Borders Railway Extension: suggestions on how this should progress

[Journeyman]

Is a new station actually planned for Melrose? The abbey is a little over a mile along the river from Tweedbank. Unless the main road is going to be re-routed there is very little room at the Old Melrose Station. I thought that the only intermediate station was going to be St Boswells?

I figured using the existing platform at Melrose wouldn't be too difficult, although you'd have to do something at the southern end to get past the bit that's been commandeered by the road. It doesn't look insurmountable, although double track would be much harder to fit in than single.

 

[paul1609]

I think that Melrose would have to meet the specifications for a new station PRM, width of platforms etc. I think you'd have to either demolish the privately owned old station or move the road. Have a look under Melrose on the Railscot site.

 

[Altnabreac]

Is a new station actually planned for Melrose? The abbey is a little over a mile along the river from Tweedbank. Unless the main road is going to be re-routed there is very little room at the Old Melrose Station. I thought that the only intermediate station was going to be St Boswells?

Nothing is planned yet but if a Hawick extension were to be built my expectation would be that a new station would be built adjacent to Chiefswood Road to serve the Borders General Hospital as well as Melrose / Darnick. I'd expect this station to be branded something like "Melrose - alight here for Borders General Hospital".

This site would be only be about 1 mile from Tweedbank and would be just under a mile from the Abbey / Greenyards as opposed to the old station site which is more like a quarter of a mile away from them. (Abbey is about 1.8 miles from Tweedbank at present).

However it would bring the BGH into accessible walking distance from a railway station and generate some internal Borders Council area rail demand and possibly some reverse commuting from Edinburgh so I'd expect it to have a much better business case than trying to reopen the old Melrose station. Logic being the daily commute and outpatients / visitor demand of a hospital is much higher than the combined demand of tourist visitors to the Abbey (60,000 pa) and a village of only 1,600 people (a chunk of whom would be closer to a new BGH station anyway).

 

[Paul Kerr]

Is a new station actually planned for Melrose? The abbey is a little over a mile along the river from Tweedbank. Unless the main road is going to be re-routed there is very little room at the Old Melrose Station. I thought that the only intermediate station was going to be St Boswells?

We're still waiting on the feasibility study to see what stations would reopen, but reopening Melrose as a single platform station is doable. The old down platform is still there and there is enough space for a single line without moving the A6091 west of the old station building. With Tweedbank station being so close and a chronic lack of parking at the Melrose station site I'm not sure reopening Melrose would make much sense, unless you made it like a public transport interchange as was done at Gala.

Where it gets challenging is immediately east of the old station building where the old railway bridge over a side road was removed and they built the A6091 on its site and for a short distance of the old trackbed eastwards; it will probably drive the road to be relocated a few feet to the south to allow a single track railway bridge to be installed alongside. Not impossible, but it won't be cheap, and several houses on the south side would probably need to be demolished. It might actually be easier to run the track along where the old platform is now, but that would mean demolishing the old station building so I don't imagine that idea being very popular...

 

[Paul Kerr]

What's interesting about the Borders Railway is how much has changed in the last fifty years. Back then, very few people in Galashiels would have regularly commuted to Edinburgh, as most people would have worked locally, and the local services on the route were pretty sparse - it was always more of a through route, although now of course it's primarily an outer-suburban commuter railway.

Extending to Hawick would probably boost local traffic at the south end, and maybe lure more tourists into Melrose, but going on further seems like a very unviable project. I know the area around Riccarton Junction and Steele Road, and a huge chunk of the landscape south of Hawick is similar - there's simply nothing there, and unless there's huge demand for journeys like Gala/Hawick - Carlisle - which I doubt there is - it won't happen.

The idea of a diversionary route doesn't really stack up either, because the whole thing would need to be a double track electric railway to be any use on that front. Also, in the event of extreme weather, it's more likely to be blocked than the WCML - I think people forget how challenging it was to operate.

Agreed, south of Hawick is a wilderness. Driving on the A7 between Hawick and Langholm the occasions that I have I could probably count on one hand the number of other cars I encountered. Ultimately it was the economics of the southern section which doomed the entire route in the 1960's; had the campaign to save the line focused more on retaining the line as a branch from Hawick to Edinburgh it might well never have closed.

If they were going to reopen south of Gala as a diversionary through route, would reinstating the old NBR/NER branch to Tweedmouth via Kelso make more sense I wonder so that you have an alternative to the ECML? The line is essentially engineered to mainline standards, historically wasn't affected by the severe weather you mention and you wouldn't even need to worry about electrification with so many of the services on the ECML being operated by 80x bimodes nowadays.

 

[Brissle Girl]

If they were going to reopen south of Gala as a diversionary through route, would reinstating the old NBR/NER branch to Tweedmouth via Kelso make more sense I wonder so that you have an alternative to the ECML? The line is essentially engineered to mainline standards, historically wasn't affected by the severe weather you mention and you wouldn't even need to worry about electrification with so many of the services on the ECML being operated by 80x bimodes nowadays.

I’ve pondered that too. An added benefit would be that tourist traffic to the area from the south would have at least 2 hrs cut off the journey time, and similarly for local traffic heading south.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It might actually be easier to run the track along where the old platform is now, but that would mean demolishing the old station building so I don't imagine that idea being very popular...

I am unsure how matters stand in Scotland, but as the Melrose station was given a Scottish listed Class A rating, demolition of the closed station would surely be challenged. Can someone better versed than I in Scottish matters please clarify that particular matter.

 

[Altnabreac]

I am unsure how matters stand in Scotland, but as the Melrose station was given a Scottish listed Class A rating, demolition of the closed station would surely be challenged. Can someone better versed than I in Scottish matters please clarify that particular matter.

Yes a Category A listing is the equivalent of Grade 1 in England. The listing includes the platform and canopies as well so it would certainly be difficult to rebuild a station on the same site. Demolition would definitely not be an option. Some form of adaptation might be permitted but I think its unlikely the current station site would be viable.

 

[Paul Kerr]

I’ve pondered that too. An added benefit would be that tourist traffic to the area from the south would have at least 2 hrs cut off the journey time, and similarly for local traffic heading south.

From the guidelines I've seen on the feasibility study, it looks like they are at least going to review the option of going eastwards. Reinstating eastwards to the ECML rather than south to the WCML would be about 50 route miles from the current terminus at Tweedbank; reinstating to Longtown and Carlisle would be just shy of 60 miles. There are a couple of short breaches that would need to be addressed (the Kelso bypass and a short section lost to a road in Tweedmouth) but in the main the formation is intact along with all the larger structures. Not sure if it would fly tbh. The feasibility study will tell us if this option is viable, but it's probably more of a starter than Hawick to Carlisle as there is much more of a hinterland between Galashiels and Berwick-Upon-Tweed to tap into (Roxburgh, Kelso and Coldstream are on the line of the route and Jedburgh is relatively close). As this line would bypass Hawick, you could add a basic branch line from St Boswells to Hawick as well (that would add on an additional 12 route miles). So the cost would be about the same as reinstating from Tweedbank to Carlisle, but there would be more potential traffic IMO.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

If they were going to reopen south of Gala as a diversionary through route, would reinstating the old NBR/NER branch to Tweedmouth via Kelso make more sense I wonder so that you have an alternative to the ECML? The line is essentially engineered to mainline standards, historically wasn't affected by the severe weather you mention and you wouldn't even need to worry about electrification with so many of the services on the ECML being operated by 80x bimodes nowadays.

Well Tweedmouth - Newtown St Boswells did come in useful as a diversion for a few months following the 1948 floods. That's one use as a diversion in the 113 years of its existence.

But it's a moot point as no one is going to reopen south of Gala as a diversionary through route.

 

[Bald Rick]

Well Tweedmouth - Newtown St Boswells did come in useful as a diversion for a few months following the 1948 floods. That's one use as a diversion in the 113 years of its existence.

But it's a moot point as no one is going to reopen south of Gala as a diversionary through route.

Your last 5 words are superfluous!

 

[Paul Kerr]

Your last 5 words are superfluous!

Being pedantic, it already has been reopened southwards from Gala as Tweedbank is a separate settlement in its own right on the opposite side of the Tweed

In all seriousness, I don't think the case will stack up to reinstate the line as as a through route, either south to the WCML or East to the ECML. I think a case can be made for extending to Hawick though (potentially with a branch to Kelso); the feasibility study should hopefully tell us soon enough.

 

[Tobbes]

Being pedantic, it already has been reopened southwards from Gala as Tweedbank is a separate settlement in its own right on the opposite side of the Tweed

In all seriousness, I don't think the case will stack up to reinstate the line as as a through route, either south to the WCML or East to the ECML. I think a case can be made for extending to Hawick though (potentially with a branch to Kelso); the feasibility study should hopefully tell us soon enough.

I can't see the case for Kelso, but if it were to be reinstated, then how far was it on the old route to Tweedmouth/Berwick and the ECML? (I can see on Google that it is about 32km in a straight line, but I'm sure someone here has the old route data.)

 

[swt_passenger]

I can't see the case for Kelso, but if it were to be reinstated, then how far was it on the old route to Tweedmouth/Berwick and the ECML? (I can see on Google that it is about 32km in a straight line, but I'm sure someone here has the old route data.)

I just ran Google’s measuring device along the signs of the line on satellite view, and it’s about 37 km (or 23 miles) to Kelso, and of course a significant majority of the route east of Sprouston is firmly in Northumberland, and they will have completely different priorities and financials...

 

[Tobbes]

I just ran Google’s measuring device along the signs of the line on satellite view, and it’s about 37 km (or 23 miles) to Kelso, and of course a significant majority of the route east of Sprouston is firmly in Northumberland, and they will have completely different priorities and financials...

Agreed, it's hard to see how it stacks up for reinstatement, but it will be interesting to see what the report come up with.

 

[swt_passenger]

Agreed, it's hard to see how it stacks up for reinstatement, but it will be interesting to see what the report come up with.

...and an important feature of the disused route is that the junction at Tweedmouth faced south, it doesn’t even make a link to Berwick easy...

 

[Tobbes]

...and an important feature of the disused route is that the junction at Tweedmouth faced south, it doesn’t even make a link to Berwick easy...

True, but if you were ever going to spend the money, presumably you'd build a triangular junction. I'm not holding my breath...

 

[DH1Commuter]

Extension to Hawick is good politics for the SNP and probably worthwhile on that count alone; clearly there is also social value there, though whether enough to justify the spend I don't know. My money would be on Hawick getting the green light, with a promise of feasibility study for further extension in a few years.

 

[Western Lord]

True, but if you were ever going to spend the money, presumably you'd build a triangular junction. I'm not holding my breath...

Much of the trackbed at Tweedmouth has been built on. The line of the railway has been severed by the A1 Berwick by-pass and a link road (Rotary Way) runs on the course of the railway. The land needed to build a north facing junction has all been built on.

 

[och aye]

Extension to Hawick is good politics for the SNP and probably worthwhile on that count alone; clearly there is also social value there, though whether enough to justify the spend I don't know. My money would be on Hawick getting the green light, with a promise of feasibility study for further extension in a few years.

If I was a betting man, I'd probably go with this as the most likely scenario.

 

[Bald Rick]

If I was a betting man, I'd probably go with this as the most likely scenario.

I am a betting man, and my £100 is on no extension for the next decade at least.

 

[swt_passenger]

I am a betting man, and my £100 is on no extension for the next decade at least.

So when do you expect the new station at Cornhill to open?

 

[Bald Rick]

So when do you expect the new station at Cornhill to open?

Tweed, Banff, or City of London?

 

[swt_passenger]

Tweed, Banff, or City of London?

The first, it’s the only one I know... My father told of childhood trips from Alnwick to Cornhill in the 1930s when it was still open, in the guard’s van with his grandfather...

 

[Hagbard Celine]

I am a betting man, and my £100 is on no extension for the next decade at least.

I think Bald Rick's money is safe until the locals vote for an SNP MSP. And there doesn't seem to be much likelihood of that.

 

[BrianW]

It's hard to see why Scotland would want to make it easier for folk to 'head south'; maybe the UK government might see it as 'strengthening the Union'?
If it wasn't convincing enough at closure what has changed? Is there insufficient capacity on WCML or ECML?
Unfortunately agreeing with Paul1609- there's simply nothing there, and unless there's huge demand for journeys like Gala/Hawick - Carlisle - which I doubt there is - it won't happen

 

[Class 170101]

Expensive and carbon intensive (to build) extension...

To meet Scottish Govt Carbon objectives, it may well need to demonstrate net carbon neutrality over the appraisal period, which I believe it would struggle to do even if it was electrified.

But how reliable are the stats anyway?

The current route cost more than predicted, gained more passengers than predicted and so probably reduced carbon by more than predicted as more journeys were made than predicted by train vice car.

 

[BrianW]

more journeys were made than predicted by train vice car.

That's another maybe unreliable stat then? More journeys made than would have been made might mean more carbon? I sometimes wonder where we might have been if Beeching had cut poorly used roads? (That;ll be for another thread - maybe 'done' before?)

 

[InOban]

But how reliable are the stats anyway?

The current route cost more than predicted, gained more passengers than predicted and so probably reduced carbon by more than predicted as more journeys were made than predicted by train vice car.

I suspect that it has increased the number of journeys along the route, rather than reducing the number of car journeys, so the total co2 may have increased!

 

[Bald Rick]

I suspect that it has increased the number of journeys along the route, rather than reducing the number of car journeys, so the total co2 may have increased!

Correct, it generated a fair bit of traffic.

Incidentally, a 4 car 158, capacity c280, uses (very) approximately the same quantity of diesel on a one way Borders trip as approximately 30 VW Golfs (comfortable capacity 120), or 4 coaches (capacity c240).

The issue is that most of the trains are anything but full, and certainly not full end to end.