I seem to recall a local radio interview at start of December (the 3 months had been reached) where passenger journeys were quoted as 385,000
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Borders Railway - Now Open
- Thread starter PaxVobiscum
- Start date
- Status
I seem to recall a local radio interview at start of December (the 3 months had been reached) where passenger journeys were quoted as 385,000
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Altnabreac
Established Member
Relax! They won't be publishing figures each month as that isn't really relevant. We might see some more figures at 6 and 12 months but really a scheme like this is evaluated over 3-5 years.
Any capacity issues in the short term can easily be dealt with by lengthening trains. Most services are only 2 coaches with a few 4 coach sets diagrammed. Once Edinburgh - Glasgow is electrified in 12 months time and especially once the new AT200 stock arrives in 2017 there will be plenty of opportunity to lengthen any busy Borders Rail services to 4 or 6 coaches.
Any 4tph running north of Gorebridge would require some capital investment but is very unlikely to be needed this side of 2025.
Last edited:
This shows no fall off so far then as I think September was 127,000. Very encouraging. If it exhibits the same numbers in December and January then first year forecast will be reached in under 6 months and 2020 forecast reached in 10 months. Forecast miscalculation or what? Yes, build it and they will come.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I am totally relaxed but short formations leaving passengers on platforms can only affect reliability and confidence in the service and choke off growth
Last edited by a moderator:
That's what I have always said. There's a saying that "new railways/stations generate new traffic" in other words people make journeys which they wouldn't do by any other means ie car or bus.
My guess would be that the traffic estimate will be wrong by the same factor it was with Alloa reopening.
Altnabreac
Established Member
Well I am also an optimist when it comes to rail re-openings but it's not just a case of following the word of Costner uncritically.
If we build a new railway to towns of 10,000 plus (Galashiels, Dalkeith) preferably areas that need regeneration (Borders), and have potential for new housing development (Midlothian) connecting to a strong economy that generates commuting demand within a 60-75 minute journey (Edinburgh) by extending an existing service (Newcraighall) along a mainly extant trackbed (Waverley Line) then they will come and it will be a success.
If we just build random new railways that don't meet these criteria (or at least most of them) then they won't come.
Coincidentally they look a little bit like something I've banged on about before...
Now the reason I expect Borders Rail to do particularly well are several:
The initial traffic estimates are now more than a decade old as Borders Rail has taken a long while to come to fruition.
The long gestation period has also allowed developers to build and sell houses for several years in anticipation of the railway coming, so you already have a market of potential commuters who have been awaiting the arrival of trains.
Edinburgh road traffic growth has been strong and the railway provides a significant step up in speed to central Edinburgh. In other areas with less road congestion the modal shift to rail may be less.
Edinburgh's economy continues to outperform that of the surrounding areas so there will be a strong pull factor to bring in commuters from those areas to higher paid jobs in Edinburgh.
Edinburgh house prices continue to outstrip prices in neighbouring towns so as transport links improve people will move out of Edinburgh in search of better value property.
Midlothian and Borders councils have both proactively encouraged large volumes of development along the Borders line.
So none of this is to discourage other rail re-openings but merely to highlight some of the reasons why Borders Rail is doing particularly well and the sort of conditions that are needed to make a successful re-opening work.
There are exceptions to your rule of thumb. Laurencekirk. I appreciate that it is a station and not a reinstated line but first year footfall forecast was passed in 4 months.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
However the fact it is a station is the crucial difference, in that it costs hugely more to rebuild a long section of line than just to add a couple of platforms. Also, once built, the extra costs of the extra station are pretty low as long as it can be served by existing services, whereas approximately doubling the length of the route will similarly double the operating costs. Given the much lower population served and the increasing distance from the major destination in Edinburgh, the ridership on any southern extension of Borders would most likely have to exceed forecasts by hugely more than has been seen either at Laurencekirk or for the Borders route so far.
Like any ridership figures that may exist today for Borders, your Laurencekirk example also relates to the first few months after opening. As discussed a couple of pages back, such a figure is not necessarily a good predictor of how long-term demand will compare with forecasts.
Last edited:
A reinstatement connected at both ends becomes an increase in capacity for through traffic that a stub cannot be.
If there is a case for extending to Hawick on passenger use alone then there is a case for reinstating on to Carlisle for timber traffic from Kielder and passenger use combined and any through traffic. Emergency diversions are also a possibility if for any reason Beattock is closed.
Who knows how many journeys would be made southwards from Galashiels, Melrose, St Boswells and Hawick by connections at Carlisle. Has a demand forecast been conducted?
Is not the case for a reopened second through route from Carlisle to Edinburgh largely dependent on what capacity remains via Carstairs and thus what might be usefully (or in future necessarily) transferred to the Waverley line (all right, 'Borders Railway', if you must)?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
And also:
- how much slower the alternative route is (a lot)
- whether it is electrified (no) and whether the capacity needed is for electric trains (probably)
- whether it serves the correct destination (no, the capacity issue is towards Glasgow not Edinburgh)
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,942
Currently there appears to be no spare DMUs available in Scotland. So in the short term pressures will not be eased.
The situation may ease this time next year assuming the 380s are available to be re-deployed to the E&G with displaced 170s not going off lease immediatety but being used in the Borders but I am not holding my breath on that one.
Altnabreac
Established Member
In Railway planning terms I would say under a year is the short term.
We know 7 x 321s are arriving (and becoming 320s) between January 2016 and August 2016.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35153722
We know that this capacity will initially be used to enable all the 318s to be refurbished by the end of 2016.
https://www.eversholtrail.co.uk/new...eets-to-meet-european-accessibility-standards
We know that Edinburgh - Glasgow via Falkirk will be electrified by December 2016.
http://www.egip.info/news/2015/10/first-wires-up-on-egip
We know that 380s will be used initially on Edinburgh - Glasgow until the AT200s arrive.
https://twitter.com/alastairdalton/status/530077964030181376
We know the DMU lease expiry dates:
5 x 3 car 170s (Eversholt ex Hull) 31 March 2018.
25 x 3 car 170s (Porterbrook) June 2018 flexible lease.
8 x 2 car 158s (Angel) 31 December 2018.
10 x 2 car 156s (Angel) ? 2018.
4 x 3 car 170/3 (Porterbrook) June 2019 flexible lease.
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk...Redacted Franchise Agreement - CU version.pdf p21
We know that the franchise is let on the basis of growth in services and rolling stock with around 200 additional carriages in service by 2025 than 2015.
Off lease:
128 DMUs above
48 314s
6-12 LHCS
for a total reduction of around 188.
New trains
124 HST carriages,
21 321/320s
264 AT200s
for a total new carriages of around 409.
Net increase in stock - 221 carriages.
So by December 2016 there will be spare diesel stock. It could be that Scotrail chose to return stock early that is on flexible lease terms but they are certainly not obligated to.
Now it may not be used on Borders as there may be other lines that have worse overcrowding.
As AT200s arrive in 2017 there will be even more spare DMUs.
So not cured by next week but I would still call that a short term shortage with a defined source of new stock.
iain-j
Member
A question I have about the Borders Railway is that if in the future the line is double tracked what plans if any were considered in regards to the current Galashiels station and double tracking that.
As I understand it the original station in Galashiels was sited where ASDA is now so it wasn't possible to build there and the current site is on the other side of the A7 from the bus station.
Given the way the station is now you could possibly double track that section by removing the platform but then the whole station would have to be moved. This would seem unlikely as they have just built the new Transport interchange next to it, so what future planning was considered if any?
As I understand it the original station in Galashiels was sited where ASDA is now so it wasn't possible to build there and the current site is on the other side of the A7 from the bus station.
Given the way the station is now you could possibly double track that section by removing the platform but then the whole station would have to be moved. This would seem unlikely as they have just built the new Transport interchange next to it, so what future planning was considered if any?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
The fact that many new/rebuilt bridges were only made wide enough for a single track suggests that the final design does not consider the possibility of doubling the whole route or even just lengthening the loops to allow some extra service or improve reliability. If this was ever needed then the work to achieve it would be far more than just finding a solution for Galashiels.
If you watch the videos of a trip down the line it seems the answer is "Very little". Several major structures have been built as single track including one viaduct. They would cost an enormous amount to redouble.
iain-j
Member
That's why I asked as having been down to Tweedbank myself I could see the parts such as Hardengreen Viaduct that were obviously single tracked yet in places such as Newtongrange station you could see track doubling could be possible there.
In various threads about the line I've seen the bridges and tunnels that were built to single line standard mentioned a lot just no one seemed to mention Galashiels Station.
Altnabreac
Established Member
There will never be a requirement for more than 2tph south of Gorebridge so no passive provision will have been made for double tracking at Galashiels.
If more capacity is needed it will be to run a 2tph semi fast to Tweedbank and 2tph stopper to Gorebridge.
That will need more double track and possibly a 3 platform station at Gorebridge.
The way it has been built it seems unlikely that Hardengreen or Lothianburn viaducts will have double track.
So the solution would likely be a 2nd track from Newtongrange to Gorebridge.
There would also likely need to be 2 tracks from Shawfair to Portobello with a redoubled junction layout. This bit may happen anyway as a capacity/reliability enhancement.
With those 2 bits redoubled I expect you could run a 4tph Gorebridge service without too much difficulty.
The Scotland Route Study indicates demand to Tweedbank will justify 4tph by 2043, even without an extension to Hawick.
Altnabreac
Established Member
Yes well. We saw from the appendices how accurate the attention to detail was there...
I'm sure it will be indicating the need for 4tph on the line in general rather than specifically to Tweedbank.
A new semi fast service would be much more effective and better value than 4tph to Tweedbank.
muddythefish
On Moderation
- Joined
- 13 May 2014
- Messages
- 1,576
Now then... with the Carlisle - Edinburgh route closed for a month because of floods surely this reinforces the case for rebuilding the Borders railway to Carlisle ?
sprinterguy
Established Member
For the sake of a perhaps once in a generation event? What sort of revenue and traffic would keep the line propped up the rest of the time? It doesn't seem to provide much of an argument for reopening the route throughout.
Also, why would a reopened Waverley route prove to be of any greater utility as a diversionary route than the Glasgow & South Western route is at present?
Genuinely curious to see others' thoughts with regard to these considerations.
Last edited:
It would be more cost-effective to electrify the GSW (and double-track throughout) since it actually passes through several places where people actually want to go from/to.
True. Judging by what has so far occurred, it would seem that at least an extension to Hawick would satisfy that point.
47271
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2015
- Messages
- 2,983
The existing Borders line is pretty full already with its own trains, so to provide a proper substitute for the WCML would mean double tracking and electrifying throughout, an enormous cost, and, as above, the GSW is much closer to that condition now being as it functions from end to end already.
One possible argument for Hawick-Carlisle as a diversion first and foremost, and regardless of there being no local population to serve, would be that the rebuilt line could be guaranteed to better withstand weather incidents than the existing cross border routes. Given the wild landscape it passes through, I think that would be a difficult promise to make.
One possible argument for Hawick-Carlisle as a diversion first and foremost, and regardless of there being no local population to serve, would be that the rebuilt line could be guaranteed to better withstand weather incidents than the existing cross border routes. Given the wild landscape it passes through, I think that would be a difficult promise to make.
Altfish
Member
I'm not sure how good a diversionary route the GSW route would be.
The current service takes the best part of 2 hours 30 minutes to get from Carlisle to Glasgow, I do appreciate that all these trains stop at every station.
But as a diversionary route a pendolino trapped behind a stopping 185 would not be very satisfactory. So in addition to doubling the track all the way you would ideally need some passing loops for the inter-city trains to make better time.
Otherwise it would be quicker with a bus replacement service
The current service takes the best part of 2 hours 30 minutes to get from Carlisle to Glasgow, I do appreciate that all these trains stop at every station.
But as a diversionary route a pendolino trapped behind a stopping 185 would not be very satisfactory. So in addition to doubling the track all the way you would ideally need some passing loops for the inter-city trains to make better time.
Otherwise it would be quicker with a bus replacement service
sprinterguy
Established Member
The current diversions over the G&SW seem to be a bit quicker in the southbound direction: The fastest takes 1 hour 52 minutes between Glasgow and Carlisle.
Electrification throughout would make a difference, as would removing the single-track bottleneck. You are correct that a few loops wouldn't be a bad idea though - not sure why a 185 would be stopping, btw.
Last edited:
Altfish
Member
Sorry, 185 was a typo, it should have been 158 or 156
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I suppose the service is at best hourly (over the southern half of the route) so there is the opportunity to 'put your foot down' before you catch the leading train up.
There used to be a passing loop at Dumfries, is that still there?
Last edited:
- Status