£300M for the Borders Railway? Value for money or better spent elsewhere?

[Altnabreac]

Which kind of shackles the answer to the question: 'value for money or better spent elsewhere'?

Where else in Scotland could they have spent that sort of money then? A very narrow-minded decision by Westminster or were they trying to keep Holyrood sweet in the run up to the referendum?

This is how the financial settlement has worked ever since Devolution in 1999. The Scottish Government (Executive prior to 2012/2007) has a fixed budget and chooses how to spend its funds.

In fact the financial side of this arrangement predates Legislative Devolution in 1999. The Scotland Office had spending powers on a wide variety of areas from 1885 onwards and under Scretaries of State such as Tom Johnston in the 1940s and Willie Ross in the 1960s these powers were expanded.

You can look at schemes such as the building of the M74 in the 1980s and 1990s from Gretna to Abington which was prioritised by the Scotland Office north of the border while the Department for Transport and later Highways Agency did not attach the same priority to extending the M6 north from Carlisle to Gretna, leading to the "Cumberland Gap" in the motorway network that was not filled until 2008.

So differing transport investment priorities predate Holyrood and have nothing to do with the Referendum.

 

[kieron]

With respect; I can - and I just did. There was an implicit criticism of the differences between the jurisdictions.

People in Scotland don't need rail more than in England - but they're more likely to get it. That's the only relevant comparison.

It's quite odd to read someone with a stated location of "Greater Manchester" put this, give that the area was granted a £1.5 billion transport fund after it rejected a "congestion charging" proposal a few years ago. Wikipedia claims £368 million of this went on the Metrolink line to the airport.

The only thing I see as really being different about Scotland in transport terms is the distances involved. Before this line opened, the nearest railway station to Galashiels was Musselburgh, near Edinburgh and 24 miles away. None of the English places mentioned in the thread are nearly as remote.

 

[Clip]

It's quite odd to read someone with a stated location of "Greater Manchester" put this, give that the area was granted a £1.5 billion transport fund after it rejected a "congestion charging" proposal a few years ago. Wikipedia claims £368 million of this went on the Metrolink line to the airport.

The only thing I see as really being different about Scotland in transport terms is the distances involved. Before this line opened, the nearest railway station to Galashiels was Musselburgh, near Edinburgh and 24 miles away. None of the English places mentioned in the thread are nearly as remote.

But is that the 'holistic' view of the railways that he takes though?

 

[Altnabreac]

I don't know if this point has been made previously, but I thought this was a very well-considered post.

Incidentally, from memory, only one or two Waverley route trains start or terminate beyond Edinburgh Waverley.

Would it not make sense to extend the service on an hourly or even half-hourly basis as the norm? I admit i don't know where to - not being well acquainted with the diagrams (Bathgate? Fife Circle? Glasgow even by one of the many routes?)

Or would the likely impact on robustness of what is currently a largely stand-alone service not be worth the improved direct destinations?

The main demand driver for services through Edinburgh is for commuting from Midlothian to offices around Haymarket or west Edinburgh around South Gyle / Edinburgh Park.

Given this the current service of 4 through trains covering the 2 hour morning and evening peaks gives a good balance of providing direct trains for this commuter demand for anyone who starts work between 7.30 and 9.30 with the reverse flow covered from 16.30 to 18.30.

This will meet 90% of the cross Edinburgh demand while minimising the potential for disruption that running this service pattern all day would give.

Because of the unelectrified nature of the Borders line it makes most sense for these services to be linked to Fife Circle. While Dunblane / Alloa would work for now with electrification coming soon it's better to avoid changing everything around in 2 years time.

There is also less congestion on the North lines at Haymarket so Fife services are marginally less likely to be disrupted and import difficulties onto the Borders line.

All in all I think the current service pattern is a clever mix of meeting that demand for cross Edinburgh services without causing performance pollution more than is necessary.

 

[meridian2]

This is how the financial settlement has worked ever since Devolution in 1999. The Scottish Government (Executive prior to 2012/2007) has a fixed budget and chooses how to spend its funds.

In fact the financial side of this arrangement predates Legislative Devolution in 1999. The Scotland Office had spending powers on a wide variety of areas from 1885 onwards and under Scretaries of State such as Tom Johnston in the 1940s and Willie Ross in the 1960s these powers were expanded.

You can look at schemes such as the building of the M74 in the 1980s and 1990s from Gretna to Abington which was prioritised by the Scotland Office north of the border while the Department for Transport and later Highways Agency did not attach the same priority to extending the M6 north from Carlisle to Gretna, leading to the "Cumberland Gap" in the motorway network that was not filled until 2008.

So differing transport investment priorities predate Holyrood and have nothing to do with the Referendum.

OK thanks for explaining.

 

[backontrack]

I can't think of very many reopenings in Scotland or Wales that have not been considered successful, at least in wider context than simply benefits to costs, though i accept that there has to be some sort of criteria for judging which schemes should proceed and which should not.

In almost all the cases where lines have been reopened, I believe that the predicted BCR has been too pessimistic, though I'm happy to be corrected if my understanding is incorrect.

I think the line will be a big success. I don't think it's possible to quantify exactly what economic benefits it will bring, in terms of jobs during construction and then operating the line, as well as linking people to the capital and stimulating economic activity in the area.

I agree with both of these comments.

Really, the next big reopening really should be the line from Edinburgh to Perth via Kinross. An upgrade to the existing line would be necessary from Inverkeithing to Cowdenbeath, and then the line can be rebuilt and reopened from there to Kelty, Kinross, Glenfarg and Bridge of Earn (where there would be a junction).

 

[Altnabreac]

Really, the next big reopening really should be the line from Edinburgh to Perth via Kinross. An upgrade to the existing line would be necessary from Inverkeithing to Cowdenbeath, and then the line can be rebuilt and reopened from there to Kelty, Kinross, Glenfarg and Bridge of Earn (where there would be a junction).

There are a couple of existing proposals around this route.

The southern section between Inverkeithing and Halbeath was identified as a strong project by Transport Scotland back in 2008 as part of the Strategic Transport Projects Review and subsequently included in the STPR as Project 28:
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/report/j10194c-33.htm

As far as I am aware no work has commenced yet on any design for the route so the earliest it could be implemented would likely be towards the end of CP6.

Given the scale of the scheme it is probably at the limit of what can be delivered as a TAW Order (Scotland) and might require a full Bill process at the Scottish Parliament.

Heading north from Halbeath the scheme has no official backing but a proposal was put forward by Transform Scotland / SAPT suggesting a new line on a similar alignment.
http://intercityexpress.transformscotland.org.uk/what-we-want/edinburgh-perth-direct/

I suspect any intermediate stations would be limited to a Dunfermline Parkway around Halbeath and possibly a Kinross Parkway station.

Glenfarg would almost certainly be bypassed by a new longer tunnel and I suspect Kelty wouldn't justify a station.

It's the sort of scheme I could see happening in 10-15 years time but don't expect any rapid progress in the near future.

 

[Starmill]

As we're having such difficulty understanding what I thought was a fairly clear point, I'll try once again.

Galashiels was a long way away from Gorebridge, thus it was very difficult and thus expensive to connect by rail.

A new station at Horden would require 0 new miles of track but connect more people locally than Galashiels does to the railway. Obviously there are other costs and benefits in droves to both projects, but this is one of the key reasons. The UK is still one country, with patterns of transport need that dont change that radically between comparable environments countrywide.

The Borders Railway would, in a rational country, be very low down the list of priorities according to most appraisal methods because others can generate more improvements with the same cash.

I'm very clear on why it happened the way it did. This does make it justified, nor do I propose where else money from specific sources should be spent. I'm pleased this railway is here rather than not here, it's a wonderful thing.

If you could explain the relevance of TIF beyond cheeky personal comments that'd also be nice - although I don't expect you can.

 

[Altnabreac]

As we're having such difficulty understanding what I thought was a fairly clear point, I'll try once again.

Galashiels was a long way away from Gorebridge, thus it was very difficult and thus expensive to connect by rail.

A new station at Horden would require 0 new miles of track but connect more people locally than Galashiels does to the railway. Obviously there are other costs and benefits in droves to both projects, but this is one of the key reasons. The UK is still one country, with patterns of transport need that dont change that radically between comparable environments countrywide.

The Borders Railway would, in a rational country, be very low down the list of priorities according to most appraisal methods because others can generate more improvements with the same cash.

I'm very clear on why it happened the way it did. This does make it justified, nor do I propose where else money from specific sources should be spent. I'm pleased this railway is here rather than not here, it's a wonderful thing.

If you could explain the relevance of TIF beyond cheeky personal comments that'd also be nice - although I don't expect you can.

The problem is that countries get what they vote for. I'm English and from the North East originally but unfortunately regional devolution with control of Transport investment was rejected by voters there in 2004.

The highest levels of investment in transport infrastructure over the last 20 years have been in the areas with most regional devolution - Scotland, Wales and London.

Scottish politicians of all parties have prioritised investment in Borders Rail as they knew they would be punished by voters for not doing so. Equally London Mayors from both Labour and the Conservatives have seen Transport Investment as a key battleground for votes. I'm sure the new Greater Manchester devolution settlement will also drive more Metrolink expansion and investment in other transport schemes.

So I have little sympathy for arguments saying that the money would be better spent elsewhere. People in areas with low transport investment like the North East should be asking why their politicians have not been delivering.

Sedgefield constituency runs as far Wingate, little more than a mile from Peterlee and yet despite being represented by the Prime Minister for 10 years no transport investment was delivered to the area during his tenure.

 

[yorksrob]

As we're having such difficulty understanding what I thought was a fairly clear point, I'll try once again.

Galashiels was a long way away from Gorebridge, thus it was very difficult and thus expensive to connect by rail.

A new station at Horden would require 0 new miles of track but connect more people locally than Galashiels does to the railway. Obviously there are other costs and benefits in droves to both projects, but this is one of the key reasons. The UK is still one country, with patterns of transport need that dont change that radically between comparable environments countrywide.

The Borders Railway would, in a rational country, be very low down the list of priorities according to most appraisal methods because others can generate more improvements with the same cash.

I'm very clear on why it happened the way it did. This does make it justified, nor do I propose where else money from specific sources should be spent. I'm pleased this railway is here rather than not here, it's a wonderful thing.

If you could explain the relevance of TIF beyond cheeky personal comments that'd also be nice - although I don't expect you can.

To be fair, in a rational world it would be possible to throw together a pre-fab station on an existing line for a pittance, but these days even "small" improvements come at an astronomical cost.

 

[highlander]

I think any project that provides rural communities with predictable safe public transport will in the long run prove a good investment. The alternative is increased rural depopulation and increased property prices in the cities.

This is a good project, that supports vulnerable communities.

 

[ian959]

As we're having such difficulty understanding what I thought was a fairly clear point, I'll try once again.

Galashiels was a long way away from Gorebridge, thus it was very difficult and thus expensive to connect by rail.

A new station at Horden would require 0 new miles of track but connect more people locally than Galashiels does to the railway. Obviously there are other costs and benefits in droves to both projects, but this is one of the key reasons. The UK is still one country, with patterns of transport need that dont change that radically between comparable environments countrywide.

The Borders Railway would, in a rational country, be very low down the list of priorities according to most appraisal methods because others can generate more improvements with the same cash.

I'm very clear on why it happened the way it did. This does make it justified, nor do I propose where else money from specific sources should be spent. I'm pleased this railway is here rather than not here, it's a wonderful thing.

Sorry but you are naive in your thinking.

Sometimes projects are done for political reasons, that is an accepted fact of government I would have thought. In the case of the Borders Railway, partially rectifying one of the dumbest decisions of Dr Beeching had to be done. The general economic downturn after the Waverley Route was closed showed that social issues sometimes outweigh economic issues. The return of the Borders Railway will right 40 years of economic under development in the region. I am sure that the line will be extended to Hawick in the fullness of time for that very reason.

As for adding stations to existing routes, that unfortunately has counter productive aspects, not the least of which being that it slows down services, which reduces capacity. The one thing that we don't need in many areas is capacity reduction. I would argue that in some areas station rationalisation would be a good thing with better light rail or bus links being put in place as the offset.

Regrettably, the United Kingdom is NOT one country, it is four countries in a union. Each of the countries has reasonably radical differences in terms of transport needs and social needs. You cannot compare the needs f those four differing areas on a one model fits all principle.

Those differing needs make it fully justified that the Borders Railway has returned. For a change it is good that a government has recognised that business cases are often not worth the paper they are written on. The social and developmental changes that the line will bring over the next 20 years will show how justified it is.

 

[oldman]

The general economic downturn after the Waverley Route was closed showed that social issues sometimes outweigh economic issues. The return of the Borders Railway will right 40 years of economic under development in the region.

I get a little tired of this easy 'railway closes, economic disaster - railway reopens, economic joy' argument. Looking at the stats, Scottish Borders as a whole has better figures for employment and unemployment (higher and lower respectively) than the Scottish and UK averages.

The big loser in the area has been Hawick, with industrial decline in textiles, a tendency for things like retail to centralise in Gala, and a location too far for commuting to Edinburgh to be attractive, even if there was an 80-minute train service available. So it has declined and probably will continue to decline, which is sad, but sometimes you have to accept things.

 

[yorksrob]

I get a little tired of this easy 'railway closes, economic disaster - railway reopens, economic joy' argument. Looking at the stats, Scottish Borders as a whole has better figures for employment and unemployment (higher and lower respectively) than the Scottish and UK averages.

The big loser in the area has been Hawick, with industrial decline in textiles, a tendency for things like retail to centralise in Gala, and a location too far for commuting to Edinburgh to be attractive, even if there was an 80-minute train service available. So it has declined and probably will continue to decline, which is sad, but sometimes you have to accept things.

Tired you may be, but it seems to me to be very noticeable that areas that lose their rail service fall behind others that retain theirs.

Wigan and Leigh in Lancashire are a case in point. Both are former mining areas that have experienced economic challenges in recent years, yet it is noticeable that Wigan, which retains an important railway hub, is in a far better position to meet those challenges than Leigh, which lost its passenger service some decades ago.

 

[Greenback]

Nobody is claiming that there is economic joy when railways are reopened!

The fact is that we have seen significant changes in the demographics of this country, as evidenced by my own town, as well as places like Hawick. Manufacturing has declined, heavy industry almost disappeared, and many residents have been forced to 'get on their bikes' either by moving somewhere else, or finding a job in the nearest large city and travelling back and forth every day.

The result of this has included rural depopulation, an increase in the average age of those remaining in rural areas, and a huge increase in city traffic at peak commuting times. We also need to consider that centralisation of many services has resulted in the need to travel further to access such things as the tax office, specialist hospital services, and the justice system, although the internet has mitigated some of this.

This is unsustainable, and damaging to the wider economy in the medium and long term. Railway lines have a small, but useful role to play in helping to tackle these issues.

 

[Groningen]

First of all i would put overhead wires (electrification) on all possible routes between Glasgow and Edinburgh. Do not know what routes are diesel and electric.

 

[Clip]

Nobody is claiming that there is economic joy when railways are reopened!

The fact is that we have seen significant changes in the demographics of this country, as evidenced by my own town, as well as places like Hawick. Manufacturing has declined, heavy industry almost disappeared, and many residents have been forced to 'get on their bikes' either by moving somewhere else, or finding a job in the nearest large city and travelling back and forth every day.

The result of this has included rural depopulation, an increase in the average age of those remaining in rural areas, and a huge increase in city traffic at peak commuting times. We also need to consider that centralisation of many services has resulted in the need to travel further to access such things as the tax office, specialist hospital services, and the justice system, although the internet has mitigated some of this.

This is unsustainable, and damaging to the wider economy in the medium and long term. Railway line shave a small, but useful role to play in helping to tackle these issues.

Very true. And has been said you cant judge how good it is till you have had at least 10 years of it running to see the benefits of any house building or industry that pops up again along the line.

 

[Greenback]

Absolutely right. It's far too early to answer any questions about value for money, even if it was straightforward to try and do so!

 

[CdBrux]

People in areas with low transport investment like the North East should be asking why their politicians have not been delivering.
.

I would imagine most of the politicians in that area will get re-elected even if they spent virtually zero on public transport of any kind. They will point the finger at Westminster, say it's their fault and so on... If they were to look at Greater Manchester they might find with the right approach quite a bit is possible.

 

[Altnabreac]

First of all i would put overhead wires (electrification) on all possible routes between Glasgow and Edinburgh. Do not know what routes are diesel and electric.

Never fear, those are all in the current programme.

Main routes

• Carstairs - electrified in 1989
• Airdrie - Bathgate - electrified in 2010
• Falkirk High route - construction underway - completion December 2016
• Shotts route - construction underway - completion December 2019

Diversionary routes

• Whifflet - electrified 2014
• Cumbernauld - Glasgow - electrified 2014
• Cumbernauld - Falkirk - construction underway - completion December 2018
• Falkirk Grahamston - construction underway - completion December 2018

The only lines you might vaguely use between Edinburgh and Glasgow that we don't have definite electrification dates for are Edinburgh South Suburban, City Union line and Maryhill line and even there all are under consideration and likely to be electrified soon.

 

[tbtc]

If we have to take the OP’s question as literally as some on this thread seem to want (i.e. we’re apparently not allowed to suggest spending the money beyond Holyrood’s domain and we must stick to spending the money on new lines?) then I’d suggest that priorities for new lines should have been something like:

• Electrify a new line from Newcraighall to Gorebridge
• Electrify a new line to Renfrew
• Open from Falkirk to Grangemouth (which would need electrified by the end of the decade, though the lines through Falkirk are currently unwired)
• Re-open the branch from Thornton Junction to Methil – unelectrified for the time being

These would be the kind of “everyday” openings that’d be of use to more people – admittedly not as suited to running “tourist” trains on, less scenic vantage points to take pictures of A4s on - the kind of meat and drink services that mass transportation would be better suited to.

Of course, the question most people are answering is framed in terms of “which lines should we re-open” (which wasn't what was asked) – there are plenty of other uses of the money that we could consider – we don’t have to slavishly follow the path of a trackbed closed fifty years ago. What about a line from Inverkeithing to Halbeath to speed up services from Edinburgh to Dundee/ Aberdeen (by avoiding the twisting route through Kinghorn etc) and freeing up capacity for more stoppers on that scenic bit of line along the coast? Note the way that you can open several miles of brand new alignment (HS1) but many enthusiasts are more interested in what gets *re*opened (Gala).

Other Scottish plans? Maybe a grade separated junction at Partick won’t be “significant” enough for the Queen to open, but it’d improve the railway for hundreds of services/ thousands of journeys a day. The Partick bottleneck impacts on many lines in the west of Scotland; I’d have prioritised something like this if I had the money.

You’ll not get the same press coverage for something as practical as rebuilding “main line” stations (like Mussleburgh, South Gyle, Dalmeny) to allow overtaking and permit more services to fit around each other on what is currently just a two track railway – since there are some places in Scotland where “local” stations have suppressed demand because you can’t stop more services there since the line is tied up with longer distance services (e.g. most stations between Waverley and Drem).

And, rather than arguing about which village is currently most deserving of a station, why not consider throwing some of that £400m at giving Leith a (light) rail service by extending the tram? Or, since Leith is administratively part of Edinburgh, does that mean there’s less enthusiasm for building tracks to serve this densely populated bit of Scotland, compared to some rural places? Yes, the tram was opened years late, massively over budget and significantly descoped, but then the same could be said of a railway to Tweedbank, and I don’t see anyone saying that the Borders line has ruined the case for opening heavy rail in the next decade (the way that some railway enthusiasts claim that the tram problems in Edinburgh mean that there’s no chance of more light rail in Scotland any time soon).

Why not use the money to beef up services on existing infrastructure? For the cost of a new station with turnback facilities near Ninewells Hospital/ Dundee Science Park plus a handful of DMUs, you could run a “Metro” frequency service on Dundee Crossrail from “Dundee West” to Carnoustie – a fairly well populated corridor with busy bus services poorly served by rail. Nobody sensible is going to wait for the token train service at places like Golf Street, but the parallel bus service is regular/ busy on the Broughty Ferry corridor (Stagecoach and National express both seem to throw their newest vehicles onto it).

Or a handful of DMUs to provide a similar kind of service from Stonehaven to Inverurie (“Aberdeen Crossrail”)? Why are our imaginations seemingly limited to “what old line can we re-open”? The OP didn’t require such narrow parameters.

Elsewhere in the UK? The OP didn’t specify things had to be just in Scotland, after all. I reckon £400m could give you enough money to replace Pacers, given economies of scale in such a big order. It’s significantly more than the cost of 120 self powered vehicles for Northern will come to. You could replace XC Voyagers with five car bi-mode IEPs for that kind of sum?

But, to assess “success” (when compared to other projects), what’s your benchmark? The much hyped Alloa gets 384,000 journeys a year, but that’s only for an hourly service (and only to Glasgow, which is much more “car friendly” than Edinburgh – so Gala's half hourly service into car-unfriendly Edinburgh should be significantly more attractive?). Plus five thousand fewer people in Alloa, so Gala figures should be higher?

Cowdenbeath is a similar kind of train journey from Edinburgh (half hourly frequency, same ball park for times) and manages 158,000 journeys a year for a town half Gala’s size. Plus, whilst I’ve spent many a freezing afternoon/evening at Central Park watching the football through the stock-car fences, Cowdenbeath has never been marketed as the tourist destination that Galashiels is being trumpeted as. Plus Galashiels is a “railhead” for a wide area (compared to Cowdenbeath, which is just a few miles from stations in each direction), so should we be expecting more?

So, in five years time, when we are finally allowed to have an opinion, i.e. after five years of further growth, should we be expecting 400,000 journeys a year at Galashiels? 250,000? I know that any figure will be treated as a “triumph” by some, but, seriously, what kind of benchmark are people applying? Easy to criticise the experts for not anticipating demand, but does anyone want to stick their neck out and predict the number of journeys at Galashiels in 2020?

The business case was never important to this line – this line was the price that the LibDems demanded from Labour in order to go into coalition at Holyrood many years ago, when Scotland still had multi-party politics and the LibDems weren’t supine in coalitions.

Figures as far as Gorebridge should be pretty good (regular buses from around Dalkeith to Edinburgh, the train will be significantly faster than sitting on traffic past Sheriffhall Roundabout), but the Midlothian section could have opened years ago were it not for the daft edict that either the full line opens or nothing past Newcraighall opens. Frustrating that we could have taken thousands of car journeys off the road if we’d been able to open to Midlothian before they started worrying about Tweedbank.

One consolation though. Considering that south of Gorebridge it’s mainly single track through fairly empty countryside, I think that the delays/ increasing cost/ descoping of the “Borders” line means we hopefully won’t hear the argument that “it’d be either cheap/ simple to re-open lines on historic track beds” – maybe the problems experienced here will stop people automatically assuming that the only way to solve twenty first century problems is with nineteenth century solutions?.Some hope...

Splitting hairs further, but it's actually much closer to £400m than £300m.

...in which case I’ll take your figure as the benchmark.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to call the Borders Rail line a "White Elephant" - but clearly this is a view that you have chosen to formally publish and as a consequence may well have an impact on you personally

Can I apply to join the list of “people who think this’ll be a White Elephant (even if by formally publishing my thoughts, I may find consequences having an impact upon me)”?

I’ll let you know what consequences ensue

My judgement of success is that it should at least meet its operating costs within 5 years and not add to the subsidy burden.

That sounds a reasonable benchmark for any new opening.

We’re stuck with some (heavily) loss making lines in the UK, but we should try to ensure that any new lines manage to wash their face after a few years of operation.

Manchester Metrolink should be the benchmark – once the construction is completed, the new lines can cover their operating costs after a few years.

Schemes I would think £300m would be worthwhile are:
Ashington to Tyneside; Fleetwood to Preston; Colne to Skipton; Wisbach to March; Burton to Leicester; Tunnels in Liverpool; Portishead to Bristol; Armagh to Portadown; Ripon to Harrogate; Immingham to Grimsby; etc.
They are all good value in my opinion, it'll have a great impact on places connected.

Why are these all “good value”?

Ashington and Portishead seem to have good cases – they both link prime commuting towns into busy cities (Newcastle and Bristol), they both have frequent fast bus services (run by Arriva in Ashington, First in Portishead) that suggest there’s a decent market for rail to tap into.

But to work, you need a “cherry” at one end of the line, a place that there’ll be significant demand to get to.

Where’s the demand going to be for Colne – Skipton? There’s already a regular service from Blackburn/ Bolton to Bradford/ Leeds, so what major flows are going to be faster via Colne? Where’s the demand going to be for Wisbech – March? A few freight services diverted a day? We’ve got bigger priorities elsewhere.

I suppose you could argue that new extensions to the network are value for money but the counter would be there is no resources available to fund such extensions when we are having to throw a huge amount at the existing network simply to keep pace with the growing demand.

It would be like having a garden you don't have the time to care for already and deciding to rent an allotment patch as well, you could never reap the full benefit of the patch and the garden is going to suffer even more.

Interesting metaphor. There’s certainly enough in the existing “garden” that we could be focussing resources on, before we spread ourselves thinner and focus attention away from the “core”.

 

[47271]

I think the Borders railway is a great project, and there are some very well thought through suggestions here too.

Speaking as someone who spends quite a lot of time meandering along around Sunderland and Hartlepool, on Pacers or otherwise, £300m to improve services and bring a regeneration benefit in NE England outside the Metro area wouldn't go amiss.

 

[Altnabreac]

Why not use the money to beef up services on existing infrastructure? For the cost of a new station with turnback facilities near Ninewells Hospital/ Dundee Science Park plus a handful of DMUs, you could run a “Metro” frequency service on Dundee Crossrail from “Dundee West” to Carnoustie – a fairly well populated corridor with busy bus services poorly served by rail. Nobody sensible is going to wait for the token train service at places like Golf Street, but the parallel bus service is regular/ busy on the Broughty Ferry corridor (Stagecoach and National express both seem to throw their newest vehicles onto it).

Or a handful of DMUs to provide a similar kind of service from Stonehaven to Inverurie (“Aberdeen Crossrail”)? Why are our imaginations seemingly limited to “what old line can we re-open”? The OP didn’t require such narrow parameters.

Worth noting that these 2 projects were both appraised in the 2003 Strategic Rail Study at the same time as Borders Rail which at this point had a BCR of 1.02.

Dundee Crossrail had a BCR of 0.36 while Aberdeen Crossrail / Aberdeen - Inverness improvements had a BCR of 0.85.

Aberdeen Crossrail was subsequently worked up into a scheme that had most of the same benefits (30 min Inverurie - Aberdeen service, new station at Kintore but a lower operating cost. That project is currently construction. See https://twitter.com/networkraila2i

It would be interesting to see a current BCR for Dundee Crossrail. Some attempt has been made to add more calls at Carnoustie, Balmossie and Monifieth in recent years while TACTRAN are working on a business case for a new Dundee West station (although it does involve closing Invergowrie station so you could call it a relocation instead). This currently seems to have a BCR of 2.31 so hopefully it will be submitted for funding in the CP5 Scottish Stations Fund. See here for details:
http://www.tactran.gov.uk/documents/140617Item9TayEstuaryRailStrategyUpdate.pdf

 

[The Ham]

Elsewhere in the UK? The OP didn’t specify things had to be just in Scotland, after all. I reckon £400m could give you enough money to replace Pacers, given economies of scale in such a big order. It’s significantly more than the cost of 120 self powered vehicles for Northern will come to. You could replace XC Voyagers with five car bi-mode IEPs for that kind of sum?

Based on the Hull Trains order £400million would get you about 29 sets of 5 coaches for XC, (OK with a larger order you may get a few extra sets for that money) which isn't enough to replace all the Voyagers.

However, it would be enough to scrap end coaches from some sets and then using the spare middle coaches to provide lengthening to some of the trains, as an example by scrapping 24 end coaches from 12 sets (the figures below are based on only altering 220's) XC could end up with a fleet of:
- 29 new bi-modal trains (320 seats)
- 15 Voyagers with 4 coaches (200 seats)
- 22 Voyagers with 5 coaches (250 seats)
- 8 Voyagers with 7 coaches (circa 375 seats, or broadly similar to a pair of 220's).

Even allowing for 20 of the 29 bi-modal trains being used as a straight swap for the HST's (although allowing for maintenance and/or spares and/or tidal flows the number of bi-modal trains needed could be less and/or being able to get a better deal due to the order size so more bi-modal sets could be purchased) that is at most 3 sets less than the current fleet. However given the extra capacity of the 7 coach sets (basicly the same as a pair of 220's) and the new bimodal trains (broadly the same as a 6 coach Voyager) it could result in more seats for the services which need it most, even without using the controversial option of adding a pair of end coaches (with 60 to 90 seats depending on seating configuration) to another Voyager set as crowd busters.

 

[Starmill]

Sorry but you are naive in your thinking.

Sometimes projects are done for political reasons, that is an accepted fact of government I would have thought.

Why? This way populism lies. Projects ought to be carried out because they are shown to be a worthwhile use of resources through robust appraisal (which can be many things, not just traditional Cost-Benefit Analysis, there's good Multi-Criteria Analysis techniques out there) not used to buy votes in certain areas, which some would go so far as to call undemocratic. I accept that devolution (which is clearly a good thing) opens up these discrepencies when it is done in the uneven manner and in all places apparently to different degrees as it has been in the UK. This does not somehow make it an optimal model of government.

This is more a criticism of the strange way in which we govern our country, and that in itself comes as a product of wildly unbalanced economic development, but these topics lie beyond the scope of this thread. It's perhaps also worth pointing out that this is not the biggest example of where Scotland has directed resources to something that the rest of the country wouldn't do in order to bloster the power of the devolved administration.

As for the UK still being one country, I believe that was recently put to a vote and is, for the moment, settled.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If we take Galashiels and Tweedbank (given they are basically the same place, one for the town centre and the other for the park and ride) we should be looking at well in excess of half a million a year once demand has fully 'ramped up' from opening. There are stations which have 1 train an hour in a town centre that are in the half-a-million club (Knutsford, Hartlepool).

 

[yorksrob]

Why? This way populism lies. Projects ought to be carried out because they are shown to be a worthwhile use of resources through robust appraisal (which can be many things, not just traditional Cost-Benefit Analysis, there's good Multi-Criteria Analysis techniques out there) not used to buy votes in certain areas, which some would go so far as to call undemocratic..

I don't think that the boffins will ever come up with a fool-proof set of criteria that removes controversy to such an extent that it will render political decision unnecessary. Even with the fool-proof criteria comparing railway or even transport projects, there will still be a political bun-fight as to whether to spend the money on the railway or something else altogether.

And even then, it might be that the population of one transport deprived area decides that a railway is a priority for them and vote accordingly, whilst another similar area chooses to widen its by-pass instead. If the the multi-criteria analysis suggests that a bypass would be marginally better value in the first area and the railway better in the second, should we ignore the local preference ?

 

[HSTEd]

How many 3-car bi-modes could they have bought?
Could have likely taken most of the SPrinter fleet out of service with those.

 

[yorksrob]

How many 3-car bi-modes could they have bought?
Could have likely taken most of the SPrinter fleet out of service with those.

Why would we want to get rid of the sprinter fleet ?

Replacing non-life expired perfectly good trains would be poor value compared to providing decent transport to an area currently without it.

 

[clc]

Never fear, those are all in the current programme.

Main routes

• Carstairs - electrified in 1989
• Airdrie - Bathgate - electrified in 2010
• Falkirk High route - construction underway - completion December 2016
• Shotts route - construction underway - completion December 2019

Diversionary routes

• Whifflet - electrified 2014
• Cumbernauld - Glasgow - electrified 2014
• Cumbernauld - Falkirk - construction underway - completion December 2018
• Falkirk Grahamston - construction underway - completion December 2018

The only lines you might vaguely use between Edinburgh and Glasgow that we don't have definite electrification dates for are Edinburgh South Suburban, City Union line and Maryhill line and even there all are under consideration and likely to be electrified soon.

If the Longannet line was electrified could we see a 5th Glasgow-Edinburgh route?

 

[Starmill]

One of the beauties of multi-criteria analyses is that they can take non-pecuniary criteria into account, including things like the wishes of the people who actually live there.

I would also say that Galashiels and surrounding Borders towns are likely to do better at this than almost anywhere else I have seen!