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

[yorksrob]

It certainly sounds a darn sight better than what we use today !

 

[Altnabreac]

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

I was going to say absolutely not but if you were running a Kirkcaldy - Glasgow service via Alloa then for operational convenience you might link it to an Edinburgh - Thornton Fife Circle service and to avoid reversals in Kirkcaldy.

So almost certainly not but never say never.

 

[HSTEd]

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.

Because the sprinter fleet is soon to be life expired and with all the electrification going on there is a significant amount of below-the-wires running.
It would provide tangible benefits beyond leaching yet more money on subsidy forever in order to provide the supposed benefits.

And the Sprinter fleet woudl not be scrapped I fancy, but simply packed off back to England

 

[Argosy]

Because the sprinter fleet is soon to be life expired and with all the electrification going on there is a significant amount of below-the-wires running.
It would provide tangible benefits beyond leaching yet more money on subsidy forever in order to provide the supposed benefits.

And the Sprinter fleet woudl not be scrapped I fancy, but simply packed off back to England

The Scottish sprinter fleet is to be refurbished. The 156 is a better unit than the 158. It is also more environmentally friendly.

 

[BestWestern]

Because the sprinter fleet is soon to be life expired and with all the electrification going on there is a significant amount of below-the-wires running.
It would provide tangible benefits beyond leaching yet more money on subsidy forever in order to provide the supposed benefits.

And the Sprinter fleet woudl not be scrapped I fancy, but simply packed off back to England

Not quite. The Sprinter fleet is about to be fitted with all required modifications to make them compliant with forthcoming disability legislation; many will likely undergo general refurbishment at the same time. These modifications are very costly and will extend the horizons of the trains' life expectancy by quite some degree.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Scottish sprinter fleet is to be refurbished. The 156 is a better unit than the 158. It is also more environmentally friendly.

But probably not from a passengers' point of view, assuming the 158s are refurbished to their full potential. A ride on an Arriva or South West Trains 158 (or 159) demonstrates how they can offer an abience better than much newer diesel units, and a ride on a 150 demonstrates how they and their 156 cousins are noisy, rattly and unavoidably rather elderly; (that isn't to say that I find 150 or 156s disagreeable, but I personally find the 158 about the best current DMU).

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I read somewhere that all the infrastructure like bridge and tunnel clearances were done to take into account future electrification, why didn't they build it electrified and how must will it cost to electrify it?

 

[class26]

The Scottish sprinter fleet is to be refurbished. The 156 is a better unit than the 158. It is also more environmentally friendly.

I agree also with the above comment. A 158 is a much nice train to travel, on as a passenger. The noise from the engine in a 156 is horrendous when accelerating whilst a nicely refurbished 158 has an inter city ambiance. Just could do without the very high seat backs as in the EMT 158`s but otherwise they appear like new trains, quite (ish) and a better air con system would complete the job.

 

[Altnabreac]

I read somewhere that all the infrastructure like bridge and tunnel clearances were done to take into account future electrification, why didn't they build it electrified and how must will it cost to electrify it?

Two main reasons:

Firstly if electrified on opening then all the costs of electrification would be added to the project construction costs and everyone would be complaining how much over budget the project was compared to the price first quoted in 2003 (when electrification was out of fashion, even in Scotland, (remember the planned underground diesel served station in EARL).

Secondly it is not the busiest route served by Scotrail that is unelectrified. EGIP has 4-6tph of up to 6 (growing to 8 car length) so makes sense to electrify first. Stirling, Alloa, East Kilbride, Barrhead, Fife are all busier in terms of trains per hour, likely passenger demand and length of trains than Borders will be so the efficiency of electrification will generate bigger benefits (and free up more DMUs) if delivered to those areas first.

Borders Rail will almost certainly be electrified as with 2tph and structures work complete it will be a relatively easy business case to justify. However with refurbished 158s likely to have a longer life expectancy than HSTs I suspect Borders Rail will ahve to sit in the queue behind completion of electrification at least to Aberdeen so we're looking at the late 2020s.

It might manage to insert itself into the programme ahead of Perth - Inverness or Aberdeen to Inverness (on the basis of having 2tph rather than 1tph) but even then the need for HST replacement and strategic importance of the Intercity network may win out and keep Borders down the queue.

 

[The Ham]

Two main reasons:

Firstly if electrified on opening then all the costs of electrification would be added to the project construction costs and everyone would be complaining how much over budget the project was compared to the price first quoted in 2003 (when electrification was out of fashion, even in Scotland, (remember the planned underground diesel served station in EARL).

Secondly it is not the busiest route served by Scotrail that is unelectrified. EGIP has 4-6tph of up to 6 (growing to 8 car length) so makes sense to electrify first. Stirling, Alloa, East Kilbride, Barrhead, Fife are all busier in terms of trains per hour, likely passenger demand and length of trains than Borders will be so the efficiency of electrification will generate bigger benefits (and free up more DMUs) if delivered to those areas first.

Borders Rail will almost certainly be electrified as with 2tph and structures work complete it will be a relatively easy business case to justify. However with refurbished 158s likely to have a longer life expectancy than HSTs I suspect Borders Rail will have to sit in the queue behind completion of electrification at least to Aberdeen so we're looking at the late 2020s.

It might manage to insert itself into the programme ahead of Perth - Inverness or Aberdeen to Inverness (on the basis of having 2tph rather than 1tph) but even then the need for HST replacement and strategic importance of the Intercity network may win out and keep Borders down the queue.

Although if there is a suitable DMU option for intercity (i.e. 222's which may well be free by the late 2020's and only being about 25 years old) and no suitable DMU's for Borders Rail (or only ones with a limited remaining lifespan) then it could easily swing the other way.

 

[railjock]

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.

To get to Edinburgh Park you are quicker changing at waverley to get a train to Edinburgh Park station rather than staying on until South Gyle given the layover times. Big weakness imo.

 

[Altnabreac]

To get to Edinburgh Park you are quicker changing at waverley to get a train to Edinburgh Park station rather than staying on until South Gyle given the layover times. Big weakness imo.

Depends where in Edinburgh Park your office is. If you work in the offices at the north end the walk time is about equal from both stations. When I go out to meetings there I just get whichever train is first out of Gyle/EP as it is 50/50 walk time.

Once the new Edinburgh Gateway station opens there will be the option of switching to Tram from the Fife lines as well.

 

[yorksrob]

Because the sprinter fleet is soon to be life expired and with all the electrification going on there is a significant amount of below-the-wires running.
It would provide tangible benefits beyond leaching yet more money on subsidy forever in order to provide the supposed benefits.

And the Sprinter fleet woudl not be scrapped I fancy, but simply packed off back to England

The sprinter fleet is perfectly suitable for the lines it serves, particularly with a refresh. Replacing them would create a miniscule benefit to the passenger compared to opening access to rail for an area without it.

 

[backontrack]

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.

Yeah, you're right about the stations. I do think that Kelty might justify a station though - an extension of the Cowdenbeath stoppers? I'm personally not sure.

I think that, either using the line to Dunfermline or completely new build from Inverkeithing, that a new line between the Forth Bridge and Perth/Bridge of Earn has the best business case in the whole of the UK (except for one).* And it needs to happen.

Anyone know how quick the Dundee terminators would be if they were routed via Kinross and Perth? If this is quicker, than the Aberdeen services could run that way. I'm not too sure how everything would work (Dundee stoppers diverted to St Andrews?) but the gist of it is that we need a fast line from Edinburgh to Perth. Upgrades/electrification is also necessary, as it is in the Central belt and the Aberdeen/Inverness routes (though not necessarily the one between them).

Here are the projects that are the most important, IMO (in rough order of importance/different groups):

Necessary

Elephant in room
Edinburgh-Perth via Halbeath
Glasgow Crossrail


Should happen
Levenmouth Branch
Ashington/Blyth lines
Portishead Branch
Keswick Branch
St Andrews Branch
Renfrew Branch

*Remember this? Westminster 'don't.'

This isn't an exhaustive list.

 

[Starmill]

Alighting from the 1854 Edinburgh to Tweedbank at Gorebridge this evening I noticed that although the front coach of the 4 coach set was almost empty, the other 3 coaches had between a third and a half of seats taken! Clearly very impressive given it's not been open a week and that was the second Off-Peak train. These weren't even Midlothian passengers they were all for Stow and beyond. The train was full on departure from Edinburgh, the reason I was down in the front coach was because there were no pairs free elsewhere. Of course a not insignificant number were likely to have been for Brunstane and Newcraighall.

 

[HH]

I agree also with the above comment. A 158 is a much nice train to travel, on as a passenger. The noise from the engine in a 156 is horrendous when accelerating whilst a nicely refurbished 158 has an inter city ambiance. Just could do without the very high seat backs as in the EMT 158`s but otherwise they appear like new trains, quite (ish) and a better air con system would complete the job.

You'll be glad to know that Abellio agree, last I heard.

 

[CoffeeBoy]

Aren't the Scotrail 158s starting to go through a new refurbishment programme so that the whole fleet is alligned, including losing First Class compartment and the fitting of at seat power sockets etc etc.

Bry

 

[yorksrob]

Not an 'instead of' but an 'as well as', even with our notoriously iffy cost benefit analysis, the Wisbech branch appears to be throwing up BCR's of over 2. Way over 2 in some configurations, so this must surely be a priority project!

 

[Carntyne]

Aren't the Scotrail 158s starting to go through a new refurbishment programme so that the whole fleet is alligned, including losing First Class compartment and the fitting of at seat power sockets etc etc.

Bry

40 going through works to be refurbed to Scenic Train spec. 158701 first out last week. One per month until complete.

 

[pemma]

Because the sprinter fleet is soon to be life expired and with all the electrification going on there is a significant amount of below-the-wires running.
It would provide tangible benefits beyond leaching yet more money on subsidy forever in order to provide the supposed benefits.

And the Sprinter fleet woudl not be scrapped I fancy, but simply packed off back to England

The original winning Abellio bid for Scotrail proposed keeping all the Sprinters and releasing all the Turbostars but after it was awarded Transport Scotland had second thoughts on releasing all the Turbostars. While they were happy for them to be replaced by HSTs and EMUs they weren't happy for the newest train on non-electrified routes to be over 25 years old.

 

[HH]

The original winning Abellio bid for Scotrail proposed keeping all the Sprinters and releasing all the Turbostars but after it was awarded Transport Scotland had second thoughts on releasing all the Turbostars. While they were happy for them to be replaced by HSTs and EMUs they weren't happy for the newest train on non-electrified routes to be over 25 years old.

It was a sensible idea. Class 170s are both a lot more expensive (to run as well as to lease) and require different maintenance than the class 15x's (which makes them even more expensive).

But as is often the case, TPTB (in this case TS) are more worried about a possible newspaper headline than they are in getting the best deal.

 

[yorkie]

Just a reminder that this thread is about:

Borders railway - £300m for about 30 miles of new railway connecting a number of small towns to Edinburgh. Good value? If you had £300M to spend on any other railway project which would it be, why that one and why would it better value for money than the borders railway? Don't answer for projects that would would probably cost more.

For a discussion about the borders railway itself please use Borders Railway - Now Open.

For a discussion about any particular traction please create a thread (if there isn't one already) at Traction & Rolling Stock.

Thanks

 

[SpacePhoenix]

How many miles of other Scottish routes could have been electrified for £300M?

 

[sng7]

How many miles of other Scottish routes could have been electrified for £300M?

They are all being done in rolling programme anyway so i would doubt the extra money could or would have made any difference as we have seen down in England you need the skills as well and Scotland has those skills in its existing rolling programme

 

[Cliveblackpool]

I feel that it is long term investment into an area of Scotland, not just a railway.
Hope it will fuel more projects away from the big cities.

 

[work-traveller]

Interesting article in the current Private Eye about the Borders Railway. In essence, it's shining a light on poor procurement strategy by the SNP Holyrood government. Also mentions that some of the new bridged have been installed for single track capacity only, as a cost cutting measure. Implication of the article is that in order to save a small amount of capex now, the scheme has been knowingly built without future proofing for a busier route in the future (i.e. inter-regional diversion, freight diversion and (semi) express).

I don't know the status of operational performance modelling on this route (which I imagine is the case for potentially everyone who may read this), but it sounds like there is little capacity for absorbing or recovering from perturbation on this route. Most unfortunate if that is the case.

Whilst the Daily Mail, Express etc may be wide of the mark in things they assert in news articles a lot of the time, Private Eye does tend to be well informed and reasonably accurate (hence it's general lack of sensationalism), so there is quite possibly some basis for the article.

Only the beginning of the article appears online:

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/columnists

 

[HSTEd]

But there is absolutely no demand for a third north south border crossing line.

Especially as political problems in Edinburgh are probably going to force the construction of a full cross border high speed route.
This is a prime of example of a 'minimum railway'.

It is unfashionable to use BR era concepts but there it is.

 

[Altnabreac]

Interesting article in the current Private Eye about the Borders Railway. In essence, it's shining a light on poor procurement strategy by the SNP Holyrood government. Also mentions that some of the new bridged have been installed for single track capacity only, as a cost cutting measure. Implication of the article is that in order to save a small amount of capex now, the scheme has been knowingly built without future proofing for a busier route in the future (i.e. inter-regional diversion, freight diversion and (semi) express).

I don't know the status of operational performance modelling on this route (which I imagine is the case for potentially everyone who may read this), but it sounds like there is little capacity for absorbing or recovering from perturbation on this route. Most unfortunate if that is the case.

Whilst the Daily Mail, Express etc may be wide of the mark in things they assert in news articles a lot of the time, Private Eye does tend to be well informed and reasonably accurate (hence it's general lack of sensationalism), so there is quite possibly some basis for the article.

Only the beginning of the article appears online:

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/columnists

Indeed Signal Failures is a slightly patchy column that does pick up good stories but often fails to see the wood for the trees.

The hard truth is that Borders Rail was a fairly marginal line and had to be nursed through both the parliamentary and procurement processes carefully as other seemingly higher priority projects (GARL, Dalmeny Chord etc) fell by the wayside.

Borders Rail is never going to open to Carlisle, is never going to carry freight and is never going to be an inter regional service.

However what is true is that one day demand may have grown to the point of justifying a 2tph service to Gorebridge and a semi fast to Tweedbank (and Hawick).

At this point it is likely that money on new infrastructure will be needed between Portobello and Gorebridge.

The exact nature of how much new track, platforms, structures etc will be needed is unclear but apparently 'some' passive provision has been made.

It may be that new structures like Hardengreen Viaduct will come back to haunt us or it may be that a 4tph service to Gorebridge can run perfectly well with some single track sections in Midlothian.

For a relevant comparison look at Bathgate. Reopened by Chris Green in 1986 it was done on the cheap, too much single line, new platforms built on the opposite formation, Bathgate station unable to be extended westwards etc etc.

But it got built, it created demand over 25 years and in the end double tracking, electrification and extension were all justified. No one in West Lothian in 2010 was going on about the shortsightedness of decisions in the 80s. They were pleased the new upgraded line was happening.

Same thing with Borders. It will take 10-20 years to build demand, it may well be some elements could have been cheaper if done now but by the time you amortise the spending now when not required for 20 years it may not work out best value spending extra just in case.

 

[yorksrob]

Interesting article in the current Private Eye about the Borders Railway. In essence, it's shining a light on poor procurement strategy by the SNP Holyrood government. Also mentions that some of the new bridged have been installed for single track capacity only, as a cost cutting measure. Implication of the article is that in order to save a small amount of capex now, the scheme has been knowingly built without future proofing for a busier route in the future (i.e. inter-regional diversion, freight diversion and (semi) express).

I don't know the status of operational performance modelling on this route (which I imagine is the case for potentially everyone who may read this), but it sounds like there is little capacity for absorbing or recovering from perturbation on this route. Most unfortunate if that is the case.

Whilst the Daily Mail, Express etc may be wide of the mark in things they assert in news articles a lot of the time, Private Eye does tend to be well informed and reasonably accurate (hence it's general lack of sensationalism), so there is quite possibly some basis for the article.

Only the beginning of the article appears online:

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/columnists

it's an unfortunate trade off, but It's not the first time and it certainly won't be the last time that such trade offs have been made. The fact that the railway has been built at all is still a massive achievement.

If it's any consolation, they seem to manage to fit plenty of services between Tonbridge and Hastings in the peak hour, and that contains four short single track sections.

 

[backontrack]

In my opinion, extension should continue via Melrose and St Boswells to Hawick, but no further. They shouldn't have closed the line, but I don't see the point of reopening the rest of it.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

In my opinion, extension should continue via Melrose and St Boswells to Hawick, but no further. They shouldn't have closed the line, but I don't see the point of reopening the rest of it.

I do, it will offer the opportunity to residents of the areas along the line to commute to both Carlisle or Edinburgh for work & or leisure and take loads of lorries loaded with timber off of the roads, then there's the ability to divert services during engineering work or other times of disruption/accident etc without having to resort to RRBs, which can cause serious inconvenience to passengers with loads of luggage or kids etc.