trains as they're not designed for it like the Class 59s, Class 60s or Class 66s are.

Also apart from steam specials I do hope that we see loco hauled services , pulling ex MK3 /4 stock to the likes of Oban ( off topic I know ) but having travelled Glasgow to Kilmarnock on a 156 ( admittedly a converted MK3 Coach), I oddly enough love the class 158 , I find them smooth and comfortable , even they or a 170 equally nice apart from the fact that , that you get a bloody draught even in first class when the doors open )

Point 1:

You can't just send the Mk4s where ever you like as they have to be cleared for the route in question which is why so much work has to be done before they can even be used on the Midland Mainline.

Point 2:

There is no such thing as a a Class 156 being a converted Mk3 coach, they are in fact based on the Mk3 design which is where you're probably getting very confused?

Electrifying the route will happen, it's down to be done .
But if the new route extentsion is Electrified all the way then that increases the chances of this working .

Point 1:

There are more viable places in Scotland that will be electrified years ahead of the Borders Railway, routes such as Fife Circle, Stirling to Dundee, Anniesland etc all have far better cost ratios then the Borders Railway so it's not a given thing that it's down to be done.

Point 2:

If the UK Govt isn't likely to electrify Market Harborough to Nottingham, Derby, Sheffield which is a far more busier route then I can't see the Borders Railway being done any time soon.

 

[backontrack]

This thread in a nutshell:

• General consensus: "the reopening should happen, but only as far as Hawick"
• There's an article into the possibility of reopening the line even further southwards
• Someone else: "I believe that it ought to be reopened all the way to Carlisle"
• Someone else: "You're wrong, it's not viable and it'll never happen"
• Repeat

 

[Bald Rick]

Over 1 year is £1,000 per passenger. Over 60 years it's £17 per passenger, which is a much more palatable figure.

It isn’t, as money spent now is worth much more money in future. Or put another way, if you borrowed £1000 now from the bank, and offered to pay it back at £17 a year, you’d be shown the door. Rather quickly.

 

[Aictos]

It isn’t, as money spent now is worth much more money in future. Or put another way, if you borrowed £1000 now from the bank, and offered to pay it back at £17 a year, you’d be shown the door. Rather quickly.

Priceless but very true!!!

 

[deltic08]

That might well have been in the design brief but they never actually have been used for these purposes and there's a difference between freight consisting of a dozen container flats and a heavy freight train full of coal, sand or ballast etc which is why I pointed out the silliness of the whole idea to have Class 91 running at 140mph with heavy freight trains as they're not designed for it like the Class 59s, Class 60s or Class 66s are. .

I have a picture somewhere of a 91 on a train of mark 1 BGs at York one night pointed end facing north.i

 

[cle]

Class 403 - the Scottish govt (likely funding this, and definitely if only to Hawick) - is a lot more amenable (and trustworthy) when it comes to electrification schemes.

 

[The Ham]

It isn’t, as money spent now is worth much more money in future. Or put another way, if you borrowed £1000 now from the bank, and offered to pay it back at £17 a year, you’d be shown the door. Rather quickly.

True, but I wasn't saying that it was the way that it was going to be paid back (unless you were suggesting that there should be a £1,000 cost added to each of the first year tickets to cover the cost of building it?). I was pointing out that the cost per passenger shouldn't be considered in just one year's of flows.

 

[Aictos]

Class 403 - the Scottish govt (likely funding this, and definitely if only to Hawick) - is a lot more amenable (and trustworthy) when it comes to electrification schemes.

However there are far more worthy schemes in Scotland that I can see being electrified way before the Borders Railway is so I wouldn't assume it will be done just yet.

I have a picture somewhere of a 91 on a train of mark 1 BGs at York one night pointed end facing north.i

No need as it was no doubt a one off see here, the fact remains though that they were designed for high speed passenger services and as they were more heavily used during the day on fast IC services then the plan to use them on overnight freights was dropped due to the maintenance that was needed on them.

 

[JohnR]

At the risk of taking this thread off topic even further, there is an article in the current edition of Rail by David Clough on the gestation of the Class 91, that would perhaps be more informative.

 

[HaggisBotherer]

Doing that also takes in Melrose, a very popular tourist destination

Everything is relative. What might be a 'very popular' tourist destination in the context of the Borders (I lived there for a while and never saw much evidence of what I'd consider 'very' popularity) doesn't necessarily mean the numbers are remotely similar to those of a 'very popular' tourist destination in the Cotswolds, for example.

Unless you live there, the harsh truth about the Borders is that people tend to either go round it (via the A1 or A74) or straight through it on the A7 or the A68. Not many people stop. It's a shame in a way, as it's not especially unattractive. But, having lived there, I can see why. It's an, um, strange part of the world.

At a pinch - and it is a real pinch - if the SNP still has any money after the A9 dualling (providing they've not bankrupted us all with rising taxes, not to mention the impact of Brexit), then I can see Hawick being an attractive proposition as The Next Big Look At What We're Doing For Scotland Transport Project.

But all the rose-tinted spotter dreams (not you, Journeyman) of Hawick-Carlisle and St Boswells-Tweedmouth are utter fantasy. I did have to smile at the quote of Langholm's population of 2300 apparently justifying the huge cost of reinstating a railway, with regular users undoubtedly being a single figure percentage. Sometimes I honestly wonder how much of a grip on reality the sort of people who seem to believe that Building Railways Is The Answer To Everything have

 

[Con]

Everything is relative. What might be a 'very popular' tourist destination in the context of the Borders (I lived there for a while and never saw much evidence of what I'd consider 'very' popularity) doesn't necessarily mean the numbers are remotely similar to those of a 'very popular' tourist destination in the Cotswolds, for example.

Unless you live there, the harsh truth about the Borders is that people tend to either go round it (via the A1 or A74) or straight through it on the A7 or the A68. Not many people stop. It's a shame in a way, as it's not especially unattractive. But, having lived there, I can see why. It's an, um, strange part of the world.

At a pinch - and it is a real pinch - if the SNP still has any money after the A9 dualling (providing they've not bankrupted us all with rising taxes, not to mention the impact of Brexit), then I can see Hawick being an attractive proposition as The Next Big Look At What We're Doing For Scotland Transport Project.

But all the rose-tinted spotter dreams (not you, Journeyman) of Hawick-Carlisle and St Boswells-Tweedmouth are utter fantasy. I did have to smile at the quote of Langholm's population of 2300 apparently justifying the huge cost of reinstating a railway, with regular users undoubtedly being a single figure percentage. Sometimes I honestly wonder how much of a grip on reality the sort of people who seem to believe that Building Railways Is The Answer To Everything have

I spent a few very pleasant days in St Boswell’s last year, via train and taxi from Tweedbank. Found Melrose and St Boswell’s to be enjoyable and pleasant.

Should I have been looking for a giant Wicker Man or something?