Proposal to rebuild the line to Ballater

[AlastairFraser]

This must surely be another part of the country where it will almost certainly be cheaper to lay on chauffeur-driven door-to-door limousines for intending passengers rather than build/rebuild/operate a railway.

110k chauffeurs ,defo need that A96 dualling then.

Well isn't the alternative to do nothing, not spend billions on road upgrades?

Ultimately I think Aberdeen would be better off investing in an urban tramway, that would provide a basis for surburban or interurban extensions later, once the system is up and running.

Nah, the Scottish government is going to spend £3bn on finishing off dualling of the A96 to improve transport links in northern Aberdeenshire, Moray and between Aberdeen and Inverness as a flow :A96 dualling info .
You could redouble the entirety of the Aberdeen to Inverness main line and reopen the line to Banchory, Peterhead and Fraserburgh while saving 335 million off that £3bn figure. That road is useless for everyone who lives on the coast ( a good 50k of northern Aberdeenshire), everyone south and west since the section to Inverurie has already been doubled like the adjacent (makes you question why it costs 3bn to build 86 miles of dual carriageway in rural Scotland, but anyway).
Aberdeen is slightly too small for a proper Metrolink-style light rail system, given the dispersed style of settlement outside, but an urban tramway would only serve Aberdeen which has a modern and comprehensive bus network.
It's the commuter/regional towns like Westhill, Banchory, Ellon, Fraserburgh and Peterhead which are really poorly served by the current arrangement. Not withstanding Banchory or Fraserburgh and Peterhead, who's going to sit 16 miles on an urban tramway out to Ellon or 8 miles to Westhill? It would cost more than reopening the railway, there's no dual carriageway to steal a lane from until Bridge of Don on the way to Ellon and the Royal Infirmary to Westhill.
It would be slower than the bus!

 

[Mcr Warrior]

110k chauffe(u)rs

Job creation scheme! And probably still cheaper than re-building / operating a railway.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Job creation scheme! And probably still cheaper than re-building / operating a railway.

OK, let's say the chauffeurs were paid 30k a year average, the cost of rebuilding both Banchory and Peterhead/Fraserburgh is 1.5 billion at the lower end.
Talking about 120k people served by both new railways, that's £3.6 billion alone a year! Very cheap

Oh come on. How much freight from the fishing industry currently ends up on the Rail Network?

When Peterhead is one of the largest fish markets in the country and sends a lot of its perishable content to the Continent, what is going to get that perishable content there fastest? The railway or a 640 mile artic lorry route? (No motorway/continuous DC between Edinburgh and Newcastle, remember?

I think you've got that the wrong way around. If there's no freight there can be no lines.

It's the largest fishing port in Europe! There's potential freight traffic.

If 76,813 is the population who might benefit, and taking £2.3 billion as the mid point of your earlier cost range (post #74), then the cost per potential beneficiary is approx £30,000 each. Since quite a few of the 76,813 won't want to use the railway, the cost per actual beneficiary will be rather higher. I suspect even local residents would rather spend that on something different.

I think I must have confused you a bit. 2.3 billion is the midpoint of the cost of redoubling the entire Aberdeen to Inverness main line, opening some new stations in Aberdeen and rebuilding the F &B plus Deeside line out to Banchory. That benefits pretty much the entirety of Aberdeenshire County (261,470), Aberdeen City (227,560), Moray (95,220) and the Greater Inverness statistical area of Highland (63,220 latest estimate).
That comes to 647,740. As you say, not everyone is going to use the railway, but even a third of that would make the cost reasonable (2.3 bn/ 215,823 = 10,526 per person).
All the bus subsidy in the world couldn't get people faster in to Aberdeen or other regional centres because the roads are poor quality outside the urban centres.

The 76,813 figure is the area of Aberdeenshire currently more than 20 miles from a railhead I think that would have railheads with the reopening of the F and B (1.18 billion). I put together the whole 2.7 bn max figure to show all the railways you could reopen and improve for less than the cost of the A96 dualling, which will happen if these railways don't reopen or get redoubled.

 

[Bald Rick]

I thought I’d give two examples of the realities for this proposal.

Firstly, yes much of it is a bike track, but some of it isn’t. Below is an extract from google maps of the former course of the line immediately after the Junction with the main line at Aberdeen.

For clarity, if anyone living in these areas see this post - this is not a serious proposal, and is very, very unlikely to happen, so please do not worry!



The yellow line represents the course of the old line, albeit the width of the railway formation would probably be a little wider. It would certainly be wider during the construction phase.

As you can see, it crosses or is very close to around 35-40 residential properties. Most of it is gardens - but that doesn’t matter. Those properties would all have to be bought, as the owners could reasonably claim that the loss of their garden causes them significant loss of amenity, and therefore loss of value; similarly they could claim that the disruption during construction would cause them significant harm (noise, dust, vibration, traffic, etc). The site is also on a gradient (rising to the north) and it is reasonable to assume that the homes up the hill could be damaged through ground movement during construction. Then after construction, there’s an operational railway where their back garden is. A typical semi detached home on Deermount Gardens goes for around £300k, the smaller properties to the east of Polmuir Road about half that. The cost of compulsory purchase (not including the process to gain permission to purchase) is typically over double the market value of the property, which allows for the purchase, valuations, legal fees, stamp duty for the owners new property, removals, a ‘disturbance allowance’, compensation, securing vacant possession, etc. Just for this stretch, you’re looking at around £20m, for a sixth of a mile of route.

Clearly it’s not the same along the whole route. However, these residents would kick up an enormous fuss, and would likely head to the public enquiry asking the most important question, more of which later. And property owners that back on to the line would, similarly, be seeking compensation for loss of value. HS2 has spent a lot of money in this, even for homes some distance away.

Secondly, Peterculter.



Similar issue. Fewer properties, but there’s a few south of the line sufficiently far away that might not need compulsory purchase, including the museum. If the owners wanted to stay, it would be difficult to argue they must leave to enable the line’s construction. It would also be difficult to argue they shouldn’t retain access to their property. So that means building a bridge and new access road, as there is no other access, and the River Dee is immediately to the south. All told that’s going to be another £15-20m. More if you need the land to build a station there (not including the cost of the station).

And now the most important question. The first test in a public inquiry (or Parliamentary committee hearing) is to demonstrate that the benefit of a proposal more than outweighs the costs, disbenefits and harm caused both during construction and when in operation. To pass that test it needs to have a positive business case, or very nearly so, when compared to reasonable alternatives. In this case, there is no chance of that happening, and any inquiry would surely fall at the first hurdle.

 

[37424]

OK, let's say the chauffeurs were paid 30k a year average, the cost of rebuilding both Banchory and Peterhead/Fraserburgh is 1.5 billion at the lower end.
Talking about 120k people served by both new railways, that's £3.6 billion alone a year! Very cheap

When Peterhead is one of the largest fish markets in the country and sends a lot of its perishable content to the Continent, what is going to get that perishable content there fastest? The railway or a 640 mile artic lorry route? (No motorway/continuous DC between Edinburgh and Newcastle, remember?

It's the largest fishing port in Europe! There's potential freight traffic.

Well it strikes me Peterhead certainly has more viability than Ballater, the population of Peterhead is nearly 20K and Ellon is 10K. as you say there might be the possibility of freight as well but even then one presumes that the cost will be very high

 

[Bald Rick]

When Peterhead is one of the largest fish markets in the country

And where is all the fish going?

 

[AlastairFraser]

I thought I’d give two examples of the realities for this proposal.

Firstly, yes much of it is a bike track, but some of it isn’t. Below is an extract from google maps of the former course of the line immediately after the Junction with the main line at Aberdeen.

For clarity, if anyone living in these areas see this post - this is not a serious proposal, and is very, very unlikely to happen, so please do not worry!

View attachment 93113

The yellow line represents the course of the old line, albeit the width of the railway formation would probably be a little wider. It would certainly be wider during the construction phase.

As you can see, it crosses or is very close to around 35-40 residential properties. Most of it is gardens - but that doesn’t matter. Those properties would all have to be bought, as the owners could reasonably claim that the loss of their garden causes them significant loss of amenity, and therefore loss of value; similarly they could claim that the disruption during construction would cause them significant harm (noise, dust, vibration, traffic, etc). The site is also on a gradient (rising to the north) and it is reasonable to assume that the homes up the hill could be damaged through ground movement during construction. Then after construction, there’s an operational railway where their back garden is. A typical semi detached home on Deermount Gardens goes for around £300k, the smaller properties to the east of Polmuir Road about half that. The cost of compulsory purchase (not including the process to gain permission to purchase) is typically over double the market value of the property, which allows for the purchase, valuations, legal fees, stamp duty for the owners new property, removals, a ‘disturbance allowance’, compensation, securing vacant possession, etc. Just for this stretch, you’re looking at around £20m, for a sixth of a mile of route.

Clearly it’s not the same along the whole route. However, these residents would kick up an enormous fuss, and would likely head to the public enquiry asking the most important question, more of which later. And property owners that back on to the line would, similarly, be seeking compensation for loss of value. HS2 has spent a lot of money in this, even for homes some distance away.

Secondly, Peterculter.

View attachment 93115

Similar issue. Fewer properties, but there’s a few south of the line sufficiently far away that might not need compulsory purchase, including the museum. If the owners wanted to stay, it would be difficult to argue they must leave to enable the line’s construction. It would also be difficult to argue they shouldn’t retain access to their property. So that means building a bridge and new access road, as there is no other access, and the River Dee is immediately to the south. All told that’s going to be another £15-20m. More if you need the land to build a station there (not including the cost of the station).

And now the most important question. The first test in a public inquiry (or Parliamentary committee hearing) is to demonstrate that the benefit of a proposal more than outweighs the costs, disbenefits and harm caused both during construction and when in operation. To pass that test it needs to have a positive business case, or very nearly so, when compared to reasonable alternatives. In this case, there is no chance of that happening, and any inquiry would surely fall at the first hurdle.

If it's only a 6th of a mile for each, why not build a tunnel for those short sections, build the station at Peterculter in cutting? You're telling me a 6th of a mile costs 20 million each?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Mar 2021 ==

And where is all the fish going?

The continent, for the most part. Much quicker by rail.

Well it strikes me Peterhead certainly has more viability than Ballater, the population of Peterhead is nearly 20K and Ellon is 10K. as you say there might be the possibility of freight as well but even then one presumes that the cost will be very high

Don't forget all the sizeable villages surrounding it - Mintlaw, St Fergus, Boddam, Cruden Bay, Fraserburgh is within 20 miles and it would still be faster into Aberdeen via Peterhead on the train if you chose not to reinstate the line Fraserburgh.
It's about 28 miles to Dyce on a new route north of Ellon if you were aiming for Peterhead only, that's 560 - 840 million, according the Bald Rick (TM) system of cost estimation for rebuilt/new railways.
Would only capture about 60k population with that alone, but much cheaper.
Around 9k per person.

 

[Bald Rick]

If it's only a 6th of a mile for each, why not build a tunnel for those short sections, build the station at Peterculter in cutting? You're telling me a 6th of a mile costs 20 million each?

No, I’m saying that that 1/6th of a mile would cost about £20m to get hold of the land, excluding the costs of gaining the permission to do so (through an Act of Parliament, most likely), and not including any construction or design. Tunnels and cuttings need the right topography, of course. Which these two places don’t have. A tunnel to get out of Aberdeen would require more demolition than keeping it on the old alignment (which is slightly above ground level there, I believe.)

The continent, for the most part. Much quicker by rail.

Is there 1000 tonnes a day going to roughly the same place? If not, sorry! And you might want to check transit times of most freight traffic to/from Europe,

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's the largest fishing port in Europe! There's potential freight traffic.

By rail? I'm not familiar with the details of how fish are transported, but I would assume fish are highly perishable and so would need to get transported to wherever they are processed and then to the shops as quickly as possible (except frozen fish are non-perishable, but obviously only after they have been processed and frozen. Does that bit happen at Peterhead?)

If you are transporting by lorry then presumably you need to wait just long enough for one lorry-load heading to the same place to be ready for transport and you're all set to go.

If you are transporting by train then presumably you need to wait long enough for one train-load (all going to the same place) to be ready for transport and then you're all set to go - provided of course that a train has been scheduled for that time and paths are available on the rail network. Since at a guess, one train load would be anything from 30-50 lorries, that suggests to me that transporting the fish by train would involve a highly perishable product waiting around a lot longer for transport.

Maybe there's something I don't know or have misunderstood, but that reasoning doesn't look to me very hopeful for rail transport of the fish. (And don't get me wrong, I think there are far too many lorries on the roads in general and I'd love to see some of them swapped to railfreight. But I'm not convinced that's practical here).

 

[yoyothehobo]

There are some incredible statistical gymnastics going on here.

Suggesting that this railway would directly benefit 600,000 people is optimistic. I would perhaps use the phrase, "be in the region of".

Of that 600,000, approx 250,000 live in Aberdeen. If you live in Aberdeen, chances are you are working not too far away, so long distance redoubling or reopenings mean nothing, some form of improved metro service does more.

Of the remaining 350,000 at a rough guess about 30% may be outside working age, so will not be using the train to any real amount in figures.

That brings the numbers down to 250,000. Of course there are the unemployed, agricultural workers, rural workers, those in mobile trades. Lets be generous and say that those make up only 50% and 125,000 people over a large area, would use this railway improvement/reopening.

Now say you had optimistic (very) modal useage of 10%. Thats 12,500 people per day.

2.3 billion divided by 12,500 is about £180,000 per passenger. Before operating expenses.

Just for example Huntly, pop. 4500, has 75,000 passengers a year. Thats 100 people making return journey every day on average, with just 2% of the population of the village using the train, and could fill half a 158.

The problem is with rail is that the numbers required to make it work are generally high, though it will only ever take a small portion of market share, even moreso in rural areas.

Freight doesnt even touch the business case.

 

[AlastairFraser]

By rail? I'm not familiar with the details of how fish are transported, but I would assume fish are highly perishable and so would need to get transported to wherever they are processed and then to the shops as quickly as possible (except frozen fish are non-perishable, but obviously only after they have been processed and frozen. Does that bit happen at Peterhead?)

If you are transporting by lorry then presumably you need to wait just long enough for one lorry-load heading to the same place to be ready for transport and you're all set to go.

If you are transporting by train then presumably you need to wait long enough for one train-load (all going to the same place) to be ready for transport and then you're all set to go - provided of course that a train has been scheduled for that time and paths are available on the rail network. Since at a guess, one train load would be anything from 30-50 lorries, that suggests to me that transporting the fish by train would involve a highly perishable product waiting around a lot longer for transport.

Maybe there's something I don't know or have misunderstood, but that reasoning doesn't look to me very hopeful for rail transport of the fish. (And don't get me wrong, I think there are far too many lorries on the roads in general and I'd love to see some of them swapped to railfreight. But I'm not convinced that's practical here).

I refer you to this quote from this article : Haulage costs are high for fish processors - “Given that over 90% of the 25,000 boxes of fish landed at Peterhead in a typical week is distributed, in one form or another, throughout Britain and on to Europe, the volume of movement is immediately apparent. Even allowing for 50% weight reduction due to filleting etc, this amount of fish represents a payload of around 500,000kg that requires around 25 articulated lorries, at a cost in the region of £10,000 per load." - Will Clark, MD of a local fish processing company.

A lot of the fish processing plants yes are in Peterhead, Grimsby is the fish market from which other companies operate from.
If there's 25 articulated lorries a week leaving Peterhead and 90 percent are heading for Dover to be exported to the Continent, then that's 3 + lorries a day, depending on how much is caught and sold that day.

Even if it wasn't every day of the week due to fluctuations in load, 5 articulated lorries to Dover is enough for a morning service to Dover (trading finishes at the fish market by 12, starts at 7), switch over to the Eurotunnel at Dollands Moor and switch to lorries at the other end, much faster and could use some of the spare capacity after the morning peak.

The article itself is about how they rely on expensive road haulage to transport their goods and there is a clear market opportunity for fish transport to markets abroad, although I concede the loads are too small for transport to the fish market to be viable by rail sadly.

No, I’m saying that that 1/6th of a mile would cost about £20m to get hold of the land, excluding the costs of gaining the permission to do so (through an Act of Parliament, most likely), and not including any construction or design. Tunnels and cuttings need the right topography, of course. Which these two places don’t have. A tunnel to get out of Aberdeen would require more demolition than keeping it on the old alignment (which is slightly above ground level there, I believe.)

Having had another look at the line by Duthie Park, I concede that the line would be unable to be rebuilt on the previous alignment around Polmuir Road/Deemount Gardens.
However, there seems to be a potential alignment through a railway turntable backing onto Polmuir Avenue, to build a tunnel portal on that site would mean steep gradients and curves into the tunnel, but not an unsurmountable issue.
The area it backs on to on Polmuir Avenue is industrial, looking at Satellite View, so no disruption to housing.
The railway turntable which would be the site of the tunnel portal is already at ground level.
It only needs to drop a short level to pass under the flat parkland above and there is a wide corridor at the Ruthrieston end for it to ascend out of the tunnel.
Difficult and expensive, yes, insurmountable, no.
I appreciate your expertise as someone who has worked in the railway industry, however I think you may have been a bit cynical about the chances of reinstatement - you know better than any lay railway enthusiast (like me) that no reopening will be easy, especially in a city where sections of the trackbed have been redeveloped beyond restriction, however that shouldn't be a total barrier to the reinstatement, especially in such a valuable corridor such as this one - mostly preserved, lots of housing growth on the western edge of Aberdeen relatively poorly served by other forms of public transport, a once-in-a generation chance to make a coherent alternative proposal to more expensive and environmentally road building.

 

[Wynd]

This is a serious proposal and a number of the responses to this thread only highlight the ignorance of the individuals positing claiming to understand the issues that support this reopening.

BR idea that the section from Ferryhill junction would cost £20m has me in bits. That’s brilliant. £20m, hahahah!!! Incredible.

it’s telling in a way that the further we get in to this discussion, the more publicity it gets, the more vociferous the opposition. Why is that?
Do those of you arguing so strongly against it actually live here?

I see reference to parliamentary scrutiny, but which parliament are you referring to? This won’t go to Westminster.

 

[HSTEd]

If there's 25 articulated lorries a week leaving Peterhead and 90 percent are heading for Dover to be exported to the Continent, then that's 3 + lorries a day, depending on how much is caught and sold that day.

Even if it wasn't every day of the week due to fluctuations in load, 5 articulated lorries to Dover is enough for a morning service to Dover (trading finishes at the fish market by 12, starts at 7), switch over to the Eurotunnel at Dollands Moor and switch to lorries at the other end, much faster and could use some of the spare capacity after the morning peak.

5 artics per train?
That's a trailing load of something like two hundred tonnes or less.

You are going to be paying through the nose per tonne delivered, even assuming there are paths available.

And all this assumes this load survives Brexit.

It might make sense, if we were already subsidising a rapid railfreight network for part-train and wagonloads.
But we aren't and aren't going to, so it doesn't.

 

[Wynd]

Sorry, who is we? What is this fixed future you see where the costs of road freight and rail freight remain exactly the same as today?

Iv got a pretty nice bridge for sale if you’re interested?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Mar 2021 ==

£20m for 1/6 of a mile, I think I’m going to wet myself! Hahahaha

Maybe once upon a time a decade ago when Aberdeen had a chronic housing shortage and wasn’t in the grip of a structural decline in asset values due to a massive oil crisis compounded by a once in a century pandemic. Brilliant. The ignorance is comedic.

 

[HSTEd]

Sorry, who is we?

The British/Scottish people through the state apparatus?

What is this fixed future you see where the costs of road freight and rail freight remain exactly the same as today?

The amount road freight would have to increase in price to make this load competitive is astronomical, especially as it will be fighting for paths over hundreds of miles of heavily used (even post HS2) line.
And paths to get around or across London.

Are you going to give a path to a load that replaces four lorries, or the EMU carrying dozens to hundreds of cars worth of people? Or several at different points along the route

 

[Wynd]

I think my favourite bit of this whole thread is BR aiming to communicate to the entire electorate that this not a serious proposal and won't happen.

 

[XAM2175]

This is a serious proposal and a number of the responses to this thread only highlight the ignorance of the individuals positing claiming to understand the issues that support this reopening.

A proposal can be both totally serious and hugely impractical, you know - they're not mutually exclusive.

 

[Bald Rick]

Given that over 90% of the 25,000 boxes of fish landed at Peterhead in a typical week is distributed, in one form or another, throughout Britain and on to Europe, the volume of movement is immediately apparent. Even allowing for 50% weight reduction due to filleting etc, this amount of fish represents a payload of around 500,000kg that requires around 25 articulated lorries, at a cost in the region of £10,000 per load.

The key words there are “throughout Britain”

Even if it wasn't every day of the week due to fluctuations in load, 5 articulated lorries to Dover is enough for a morning service to Dover

It isn’t enough, not by a long way.

and could use some of the spare capacity after the morning peak.

Where would the train be by the evening peak?

However, there seems to be a potential alignment through a railway turntable backing onto Polmuir Avenue, to build a tunnel portal on that site would mean steep gradients and curves into the tunnel, but not an unsurmountable issue.

That depends if you count the laws of Physics as insurmountable

 

[yoyothehobo]

I think my favourite bit of this whole thread is BR aiming to communicate to the entire electorate that this not a serious proposal and won't happen.

I think Bald Rick has been very fair and explanatory with his reasoning and description of issues and costs, of which you have not provided a single iota of evidence to the contrary. Your reaction to being told its unviable is to put your fingers in your ears and shout la la la. It convinces no one and claiming that the number of people who are saying its a no hoper must mean its viable is a high level of mental gymnastics.

Just think though, if you cannot convince people on a forum that a project is worthwhile, what chance do you have with the people who hold the purse strings?

 

[Bald Rick]

20m for 1/6 of a mile, I think I’m going to wet myself! Hahahaha

Just using actual numbers for that stretch of line. What is your estimate, and on what basis have you made it?

Don’t forget that’s the cost before any design or construction. The Met Line extension costed out - 5 years ago - at £100m/mile, and that was on a line where almost no permanent land purchase was required and no residential compulsory purchase.



== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Mar 2021 ==

Just think though, if you cannot convince people on a forum that a project is worthwhile, what chance do you have with the people who hold the purse strings?

Who says people on the forum don’t hold the purse strings?

(Joke by the way!!!! )

 

[Wynd]

On that specific point, it’s taken as given that you purchase the land tomorrow, using compulsory instruments.

This project is in its infancy, it’s not happening tomorrow.

Any fantasy, or even fervent hope I may have held of convincing some of you of anything have long since been extinguished. You’re clearly not for being convinced of anything.

But that’s ok, some of the posters and some of the readers, particularly ones who actually possess local knowledge and are aware of the issues here are convinced. The proposals have also been very positively


Bald Rick, do you work for the civil service? I know you are well respected and have deep knowledge, but please, tell me where your
is coming from?
You work in the railways, but are so deeply skeptical or openly hostile to a reopening?
I appreciate this project is not a HS2 or has huge urban populations to generate massive passenger demand, but as already stated, that isn’t a reason not to do it. Or do you disagree?

Why are you so utterly convinced that this won’t happen? Is that even a fair position to take before we have a feasibility study completed?

Not having a go, genuinely curious.
Why take the current position you are taking when you could instead support it getting to feasibility study and reserve judgment after the experts, which you may be one of, have given a fully detailed appraisal?

This line of questioning isn’t even just for BR.
Why be so hostile so early?

 

[yoyothehobo]

There is nothing we are saying that wont be covered in a feasibility study which will say exactly the same thing.

the costs are the costs and those commenting know them.

 

[Killingworth]

Memories, back about 1962 being driven parallel with a train up the Dee valley by a rail enthusiast father. We didn't use the train both because it was too infrequent and the demand was to see Balmoral.

I've just traced the route on the OS 1:12500 map and aerial views. It's taken me 5 minutes to spot this is a non-starter. Construction would be extensive, veey disruptive and expensive.

Scotland is already well endowed with scenic railways for tourists. Currently Ballater only seems to support an hourly bus into Aberdeen, so the economics quickly cut the idea back to Banchory at best. That looks like an expensive political gesture even to do the feasibility study.

 

[37424]

Memories, back about 1962 being driven parallel with a train up the Dee valley by a rail enthusiast father. We didn't use the train both because it was too infrequent and the demand was to see Balmoral.

I've just traced the route on the OS 1:12500 map and aerial views. It's taken me 5 minutes to spot this is a non-starter. Construction would be extensive, veey disruptive and expensive.

Scotland is already well endowed with scenic railways for tourists. Currently Ballater only seems to support an hourly bus into Aberdeen, so the economics quickly cut the idea back to Banchory at best. That looks like an expensive political gesture even to do the feasibility study.

Indeed I suspect there are far better rail options that Scotland could spend money on, and of course the same could be said of a lot of crackpot schemes in England and Wales

Personally I would rather the money be spent on electrification of existing routes, new stations on existing routes, and schemes where the line still exists or will only require short section of new track, not schemes that could potentially run into billions especially for the level of population for a line to Ballater

 

[tbtc]

it’s telling in a way that the further we get in to this discussion, the more publicity it gets, the more vociferous the opposition. Why is that?

"Why is it that, as this discussion gets more publicity and more people find out about it, there's more opposition to it"... << that's not the argument in your favour that you think it is, trust me!

It looks like yet another example of "I want this abandoned line to re-open, so I'm going to work backwards to try to come up with reasons to try to justify it", and the fact that you would rather laugh at railway professionals pointing out some obstacles/ examples of other projects than understand the realities of the situation says a lot.

Peterhead, I could understand. A good distance from Aberdeen, a good bus service (proving that demand is there), there's an argument of "regeneration" that may help smooth over some weak figures. You could even extend some Glasgow/ Edinburgh - Aberdeens services through to Peterhead.

However, I'm not buying the "fish" argument. Partly because it seems rather risky to base spending plans on an industry that faces huge uncertainty now we've left the single market/ customs union (has the drop in fish exports since January been a temporary blip that will be corrected/ is it a long term problem/ can you convince British people to swap their fish fingers for the more exotic tastes that Europeans used to pay us good money for?). But also because, if Peterhead could justify all of these fish trains then why doesn't Grimsby have lots? Falmouth? If you went to the Treasury to ask for a large cheque to be signed BECAUSE FISH then they may well ask why other ports with existing railways don't have lots of fish trains. Sure, Peterhead lands more fish, but if existing ports don't transport large volumes of fish by rail then bringing it up to justify a Peterhead line feels like working backwards to come up with the answer that you wanted in the first place"

Banchory, I could understand being on a long list of Scottish schemes (but a long way behind Methil etc) but... all the way to Ballater? Pure political attention grabbing - the kind of stunt that'll quickly be forgotten about after the election, then dusted down in the run up to the next Holyrood elections. See also Carmarthen - Aberystwyth - which seems the Welsh equivalent.

 

[stuu]

BR idea that the section from Ferryhill junction would cost £20m has me in bits. That’s brilliant. £20m, hahahah!!! Incredible.

I have followed this forum for a number of years, and Bald Rick has consistently posted detailed technical and financial information, from inside the rail industry. Posters like him are one of the main reasons I read this forum. I do wonder where he gets the patience from though.

His explanation of why it would cost so much to rebuild that segment seems entirely reasonable to me. You have made no attempt to provide alternative realistic costings

 

[Tobbes]

I have followed this forum for a number of years, and Bald Rick has consistently posted detailed technical and financial information, from inside the rail industry. Posters like him are one of the main reasons I read this forum. I do wonder where he gets the patience from though.

His explanation of why it would cost so much to rebuild that segment seems entirely reasonable to me. You have made no attempt to provide alternative realistic costings

I agree with all of this - thank you @Bald Rick .

 

[Energy]

You work in the railways, but are so deeply skeptical or openly hostile to a reopening?

I'm sure Bald Rick would be delighted to have a railway reopen - just that this one is not feasible with its current business. BR is being reasonable, giving his rough cost estimate based on other rail projects instead of blindly saying that this is a great spend of money because no matter where it is a new railway is good. It could change in the future, but right now it doesn't have a good business case...

I appreciate this project is not a HS2 or has huge urban populations to generate massive passenger demand, but as already stated, that isn’t a reason not to do it. Or do you disagree?

Is that not a good reason? At the rough price estimates it has got to serve a lot of people to be worthwhile, the treasury aren't the most willing to give money away, I heavily doubt they will provide the very large amounts of money unless there is enough demand.

Why take the current position you are taking when you could instead support it getting to feasibility study and reserve judgment after the experts, which you may be one of, have given a fully detailed appraisal?

Fully detailed feasibility studies take time and money and are very likely to be close enough to BR's rough estimates. When there is a passing chance of a good business case then it can get a feasibility study.

This line of questioning isn’t even just for BR.
Why be so hostile so early?

Because its fairly clear that it is not viable, MPs propose new rail lines all the time, doesn't mean they happen.

I think my favourite bit of this whole thread is BR aiming to communicate to the entire electorate that this not a serious proposal and won't happen.

My favourite part of this thread is you trying to reject his cost proposals which have had evidence provided in the form of other rail projects while you don't give a proposal yourself.

then that's 3 + lorries a day

Make that 15+ and you might be able to justify a freight train a day, not a whole line though. Also if its containerised, why not just have trucks take it to a rail port?

 

[6Gman]

By rail? I'm not familiar with the details of how fish are transported, but I would assume fish are highly perishable and so would need to get transported to wherever they are processed and then to the shops as quickly as possible (except frozen fish are non-perishable, but obviously only after they have been processed and frozen. Does that bit happen at Peterhead?)

If you are transporting by lorry then presumably you need to wait just long enough for one lorry-load heading to the same place to be ready for transport and you're all set to go.

If you are transporting by train then presumably you need to wait long enough for one train-load (all going to the same place) to be ready for transport and then you're all set to go - provided of course that a train has been scheduled for that time and paths are available on the rail network. Since at a guess, one train load would be anything from 30-50 lorries, that suggests to me that transporting the fish by train would involve a highly perishable product waiting around a lot longer for transport.

Maybe there's something I don't know or have misunderstood, but that reasoning doesn't look to me very hopeful for rail transport of the fish. (And don't get me wrong, I think there are far too many lorries on the roads in general and I'd love to see some of them swapped to railfreight. But I'm not convinced that's practical here).

Is there anywhere in the world where fresh fish is moved by rail? As @DynamicSpirit points out, it seems a traffic singularly unsuited to rail.

I'm old enough (just) to remember fish - and livestock - moving by rail. And I can also see why they no longer do so!

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Is there anywhere in the world where fresh fish is moved by rail?

Mallaig, maybe 100+ years ago?

Otherwise, anything currently going on HGVs by Eurotunnel?