• 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!

Study to consider Borders Railway extension

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,972
As others have said it won't have a great business case because it is too far from Edinburgh to attract many daily commuters.

Hawick does however have a population of 15,000 or so which is far in excess of anywhere else in the Borders except Gala and it has suffered from the decline of the Textile industry so has a decent regeneration case.

If rail can make a decent fist of serving the BGH (local hospital) and the Council HQ in Newtown St Boswells then it may perform a useful Intra Borders role as well as Edinburgh commuting thus helping the Hawick business case.

I suspect it still won't be a fantastic BCR but with Wider Economic Benefits (WEB) it may just be viable to Hawick.

Hawick could attract commuters with sufficient journey time improvements on the existing line. 55 minutes from Edinburgh to Tweedbank is very slow and could be significantly improved. I think sections of the line are as low as 30-45mph and electrification would reduce the time penalty of having several intermediate stops. The line was built with sufficient clearances on new infrastructure for wires so it would be more straightforward than on other lines. If Hawick to Edinburgh in 55 minutes could be achieved it would be attractive to commuters. Whether any extension is worth the investment is a different matter! An extra couple of miles of double track would be very useful and electrification would be beneficial and might make financial sense though.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

oldman

Member
Joined
26 Nov 2013
Messages
1,014
The re-opening of the Borders route has wildly surpassed expectations in terms of passenger numbers.

A bit of a myth. A Transport Scotland spokeswoman said: 'Almost 1.3 million passenger journeys have been made in its first year, largely in line with the original forecasts.' The opening blip did not continue, though hopefully there will be further growth.

To me Hawick is too far to be a commuter town for Edinburgh - who would choose to travel over an hour each way on the train when housing in all price brackets is available closer to the city? Also at £3K a year from taxed income for an annual season (Tweedbank is £2.6), it probably won't help those who struggle to find employment in the local economy.

There is probably some psychological benefit in Hawick feeling connected to civilisation but I doubt it justifies the cost.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,414
Location
Salt & Vinegar
A bit of a myth. A Transport Scotland spokeswoman said: 'Almost 1.3 million passenger journeys have been made in its first year, largely in line with the original forecasts.' The opening blip did not continue, though hopefully there will be further growth.

To me Hawick is too far to be a commuter town for Edinburgh - who would choose to travel over an hour each way on the train when housing in all price brackets is available closer to the city? Also at £3K a year from taxed income for an annual season (Tweedbank is £2.6), it probably won't help those who struggle to find employment in the local economy.

There is probably some psychological benefit in Hawick feeling connected to civilisation but I doubt it justifies the cost.

I agree that Hawick - Edinburgh commuting will be minimal but there may be a market for some Hawick - Newtown St Boswells, Hawick - Gala and Hawick - BGH commuting.

That's why I think the decisions on stations in Melrose are particularly important. It may be overkill to have 3 stations in 2 miles but I think there is a market for a BGH station. That may mean the Melrose station has to be located on the west edge of town so it can serve the BGH as well.

Given the constrained nature of the old Melrose station site this may be a necessary change anyway.
 

och aye

Member
Joined
21 Jan 2012
Messages
799
I agree that Hawick - Edinburgh commuting will be minimal but there may be a market for some Hawick - Newtown St Boswells, Hawick - Gala and Hawick - BGH commuting.

That's why I think the decisions on stations in Melrose are particularly important. It may be overkill to have 3 stations in 2 miles but I think there is a market for a BGH station. That may mean the Melrose station has to be located on the west edge of town so it can serve the BGH as well.

Given the constrained nature of the old Melrose station site this may be a necessary change anyway.

I remember watching one of the episodes of the web series The Borders Railway: From start to finish David Spaven mentioned that to this day nobody knows why Melrose was never considered as the terminus of the reconstructed line in the early days of the project being investigated.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,414
Location
Salt & Vinegar
I remember watching one of the episodes of the web series The Borders Railway: From start to finish David Spaven mentioned that to this day nobody knows why Melrose was never considered as the terminus of the reconstructed line in the early days of the project being investigated.

As is often the case with Mr Spaven you should take his views with a pinch of salt.

The potential for extending to Melrose was extensively debated both in the original feasibility report by Scott Wilson and in the subsequent parliamentary bill process where the rival Corus report was promoted by the Waverley Route Trust (and David Spaven) proposed this.
http://archive.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/waverlyRB/reports/wrr05-01-vol03-05.htm

The Corus / WRT plan was for an electrified half hourly service to Gorebridge and an hourly semi fast DMU service from Melrose to Edinburgh.

The initial Scott Wilson feasibility looked at potential termini of Galashiels, Tweedbank, Melrose, Charlesfield (a park and ride location just south of Newtown St Boswells) and Hawick.

Melrose was rejected because it had a high capital cost to extend past Tweedbank with a relatively low forecast usage. It also seemed likely to the promoter that a Melrose station would extract from the usage at Tweedbank and make the station there less viable. The historic station in Melrose is on a very constrained site that would not be ideal for terminating trains and would be unable to offer much if any parking for users so would be restricted in catchment to those who can walk to the station.

Now you can happily disagree with a number of those assumptions and my preference would be as I have said above - a new Melrose station site near the BGH with parking provided.

However I think what is correct is that it would have been a high capital cost for a relatively low patronage and would have made the reopening less likely to happen in the first place by driving costs up further.

It is disingenuous to suggest that the proposal was never looked at though and David Spaven knows that fine well.
 

cjt0131

Member
Joined
14 Dec 2014
Messages
64
The OP failed to add the following from the BBC report:



In some more rural areas re-opening a railway line, while providing a better quality link for those places connected by it, can possibly undermine the economics of parallel bus routes which could even be enough to make a wider network unviable. There certainly seems to be a suggestion that this has happened in the Borders. That's not to say that this should prevent railway re-openings but ought to be taken into account when considering any such proposals.

just a little political point to make here

it is very hypocritical of MSP john lamont to make this statement as from day one when the borders railway was first suggested in recent times he was 100% opposed to it
 

QueensCurve

Established Member
Joined
22 Dec 2014
Messages
1,904
the spotterish obsession with diversionary routes will, as they say, butter no financial parsnips. The route must either stand alone or fail.

personally I can, just about, see a route to Hawick paying back after that..................

And yet in another thread it is being claimed that being diversionary route is the main driver for electrification of the Edinburgh south suburban line. :(
 

QueensCurve

Established Member
Joined
22 Dec 2014
Messages
1,904
You can't improve Carlisle - Carstairs to High Speed. Too windy.

A new line is needed and it has to serve Edinburgh and Glasgow. Hawick - Carlisle is entirely pointless to all except nostalgic enthusiasts. Never going to happen.

I never imagined that Airdrie to Bathgate or Edinburgh to Tweedbank would reopen. Glad to have been proved wrong.
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,223
And yet in another thread it is being claimed that being diversionary route is the main driver for electrification of the Edinburgh south suburban line. :(

There's a big difference between electrifying a relatively short extant connecting line in a major electrified railway hub area and reopening or building significant sections of new line in the countryside. With the South Sub, if electrification does not go ahead then there would be a net reduction in railway capability, as all the diesel trains which were previously able to be diverted round the line will now be gone and their electric replacements will be stuck.

If the Borders route isn't reopened as a diversionary route then it's not going to make any difference to the way the railway has worked for the past fifty years or so. ECML diversions can already be sent over to Carlisle and up the WCML. The most effective diversionary route plan for the WCML is to complete the redoubling of the GSW line and then electrify.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,414
Location
Salt & Vinegar
I never imagined that Airdrie to Bathgate or Edinburgh to Tweedbank would reopen. Glad to have been proved wrong.

Having been involved in one of those reopenings I was always confident both would happen and happy that my (fairly peripheral) involvement in preparing the business case ensured it did.

However look at Altnabreac's Golden Rules for rail reopenings:

1 - Population of 10,000+
2 - 60 minutes (75 at a push) journey time to a major employment centre (City of 300,000+ population).
3 - Extant or mainly unobstructed trackbed
4 - Ability to extend an existing service so more terminal capacity is not required.
5 - Regeneration potential in area served or potential to generate Wider Economic Benefits through improving local economic outcomes.


Both Airdrie - Bathgate and Edinburgh - Tweedbank re-openings fulfill all 5 criteria very nicely.

Borders extension to Hawick meets 1, 4 and 5 and is a partial fit on 2 and 4. So a marginal business case.

Hawick - Carlisle fails to meet a single one of those reopening criteria except possibly 4. Absolutely stone cold, non existent, awful business case.
 

Highland37

Established Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
1,259
Does rule 2 not mean that no re-openings are possible apart from to Glasgow or Edinburgh?
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,414
Location
Salt & Vinegar
Does rule 2 not mean that no re-openings are possible apart from to Glasgow or Edinburgh?

Pretty much in Scotland. And that reflects what has happened over the last 20 years with all reopenings being based on commuting into those 2 cities.

It may be possible to make a borderline case for Aberdeen as a 3rd centre of sufficient scale because of the strengths in its economy (less good recently, though that then brings in Criterion 5). Banchory and Ellon are both plausible candidates in my view but probably fairly marginal business cases.

But Dundee for example is not a big enough economy to justify rail re-openings. A St Andrews - Dundee service will not wash it's face. Brechin / Forfar are equally non starters.

In an English context London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Bristol are all potentially able to support reopenings.

Southampton, Exeter, Sheffield, Derby, Nottingham, Leicester are more borderline.

Again this reflects reality and the vast majority of viable re-openings will be based on commuter access to one of these big cities. Lightly trafficed rural lines just do not have a decent business case.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,414
Location
Salt & Vinegar
Nottingham is at least as big as Newcastle

But not as dominant a local employment market for rail. People commute into Newcastle from across Tyne and Wear, Northumberland and County Durham in a way that is not as evident in terms of Derby - Nottingham or Leicester - Nottingham commuters. Probably because the employment markets in Derby and Leicester are stronger than the equivalents in Sunderland or Tynemouth.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
But not as dominant a local employment market for rail. People commute into Newcastle from across Tyne and Wear, Northumberland and County Durham in a way that is not as evident in terms of Derby - Nottingham or Leicester - Nottingham commuters. Probably because the employment markets in Derby and Leicester are stronger than the equivalents in Sunderland or Tynemouth.

I agree that routes into Nottingham from Derby and Leicester link places that are relatively similar so there's not much reason to live in one and work in the other (although I did for 17 years!). However there are intermediate commuting flows both ways, especially from Long Eaton.

However there are transport corridors into Nottingham that are very different, particularly from the north. The Robin Hood line links former mining towns to where the jobs now are in the centre Nottingham and has been very successful particularly on the southern half where distances are more suitable for commuting. This is a bit like a smaller scale version of the Cardiff Valleys, and a re-opening to Leven is perhaps the most comparable Scottish example. Southern and eastern corridors into Nottingham are less suitable for rail, with the possible exception of Cotgrave, being much more affluent areas where settlement is more dispersed and unemployment low.
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
But not as dominant a local employment market for rail. People commute into Newcastle from across Tyne and Wear, Northumberland and County Durham in a way that is not as evident in terms of Derby - Nottingham or Leicester - Nottingham commuters. Probably because the employment markets in Derby and Leicester are stronger than the equivalents in Sunderland or Tynemouth.

Agreed - however don't forget that Nottingham has already had a reopening recently, and arguably the tram extensions are a form of rail opening. So it must meet the criteria.
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,223
Pretty much in Scotland. And that reflects what has happened over the last 20 years with all reopenings being based on commuting into those 2 cities.

It may be possible to make a borderline case for Aberdeen as a 3rd centre of sufficient scale because of the strengths in its economy (less good recently, though that then brings in Criterion 5). Banchory and Ellon are both plausible candidates in my view but probably fairly marginal business cases.

But Dundee for example is not a big enough economy to justify rail re-openings. A St Andrews - Dundee service will not wash it's face. Brechin / Forfar are equally non starters.

In an English context London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Bristol are all potentially able to support reopenings.

Southampton, Exeter, Sheffield, Derby, Nottingham, Leicester are more borderline.

Again this reflects reality and the vast majority of viable re-openings will be based on commuter access to one of these big cities. Lightly trafficed rural lines just do not have a decent business case.

St Andrews is an unusual case. It isn't just yet another small town (whose main industries have declined) within plausible commuting distance of a larger economy, as is the case for most of the reopenings in the country. The town has people commuting in totally the wrong direction from larger cities, notably Dundee. St Andrews property prices are such that no one would be saving money by living there and commuting into Edinburgh.

I think the main issue with it is that the town doesn't need assistance. You would need an extra path through Fife and over the Forth Bridge and that path could probably be used somewhere else and do more good. Such a path could be useful for serving central and north-east Fife but then it's a question of whether St Andrews is a better place to terminate than Dundee. Without Edinburgh/London services, a St Andrews rail link really doesn't make enough sense.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,972
Having been involved in one of those reopenings I was always confident both would happen and happy that my (fairly peripheral) involvement in preparing the business case ensured it did.

However look at Altnabreac's Golden Rules for rail reopenings:

1 - Population of 10,000+
2 - 60 minutes (75 at a push) journey time to a major employment centre (City of 300,000+ population).
3 - Extant or mainly unobstructed trackbed
4 - Ability to extend an existing service so more terminal capacity is not required.
5 - Regeneration potential in area served or potential to generate Wider Economic Benefits through improving local economic outcomes.


Both Airdrie - Bathgate and Edinburgh - Tweedbank re-openings fulfill all 5 criteria very nicely.

Borders extension to Hawick meets 1, 4 and 5 and is a partial fit on 2 and 4. So a marginal business case.

Hawick - Carlisle fails to meet a single one of those reopening criteria except possibly 4. Absolutely stone cold, non existent, awful business case.

How much would electrifying the new line cost vs reopening to Hawick? I am guessing that 8 minutes could be cut through electrification and would help to reduce the poor timetable resilance. Id put an extra 2 or 3 miles of double track next on the list followed by some line speed improvements. If 6 coach electric trains become filled every half hour and Hawick in 55 minutes is possible, then and only then should extending the line be a priority.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
In an English context London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Bristol are all potentially able to support reopenings.

Southampton, Exeter, Sheffield, Derby, Nottingham, Leicester are more borderline.

How do Oxford and Cambridge fit into your model.....?
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
Are you thinking of the Wisbech line proposal?

No - EWR. To take Altnabreac's tests:

1 - Population of 10,000+

Yes - but already rail served.

2 - 60 minutes (75 at a push) journey time to a major employment centre (City of 300,000+ population).

Yes - but since the places en-route have established routes into London doesn't really count.

3 - Extant or mainly unobstructed trackbed

Partly - not Bedford - Cambridge

4 - Ability to extend an existing service so more terminal capacity is not required.

No.

5 - Regeneration potential in area served or potential to generate Wider Economic Benefits through improving local economic outcomes.

Not really as all are growing economic areas regardless - the wider economic benefits are already coming through in the Oxford - Cambridge corridor.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Having been involved in one of those reopenings I was always confident both would happen and happy that my (fairly peripheral) involvement in preparing the business case ensured it did.

However look at Altnabreac's Golden Rules for rail reopenings:

1 - Population of 10,000+
2 - 60 minutes (75 at a push) journey time to a major employment centre (City of 300,000+ population).
3 - Extant or mainly unobstructed trackbed
4 - Ability to extend an existing service so more terminal capacity is not required.
5 - Regeneration potential in area served or potential to generate Wider Economic Benefits through improving local economic outcomes.


Both Airdrie - Bathgate and Edinburgh - Tweedbank re-openings fulfill all 5 criteria very nicely.

Borders extension to Hawick meets 1, 4 and 5 and is a partial fit on 2 and 4. So a marginal business case.

Hawick - Carlisle fails to meet a single one of those reopening criteria except possibly 4. Absolutely stone cold, non existent, awful business case.

there is no place for such common sense and logic here. I banish you. ;)

BTW i hope you have registered that test somewhere - it is very sensible as a rule of thumb.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,414
Location
Salt & Vinegar
No - EWR. To take Altnabreac's tests:

1 - Population of 10,000+

Yes - but already rail served.

2 - 60 minutes (75 at a push) journey time to a major employment centre (City of 300,000+ population).

Yes - but since the places en-route have established routes into London doesn't really count.

3 - Extant or mainly unobstructed trackbed

Partly - not Bedford - Cambridge

4 - Ability to extend an existing service so more terminal capacity is not required.

No.

5 - Regeneration potential in area served or potential to generate Wider Economic Benefits through improving local economic outcomes.

Not really as all are growing economic areas regardless - the wider economic benefits are already coming through in the Oxford - Cambridge corridor.

I think EWR Phase 2 gets a few more points than that as it creates new links between centres of 10,000+ (MK, Bicester and Oxford).

MK and Oxford are both on the small side for being viable as the destination of services but because there is demand at both ends it helps the business case (as with Airdrie - Bathgate).

Phase 3 is probably weaker and again explains why we have seen less progress.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,414
Location
Salt & Vinegar
How do Oxford and Cambridge fit into your model.....?

I'd say they are both borderline. There is good commuting demand to both but not really enough to require much more in the way of rail services than they already have.

The relative locations of employment sites and stations is also not ideal.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I'd say they are both borderline. There is good commuting demand to both but not really enough to require much more in the way of rail services than they already have.

The relative locations of employment sites and stations is also not ideal.

It's more about the regeneration. Building 100,000 homes on the corridor just won't work without an increase in mass transport capacity.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
Having been involved in one of those reopenings I was always confident both would happen and happy that my (fairly peripheral) involvement in preparing the business case ensured it did.

However look at Altnabreac's Golden Rules for rail reopenings:

1 - Population of 10,000+
2 - 60 minutes (75 at a push) journey time to a major employment centre (City of 300,000+ population).
3 - Extant or mainly unobstructed trackbed
4 - Ability to extend an existing service so more terminal capacity is not required.
5 - Regeneration potential in area served or potential to generate Wider Economic Benefits through improving local economic outcomes.


Both Airdrie - Bathgate and Edinburgh - Tweedbank re-openings fulfill all 5 criteria very nicely.

Borders extension to Hawick meets 1, 4 and 5 and is a partial fit on 2 and 4. So a marginal business case.

Hawick - Carlisle fails to meet a single one of those reopening criteria except possibly 4. Absolutely stone cold, non existent, awful business case.

There is something about political will which is less predictable as well. The SNP in Holyrood seem to like their vanity projects - and extending Borders rail irrespective of the benefits case could be such an example.

Also I'd question the point about trackbed - the Borders railway trackbed is largely intact both to Hawick and onto Carlisle - the route through Hawick is probably the bit which is lost but then again the new route has a diversion away from the original formation at Millerhill.

I'd assume at the south end it would use the line past MOD Longtown as that final stretch from Longtown into Carlisle has been developed.

But where else do you think there's a problem? Bearing in mind they overcame the problems in Galashiels.
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,223
There is something about political will which is less predictable as well. The SNP in Holyrood seem to like their vanity projects - and extending Borders rail irrespective of the benefits case could be such an example.

Also I'd question the point about trackbed - the Borders railway trackbed is largely intact both to Hawick and onto Carlisle - the route through Hawick is probably the bit which is lost but then again the new route has a diversion away from the original formation at Millerhill.

I'd assume at the south end it would use the line past MOD Longtown as that final stretch from Longtown into Carlisle has been developed.

But where else do you think there's a problem? Bearing in mind they overcame the problems in Galashiels.

There are plenty of other candidate projects that would have more support. Leven would be universally popular, I think, and would have a clear regeneration role.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,414
Location
Salt & Vinegar
There is something about political will which is less predictable as well. The SNP in Holyrood seem to like their vanity projects - and extending Borders rail irrespective of the benefits case could be such an example.

Also I'd question the point about trackbed - the Borders railway trackbed is largely intact both to Hawick and onto Carlisle - the route through Hawick is probably the bit which is lost but then again the new route has a diversion away from the original formation at Millerhill.

I'd assume at the south end it would use the line past MOD Longtown as that final stretch from Longtown into Carlisle has been developed.

But where else do you think there's a problem? Bearing in mind they overcame the problems in Galashiels.

I think the main problem is likely to be finding a route through Hawick. An extension just to Hawick could terminate at a new station north of the Teviot.

Proceeding from Hawick - Carlisle the trackbed issues are likely to be:
New bridge over Teviot required
Demolition in central Hawick
Flat crossing on A698. Acceptability of new level crossing or viability of bridge here? Both seem very difficult to achieve.
New bridge required over B6399 and Slitrigg Water south of Hawick
Minor road at Whitlaw Farm - New bridge required to replace level crossing
Condition of viaduct over Barns Burn?
Condition of Shankend viaduct?
House on/close to trackbed at Shankend
Condition of Whitrope Tunnel
Whitrope Heritage Centre
New Bridge required of B6399 and Hermitage Water at Powisholm
Roan Farm - New bridge required to replace level crossing
Caravan Site relocation at Newcastleton
Private houses on/close to trackbed at Newcastleton
Langholm Street, Newcastleton - New bridge required to replace level crossing. Location means this may not be physically possible.
B6357 south of Newcastleton. Realignment of road required as runs along trackbed as well as new bridge required.
New Bridge required over Liddel Water
Condition of Bridge over Kershope Water?
Kershopefoot - New bridge required to replace level crossing
Stonehouse Tower - New bridge required to replace level crossing
Peter's Crook - New bridge required to replace level crossing
Kilnholme - New bridge required to replace level crossing
Riddings Farm - New bridge required to replace level crossing
Condition of River Esk viaduct?
A7 Longtown - New bridge required to replace level crossing

That's just a starter for 10 but by no means is Hawick - Longtown an extant trackbed with minimal works required. (though neither is Tweedbank - Hawick simple either).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top