Borders Railway in trouble

WatcherZero · 16 Jun 2011

A second consortium bidder has pulled out of negotiations to finance, build and operate the Borders railway blaming Transport Scotland for being impossible to work with. This leaves the only remaining bidder BAM, builder of the Cambridge Busway.

http://news.scotsman.com/news/Borders-rail-plan-rocked-as.6785792.jp

RailUK Forums

Skimble19 · 16 Jun 2011

Saying BAM are the builder of the Cambridge Busway is a little generous tbh with the mess they made.. after all, they have now been removed from the contract and replaced by another firm by Cambridge County Council.

YorkshireBear · 16 Jun 2011

i think that the line has alot more potential over the coming years and it would be a very bad decision should it be cancelled.

swt_passenger · 16 Jun 2011

Skimble19 said:
Saying BAM are the builder of the Cambridge Busway is a little generous tbh with the mess they made.. after all, they have now been removed from the contract and replaced by another firm by Cambridge County Council.

However, BAM Nuttall are a well established company building stuff all over the railway normally with no problems - such as at Reading, with the Caversham Bridge at Christmas and other work ongoing now. Their website covers many fairly massive infrastructure jobs that passed off without any comment at all, stuff like Hampstead Tunnel gauge improvements. SO why do NR keep offering them work?

The Cambridge busway has to be seen as an anomaly -
probably badly specified by the council - I guess it will all come out in court...

DarloRich · 16 Jun 2011

Why are Network Rail not doing this job?

route:oxford · 16 Jun 2011

jimmyowl1992 said:
i think that the line has alot more potential over the coming years and it would be a very bad decision should it be cancelled.

Definitely.

It would be an even greater benefit if the job is finished and it reaches Carlisle.

tbtc · 16 Jun 2011

jimmyowl1992 said:
i think that the line has alot more potential over the coming years and it would be a very bad decision should it be cancelled.

I'm not convinced, given the slow alignment and the fact that the (low) population of the Borders are split between several towns (so that a line from Edinburgh to Gala isn't of that much use to people in Peebles.

Lets face it, it's being built as much for political reasons as for genuine demand.

YorkshireBear · 16 Jun 2011

tbtc said:
I'm not convinced, given the slow alignment and the fact that the (low) population of the Borders are split between several towns (so that a line from Edinburgh to Gala isn't of that much use to people in Peebles.

Lets face it, it's being built as much for political reasons as for genuine demand.

Its being done to stimulate regeneration and increase access to edinburgh. I doubt the demand is there i do agree with that. But i want to see it as going to edinburgh one day.

The Engineer · 16 Jun 2011

Why are Network Rail not doing this job?

Because they're not set up to build new railways, basically!! Same reason as ROSCOs don't make trains.......

DarloRich · 16 Jun 2011

Airdire-Bathgate?

I mean having responibility for the build

sprinterguy · 16 Jun 2011

tbtc said:
I'm not convinced, given the slow alignment and the fact that the (low) population of the Borders are split between several towns (so that a line from Edinburgh to Gala isn't of that much use to people in Peebles.

Lets face it, it's being built as much for political reasons as for genuine demand.

The Scottish borders must be one of the largest areas of Britain, along with Central Wales, not to have a railway passing through it. While railways arent the be all and end all of public transport, they certainly are often the better option when it comes to shifting people over fairly long distances.

From my experiences of the area, I presume that car ownership is currently something of a necessity to allow inhabitants of the area decent mobility. This might work in favour of the Borders Railway if residents of the satellite towns around Galashiels, including Peebles and Newtown St. Boswells decide against driving into central Edinburgh on a regular basis and instead opt to park their cars at the station and catch the train. Though the population of Galashiels may be only 12,000 (Bumped up to over 14,000 by the inclusion of Tweedbank), it is the recognised transport hub for the area and hence the catchment area and potential market for the train service must be quite sizeable.

If youre going to build a railway anywhere in the Scottish borders, Galashiels is probably one of the best places to be aiming for. Theres potential for a few different extensions in the future.

Bittern · 16 Jun 2011

DarloRich said:
Why are Network Rail not doing this job?

I believe it's down to seeing if the private sector can do it. I disagree with this and believe that NR should be building the line. This is what they do and it works. Why fix something that isn't broken?

That said, I don't think the line will be axed. There's still one bidder left and that's all that's required. However,, if worst comes to worst, is there anything stopping the Scottish Government handing the project over to Network Rail?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

sprinterguy said:
The Scottish borders must be one of the largest areas of Britain, along with Central Wales, not to have a railway passing through it.

The East Coast Main Line would like to slap your face, but unfortunately it doesn't have any arms.

I think the line will be a success. I don't agree much with the whole "Well it won't do any good for people living in Peebles!!!!" idea. Did the Larkhall line do any good for those living in Coalburn? Probably not, but it did good for those living in and around Larkhall. The Borders line will do the same for the areas it serves. Galashiels is a good stamping ground for the new-old line and with a decent rail connection bus service, will serve a good number of people despite it not being quite on their doorstep. For this reason, the line opens up the borders which was cut-off significantly when the Waverley Line was closed.

The railway doesn't just open the borders to commuter to/from Edinburgh, but opens it to the tourist industry. It allows people from other rail-served areas to go to Edinburgh and onto the scenic Borders with little hassle on a regular, fast, comfortable train rather than a hassle-ridden, noisy, taking-the-long-way-round bus which probably finds a long way around a circle.

I will point out though that I think not going onto Hawick is a mistake. There's a town that needs a railway again.

sprinterguy · 16 Jun 2011

Bittern said:
The East Coast Main Line would like to slap your face, but unfortunately it doesn't have any arms.

The ECML sort of skirts round it in my eyes; it's on the coast for the most part. The West Coast does cut through to an extent but with only one station at Lockerbie even getting close to representing the area it's hardly serving the borders. Between the two anglo-scottish main lines is a vast swathe of country that has no railway links whatsoever which is the area to which I refer.

Bittern · 16 Jun 2011

It's on the coast, yes, but the coast is still part of the Scottish Borders.

sprinterguy · 16 Jun 2011

Bittern said:
It's on the coast, yes, but the coast is still part of the Scottish Borders.

Stop picking holes in my reasoning

I'm trying to draw attention to the comparative lack of railways in the Borders area and "big up" the case for the Galashiels line

You are of course right in what you say though, but that doesn't mean there isn't a large tract of land without any railways.

tbtc · 16 Jun 2011

sprinterguy said:
Between the two anglo-scottish main lines is a vast swathe of country that has no railway links whatsoever

True, but there's not many people in that area

Jonny · 16 Jun 2011

tbtc said:
True, but there's not many people in that area

That often helps to enhance the "social benefit" case. IMHO the line should extend to Carlisle and ideally have the branch to Hexham back as well (assuming that a way around Kielder reservoir can be found (but hey, we need the water in that reservoir)).

Greenback · 16 Jun 2011

There are several reasons why I support the building of the line.

Firstly, it will allow those in the area without cars an alternative means of getting to and from Edinburgh, and places to the north of the capital.

Secondly, it will provde people with cars an alternative tod rivign into Edinburgh. Therefore it will hoepfully reduce reliance on cars and reduce pollution.

Thirdly, it will enable people to move into the area. Many reopened line sin South Wales have enabled towns like Aberdare and Maesteg to be more desirable areas to live, due to better transport links, thus reversing years of decline and people elaving the communities for pastures new.

Finally, it is a step towards rebuilding the line to Carlisle, which will ultimately make access to the area a lot easier for tourists and visitors from the south of the UK.

If we take the argument about low population further, then we could ask why there are any lines at all outside of the built up metropolitan areas.

tbtc · 16 Jun 2011

Bittern said:
I don't agree much with the whole "Well it won't do any good for people living in Peebles!!!!" idea

Well, it won't. If you want to go from Edinburgh to Peebles then you'd do so directly (is the 62s still half hourly?), you wouldn't sit on a train to Galashiels and change there. The Borders are a big area, but this only serves one corridor.

Bittern said:
The railway doesn't just open the borders to commuter to/from Edinburgh, but opens it to the tourist industry. It allows people from other rail-served areas to go to Edinburgh and onto the scenic Borders with little hassle on a regular, fast, comfortable train rather than a hassle-ridden, noisy, taking-the-long-way-round bus which probably finds a long way around a circle

At the moment there's five main bus routes to the Borders.

The A1 corridor (Cockburnspath etc)
The A68 corridor (Jedburgh/Kelso etc)
The A7 corridor (Gala, Selkirk, Hawick)
The A703 corridor (Peebles - continues to Melrose via Gala)
The A702 corridor (West Linton, Biggar etc)

So most places have a fairly direct service (a long way around a circle?). Will the "regular" train to Gala be more frequent than the existing half hourly bus service from Edinburgh to Gala, Selkirk & Hawick?

Bittern said:
I will point out though that I think not going onto Hawick is a mistake. There's a town that needs a railway again.

I agree that Hawick needs to be better linked, given the job losses in the town.

DarloRich · 16 Jun 2011

Bittern said:
I believe it's down to seeing if the private sector can do it. I disagree with this and believe that NR should be building the line. This is what they do and it works. Why fix something that isn't broken?

That said, I don't think the line will be axed. There's still one bidder left and that's all that's required. However,, if worst comes to worst, is there anything stopping the Scottish Government handing the project over to Network Rail?

Nothing at all except the reputational damage and red faces for the Scottish ruling body

WatcherZero · 16 Jun 2011

Chiltern was handed over to NR

DarloRich · 16 Jun 2011

WatcherZero said:
Chiltern was handed over to NR

removed

lancastrian · 16 Jun 2011

tbtc said:
I'm not convinced, given the slow alignment and the fact that the (low) population of the Borders are split between several towns (so that a line from Edinburgh to Gala isn't of that much use to people in Peebles.

Lets face it, it's being built as much for political reasons as for genuine demand.

While I agree that it might be being built for political reasons, even politicans to do the right thing sometimes. Possibly for the wrong reasons.

To me the Waverley route is one of those route that should never have been closed in the first place. However, it is my opinion that they are only half building it. What is being done is actually only the first half of this route that should be reopened. Galashiles (Tweedbank) is the right place to pause, if a pause is needed. Then it should be extended through to Hawick. Along this route, there is a population of about 100,000. This is an approximate figure checking up on the 2001 census.

If the towns in the Airdrie to Bathgate route have their line and stations reopened, mainly to get people to both Glasgow & Edinburgh, for work and leasure, then surely those towns along the Waverley route should have the same benefits. As long as they don't skimp the building of this line, on purely cost basis. The top section from Edinburgh as far as Gorebridge, should be double track all the way. This is to gain the potential benefits to getting a lot of commuter traffic off the roads into Edinburgh. Then the rest of the route should have a decent length of dynamic loop built. This will save costs when the line is (and should be) extended on to Hawick.

Can someone please tell me why this planned line is going to terminate at Tweedbank? I have been told that this place is a very small village, so I was wondering why either stop at Galashiels, or to continue at least Melrose or St. Boswells?

Bittern · 16 Jun 2011

tbtc said:
Well, it won't. If you want to go from Edinburgh to Peebles then you'd do so directly (is the 62s still half hourly?), you wouldn't sit on a train to Galashiels and change there. The Borders are a big area, but this only serves one corridor.

Did you see my Larkhall line comparasion? It's the same idea. Coalburn is a village in South Lanarkshire which isn't served by a railway anymore, and the newest railway in South Lanarkshire doesn't touch anywhere near it. It serves the areas it touches and those surrounding. The same goes for the Borders line - it serves the settlements with stations and those which surround them. Peebles does not surround Galashiels anymore than Coalburn does Larkhall and Coalburn isn't served by the Larkhall line anymore than Peebles will be the Borders line.

Also, Larkhall has many dedicated buses to Hamilton and Glasgow, and yet the half hourly train service thrives even better than expected.

At the moment there's five main bus routes to the Borders.

The A1 corridor (Cockburnspath etc)

The A68 corridor (Jedburgh/Kelso etc)

The A7 corridor (Gala, Selkirk, Hawick)

The A703 corridor (Peebles - continues to Melrose via Gala)

The A702 corridor (West Linton, Biggar etc)

So most places have a fairly direct service (a long way around a circle?). Will the "regular" train to Gala be more frequent than the existing half hourly bus service from Edinburgh to Gala, Selkirk & Hawick?

See above for Larkhall bus comparison. The new line will have a half-hourly service. It's mainly just a huge extension of the Fife Cirlce services.

tbtc · 16 Jun 2011

Bittern said:
Did you see my Larkhall line comparasion? It's the same idea. Coalburn is a village in South Lanarkshire which isn't served by a railway anymore, and the newest railway in South Lanarkshire doesn't touch anywhere near it. It serves the areas it touches and those surrounding. The same goes for the Borders line - it serves the settlements with stations and those which surround them. Peebles does not surround Galashiels anymore than Coalburn does Larkhall and Coalburn isn't served by the Larkhall line anymore than Peebles will be the Borders line.

Also, Larkhall has many dedicated buses to Hamilton and Glasgow, and yet the half hourly train service thrives even better than expected

The difference is that the Larkhall line was promoted soly on the benefits of improving links to/from Larkhall (not to benefit all of Lanarkshire). Whilst the line to Tweedbank is clearly of benefit to Gala (and Tweedbank) it's being promoted as being for "the Borders".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

lancastrian said:
While I agree that it might be being built for political reasons, even politicans to do the right thing sometimes. Possibly for the wrong reasons.

An infinite number of monkeys, and all that... :lol:

I'm not against a rail link (full stop), I just think that a line to Gala (12,367 population) is more for political reasons (the Scottish Parliament trying to "balance" out investment, given the other schemes?).

There are going to be bigger places with no rail link (e.g. Leven/Methil have a population of around thirty thousand, Grangemouth should be on the list too).

lancastrian said:
To me the Waverley route is one of those route that should never have been closed in the first place. However, it is my opinion that they are only half building it

Agreed, on both accounts.

Its a shame that (even if the line is opened as far as Carlisle) it'll never beat the "via Carstairs" line for speed between Edinburgh and Carlisle.

lancastrian said:
The top section from Edinburgh as far as Gorebridge, should be double track all the way. This is to gain the potential benefits to getting a lot of commuter traffic off the roads into Edinburgh. Then the rest of the route should have a decent length of dynamic loop built. This will save costs when the line is (and should be) extended on to Hawick.

I'm glad you mention Gorebridge. The benefit of running beyond Newcraighall to serve the "greater Dalkeith" area is beyond argument - this will be a big success. If paths through the eastern end of Waverley weren't at a premium I could see four/hour to the Midlothian stations.

Bittern · 16 Jun 2011

tbtc said:
The difference is that the Larkhall line was promoted soly on the benefits of improving links to/from Larkhall (not to benefit all of Lanarkshire). Whilst the line to Tweedbank is clearly of benefit to Gala (and Tweedbank) it's being promoted as being for "the Borders".

But it does benefit them, albeit in a very small way. Lets look at your Peebles example: If a family want to go to Edinburgh for the day, the railway gives them the chance to only drive as far as Tweedbank and catch the train from there rather than driving all the way to Edinburgh on those -apparently- terrible roads.

Liam · 16 Jun 2011

tbtc said:
There are going to be bigger places with no rail link (e.g. Leven/Methil have a population of around thirty thousand, Grangemouth should be on the list too).

The longer they leave this line the more expensive it will be to reopen. The last train ran 10 years ago (although I am almost certain I seen a Class 66 and hoppers in around 2004/5), and the tracks looked in pretty good nick when I used to cycle in the area a few years ago.

Probably needs done sooner rather than later.

lancastrian · 17 Jun 2011

O

riginally Posted by tbtc View Post
There are going to be bigger places with no rail link (e.g. Leven/Methil have a population of around thirty thousand, Grangemouth should be on the list too).

I am sure that there are a few other lines in Scotland that should be reopened. Both of the examples you mention are worthy to be reconnected to rail. The two towns that I feel should reconnected are the old Great North of Scotland lines to Frazerburgh & Peterhead, from Dyce via Maud Junction. The freight lines there where still in use mid/late 70's. Such a large area that is now without rail transport and I am sure that if they had rail transport to Aberdeen, it would be of benefit to the whole of that area.

Bittern · 17 Jun 2011

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Borders-rail-link-in-doubt.6786442.jp

:>/

LNW-GW Joint · 17 Jun 2011

Bittern said:
I believe it's down to seeing if the private sector can do it. I disagree with this and believe that NR should be building the line. This is what they do and it works. Why fix something that isn't broken?

But NR IS in the private sector...

However, it is broken. NR enhancement costs are too high (see McNulty etc).
Not that the Scottish Gov has done any better itself with the parliament building and trams.

Borders Railway in trouble

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Emeritus Moderator

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member