Borders Railway Extension: suggestions on how this should progress

[Paul Kerr]

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.

Fair point, but unless there has been a fundamental shift in behaviour of motorists since I left the UK, most of the cars only have the driver in them (particularly those who commute) so on that basis even a 4 car 158 that is just over 10% full is just as carbon-friendly as taking the car.

Incidentally numbers from last year indicate 2,026,186 passenger journeys last year on the route (that's double the target set by Alex Salmond and >4x the projections in the business case to reopen the route). If my arithmetic is correct, based on ScotRail's timetable the train frequency and usage per train is as follows:

34 trains per day Monday to Friday
33 trains per day on Saturday
15 trains per day on Sunday

Total trains per week = 218 in each direction (436 total).

Average weekly journeys = 38,858
Average usage = 89 passengers per train.

Obviously not all passengers take the train from end to end, as you rightly point out, but the carbon footprint still looks far better than taking the car.

As far as construction goes, a considerable amount or work was done to reduce the carbon footprint on the Borders Railway project (e.g. quarrying for the ballast locally). If the line to Hawick goes ahead (and I am optimistic that it will), the line from St Boswells to Hawick doesn't have the same advantage of being alongside the A7 or A6091 so it will make material deliveries more convoluted, but I'm sure they could find ways to reduce the carbon footprint on this project as well.

 

[Paul Kerr]

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

Actually the SNP called on the government recently to reinstate the line in its entirety to Carlisle; Barnett consequentials from HS2 could be used to rebuild the Scottish section to the border at Kershopefoot which would leave the UK government to fund the 15(?) or so miles to connect to the existing railhead at Longtown. I do agree with you though; I don't see where the traffic is going to come from. The debatable lands south of Hawick are a virtual wilderness- spectacularly beautiful in their own way but virtually devoid of people and traffic. Rebuilding the line as far as Hawick as a basic railway with the same spec as the existing Borders line is doable, but it makes no sense at all to extend south of Hawick.

 

[Paul Kerr]

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.

Actually looking at Google Maps and the 1:25,000 OS map, not much of the trackbed has been taken up. Rotary Way did use the old railway cutting for about 400m but the old railway embankment further east is still intact alongside the new road. An industrial park partially encroaches on the solum further toward the ECML junction but in both the case of the new road and the industrial estate there is plenty of available land alongside.

To deal with the A1, the old trackbed to the west is on an embankment so you could bank the line up further and build a flyover to cross over the A1/A698 roundabout without too much difficulty, similarly with the other roundabout at the east end of the new link road you could use the existing embankment and build a bridge there. There would be challenges, I agree, but it's definitely doable if the feasibility study recommends reinstating the line. I doubt it would be viable tbh but I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

 

[Domeyhead]

I agree with those who say a through line south of Hawick will not happen but I am surprised that those continuing to argue its merits have ignored the freight potential of timber south out of Kielder and other nearby forests. The Rail Freight Group have campaigned for timber by rail for some time and depending on attitudes and taxation in the future there could just be a case to create a "long siding" north from Longtown to Kershope or even Newcastleton. There is certainly political support (though little or no funding) for getting freight on rail. However even if this did happen I don't see any business case for opening through to Hawick, but it does at least reinstate another part of the route.

 

[Meerkat]

The Rail Freight Group have campaigned for timber by rail for some time and depending on attitudes and taxation in the future there could just be a case to create a "long siding" north from Longtown to Kershope or even Newcastleton

Most of the timber would still have to be trucked to those railheads, so there isn’t much gain over trucking it to the Carlisle railhead

 

[Domeyhead]

Agree, margins are tight in all areas of freight logistics but in the case of timber specifically there is potential because of the nature of the commodity. Recently an abandoned 5 mile line was reinstated to Heathfield for timber loading to Chirk for this reason. In the case of Kielder the advantege would be if timber could be moved to a railhead say around Kershope by tractor/trailer without recourse to any significant road travel and all the extra cost of double loading/reloading. It would be more financially viable than running a passenger service anyway.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Agree, margins are tight in all areas of freight logistics but in the case of timber specifically there is potential because of the nature of the commodity. Recently an abandoned 5 mile line was reinstated to Heathfield for timber loading to Chirk for this reason. In the case of Kielder the advantege would be if timber could be moved to a railhead say around Kershope by tractor/trailer without recourse to any significant road travel and all the extra cost of double loading/reloading. It would be more financially viable than running a passenger service anyway.

I thought that Heathfield was the 're-activation' of a dormant line rather than a re-instatement. It was only used again for a relatively short time, for around one train per week I believe, and hasn't been used in recent years; possibly since the Dawlish problem in 2014. Not really a very good 'poster boy' for an expensive re-instatment.

 

[Domeyhead]

I thought that Heathfield was the 're-activation' of a dormant line rather than a re-instatement. It was only used again for a relatively short time, for around one train per week I believe, and hasn't been used in recent years; possibly since the Dawlish problem in 2014. Not really a very good 'poster boy' for an expensive re-instatment.

Yet it was worth doing for a single train a week. I'm no saying it would happen at Kielder but it has been suggested by the RFG itself, not just me flying a kite, and it will be interesting to look at the CBR.

 

[Paul Kerr]

Yet it was worth doing for a single train a week. I'm no saying it would happen at Kielder but it has been suggested by the RFG itself, not just me flying a kite, and it will be interesting to look at the CBR.

The big difference here is the length of line that would need to be relaid to get to Kielder (35 miles +/-) and reinstatement of 3 missing viaducts (Liddel and Sandholm viaducts on the Waverley route near Newcasteton and then the missing Dawston Burn viaduct on the Border Counties branch near Saughtree). Even to reinstate this as a long siding with low speed running and no signalling, the costs would be well north of £100m. Unless you are doing multiple freight movements per day I just don't see how the case would stack up for this.

A railhead in the vicinity of Kershopefoot would be an easier sell as you would only be talking about 12 miles and the major bridges are all extant on this section, but as has been pointed out it's away from most of the timber plantations with no direct road access from the east so pretty much all the lorries would have to go through Newcastleton to reach the rail head anyway. Doing an off-road tractor-trailer scenario to haul the timber from Kielder to a railhead further south would probably still require you to use the old railway track bed which means you would still need to build 3 large bridges to replace the missing viaducts above.

A railhead in or north of Newcastleton might be a viable alternative as you would be talking about 3 more miles of track and reinstating only 1 missing viaduct (the Liddel viaduct). Again, I don't see how the economics would stack up for it though.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Whilst I find this a most interesting hypothetical discussion forum, can someone say when the last official statement was made by those in charge of transport in Scotland with regard to the thread title matter of Border Railways extension.

 

[Pinus contorta]

Putting to one side the construction costs of reinstating the railway towards the large forested areas of southern Scotland. A big issue with shifting the timber from road to rail is that

a) Several different product lengths are being despatched out of the forests by wagon load.

b) Each wagon load of timber is likely going to one of several different destinations / customers.

It is difficult to see how rail can offer a viable transport solution , in the short to medium term, given the factors mentioned above.

If the timber is being transported a long distance to the destination it might make sense to transfer from road to rail. However I believe this is already happening between Carlisle and North Wales.

It seems unlikely that rail will be able to compete on time and cost for the short hauls to other timber customers ,who are located in northern England / southern Scotland, for the same reason rail doesn't add up for many other product flows in the UK.

 

[deltic08]

Putting to one side the construction costs of reinstating the railway towards the large forested areas of southern Scotland. A big issue with shifting the timber from road to rail is that

a) Several different product lengths are being despatched out of the forests by wagon load.

b) Each wagon load of timber is likely going to one of several different destinations / customers.

It is difficult to see how rail can offer a viable transport solution , in the short to medium term, given the factors mentioned above.

If the timber is being transported a long distance to the destination it might make sense to transfer from road to rail. However I believe this is already happening between Carlisle and North Wales.

It seems unlikely that rail will be able to compete on time and cost for the short hauls to other timber customers ,who are located in northern England / southern Scotland, for the same reason rail doesn't add up for many other product flows in the UK.

There is no issue with road/rail transfer. The plan was to chip the logs or cut into very short lengths onsite into soft-top containers and move to railheads (more than one in Keilder) on specially designed artic trailers that lift the containers off the ground in the forest and straight onto the rail flats operated by the lorry driver. Log length doesn't come into it. As chipped wood it takes up less volume and more weight of product can be carried per unit length. Two trailers were made and successfully trialled about 20 years ago but the rail extension didn't come about.
Handling at destinations is easier too.

 

[Domeyhead]

The big difference here is the length of line that would need to be relaid to get to Kielder (35 miles +/-) and reinstatement of 3 missing viaducts (Liddel and Sandholm viaducts on the Waverley route near Newcasteton and then the missing Dawston Burn viaduct on the Border Counties branch near Saughtree). Even to reinstate this as a long siding with low speed running and no signalling, the costs would be well north of £100m. Unless you are doing multiple freight movements per day I just don't see how the case would stack up for this.

A railhead in the vicinity of Kershopefoot would be an easier sell as you would only be talking about 12 miles and the major bridges are all extant on this section, but as has been pointed out it's away from most of the timber plantations with no direct road access from the east so pretty much all the lorries would have to go through Newcastleton to reach the rail head anyway. Doing an off-road tractor-trailer scenario to haul the timber from Kielder to a railhead further south would probably still require you to use the old railway track bed which means you would still need to build 3 large bridges to replace the missing viaducts above.

A railhead in or north of Newcastleton might be a viable alternative as you would be talking about 3 more miles of track and reinstating only 1 missing viaduct (the Liddel viaduct). Again, I don't see how the economics would stack up for it though.

I agree that any viaduct rebuild is a showstopper but a 35 mile freight only line and viaduct rebuilding is not what I was describing. A long siding as far as Kershope, with a runaround loop at the end, about 13 miles, not even as far as Newcastleton and definintely not into Kielder Forest itself. (btw I use Kielder as a gereric for all the conifer Forest around there). Timber for forestry would be dragged to a railhead on Forestry tracks and then shipped out by trainloads periodically. It's a commodity ideally suited to rail freight. As far as I know the formation between Longtown and Kershope is relatively intact. This is perhaps what the RFG are also thinking.

 

[Domeyhead]

Putting to one side the construction costs of reinstating the railway towards the large forested areas of southern Scotland. A big issue with shifting the timber from road to rail is that

a) Several different product lengths are being despatched out of the forests by wagon load.

b) Each wagon load of timber is likely going to one of several different destinations / customers.

It is difficult to see how rail can offer a viable transport solution , in the short to medium term, given the factors mentioned above.

If the timber is being transported a long distance to the destination it might make sense to transfer from road to rail. However I believe this is already happening between Carlisle and North Wales.

It seems unlikely that rail will be able to compete on time and cost for the short hauls to other timber customers ,who are located in northern England / southern Scotland, for the same reason rail doesn't add up for many other product flows in the UK.

Those are interesting points. As a forestry owner myself I would love to discuss these points in detail with you but as this is about the Waverley route I think others would lose patience! Suffice it to say that a) Multiple sawlog lengths are not a problem for rail freight any more than they are for road freight - probably less so. b) No. Because of volumes involved no wagon load would be split in that way, but trainload to a common destination is now a given. The issue is to offer the option to customers who have long since abandoned the idea of using rail and accepting trainloads rather than lorry loads. As for your final point, you are correct - the mills tend to be close to the product with one or two exceptions - eg Kronospan - however the customers for cut timber - the timber merchants - are widespread around the UK, especially further south, so there is an option for finished timber to be containerised and shipped out by rail.

 

[Pinus contorta]

Those are interesting points. As a forestry owner myself I would love to discuss these points in detail with you but as this is about the Waverley route I think others would lose patience! Suffice it to say that a) Multiple sawlog lengths are not a problem for rail freight any more than they are for road freight - probably less so. b) No. Because of volumes involved no wagon load would be split in that way, but trainload to a common destination is now a given. The issue is to offer the option to customers who have long since abandoned the idea of using rail and accepting trainloads rather than lorry loads. As for your final point, you are correct - the mills tend to be close to the product with one or two exceptions - eg Kronospan - however the customers for cut timber - the timber merchants - are widespread around the UK, especially further south, so there is an option for finished timber to be containerised and shipped out by rail.

That is interesting, in the wider context of reinstating the rail route, about the dynamics of the product. I hadn't thought about containerising the timber either. I just see the timber sat at roadside.

I heard that the logs being transferred from Devon up north were uneconomic because of the train being split somewhere on the journey. i.e. into 2 portions. Is that likely to be an issue with the Borders route reinstatement or selecting a location for a rail terminal? I've never been further north than Deadwater/ Saughtree in the car. I'm not that familiar with the area. Other than looking at a map.

 

[Paul Kerr]

I agree that any viaduct rebuild is a showstopper but a 35 mile freight only line and viaduct rebuilding is not what I was describing. A long siding as far as Kershope, with a runaround loop at the end, about 13 miles, not even as far as Newcastleton and definitely not into Kielder Forest itself. (btw I use Kielder as a gereric for all the conifer Forest around there). Timber for forestry would be dragged to a railhead on Forestry tracks and then shipped out by trainloads periodically. It's a commodity ideally suited to rail freight. As far as I know the formation between Longtown and Kershope is relatively intact. This is perhaps what the RFG are also thinking.

Thanks for clarifying. Yes the formation to Kershopefoot is pretty much intact and more importantly the 2 major bridges (Thistle Viaduct over the Esk and the smaller viaduct over the Kershope Burn) are intact. So theoretically doable. It would all depend on the cost. If the line was worked on the "one engine in steam" concept with stop boards that would eliminate all signalling and would drastically reduce costs. It would still be pretty expensive though so not sure how an economic case could be made for it...

 

[HSTEd]

If you want to get timber shipments out of Keilder off the road the easiest way is probably to contract for a temporary industrial cableway.

Much cheaper than spending hundreds of millions laying track for a line that will never carry more than a tiny fraction of it's capacity.

 

[deltic08]

If you want to get timber shipments out of Keilder off the road the easiest way is probably to contract for a temporary industrial cableway.

Much cheaper than spending hundreds of millions laying track for a line that will never carry more than a tiny fraction of it's capacity.

A million tons of timber is felled in Kielder every year. That is 4,000 tons every working day. Hardly a tiny fraction. How many tons is carried in one train? We are probably looking at two or three trains each way per day for ever. What is the value of 4,000 tons of timber? Is that not enough to justify relaying a single track 30 miles for freight alone off set by cost of road improvements, road maintenance, accidents and nuisance on very poor roads between Carlisle and Kielder from 240 lorry movements a day?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Noting that the 4,000 daily tonnes will presumably be going to a range of destinations, some of them relatively short distances away, what market share would you anticipate for rail freight?

 

[deltic08]

Noting that the 4,000 daily tonnes will presumably be going to a range of destinations, some of them relatively short distances away, what market share would you anticipate for rail freight?

Unfortunately I do not know distribution at this moment in time but I presume Scottish needs are supplied by Scotland and most of Kielder timber goes south. A neighbour was heavily involved in the logistics of removing timber by rail in containers from Kielder along a reopened Waverley route 20-30 years ago and shared his findings with me.
What are the current tonnages going to Workington and Chirk? One or two trains a day?Both plants are rail connected. It is at least 60 miles from Kielder to Workington as the crow flies so maybe economical once a container is loaded onto a rail flat of a train going south to Carlisle to be split there for tripping to Workington while the rest of the train goes to Chirk. 30 miles from Carlisle to Workington is not economical to load onto rail for tripping when it is already on a lorry.

Additionally, the paper mill at Hexham is supplied by road and as far as I know has never been rail connected although immediately adjacent to a railway line. Could the supply of chipped wood in containers by rail from Kielder via Carlisle be now more economical than single lorry loads of timber direct from Kielder?

 

[Bald Rick]

Is that not enough to justify relaying a single track 30 miles for freight alone off set by cost of road improvements, road maintenance, accidents and nuisance on very poor roads between Carlisle and Kielder from 240 lorry movements a day?

No, not by a long, long way.

 

[Paul Kerr]

A million tons of timber is felled in Kielder every year. That is 4,000 tons every working day. Hardly a tiny fraction. How many tons is carried in one train? We are probably looking at two or three trains each way per day for ever. What is the value of 4,000 tons of timber? Is that not enough to justify relaying a single track 30 miles for freight alone off set by cost of road improvements, road maintenance, accidents and nuisance on very poor roads between Carlisle and Kielder from 240 lorry movements a day?

I understand your points about traffic volume and the roads being very poor in that area but think about the major obstacles involved in reinstating the line to Newcastleton and Kielder:

1. Liddel viaduct missing (demolished in 1986)- although not a tall viaduct like the other missing viaducts, a new bridge will be complicated and expensive due to the angle at which the line of the route crosses the river. You could install a cantilever structure to avoid supports in the river bed but either way- not cheap; the gap to bridge is about 300ft due to the acute angle of the crossing.
2. Missing B6357 over-bridge near Newcastleton- again this would require a long skew bridge due to the angle at which the road alignment cuts across the track bed- won't be cheap.
3. Sandholm viaduct missing (demolished 1987)- will require a 50-60ft high and ~300ft long replacement structure with at least one pier to be built up from the river bed. It would be a similar structure to the one they built to cross the A7 at Hardengreen on the Borders Railway.
4. Dawstonburn Viaduct on the Border Counties branch missing. A new structure will be of the same order of magnitude as the one at Sandholm.

You're easily looking at £50M just to replace those 4 bridges. There are several other smaller structures that have been removed as well. Then you have 30-35 miles of track to replace.

There are also several points where small side roads crossed the line on the level, and the old level crossing on the A7 at Longtown. Network Rail don't allow level crossings on new build. They might make an exception for a low speed freight siding in fairness. Either way, the challenges and costs involved are very large.

A basic siding to a railhead at Kersehopefoot and either off-road haulage to that railhead, or improving the approach roads, would be much cheaper. You would still have the A7 crossing to deal with at Longtown but at least the major structures are in place and the trackbed is largely unobstructed between Longtown and Kersehopefoot. You're talking about 12-13 miles of track instead of 35.

 

[Paul Kerr]

No, not by a long, long way.

To install 13 miles of track as a low-speed (25-30 mph max) freight route with no signalling and assuming the extant structures are fit for use on the Longtown to Kershopefoot section- what would we be looking at (+/-) for cost per mile?

 

[HSTEd]

A million tons of timber is felled in Kielder every year. That is 4,000 tons every working day. Hardly a tiny fraction. How many tons is carried in one train? We are probably looking at two or three trains each way per day for ever. What is the value of 4,000 tons of timber? Is that not enough to justify relaying a single track 30 miles for freight alone off set by cost of road improvements, road maintenance, accidents and nuisance on very poor roads between Carlisle and Kielder from 240 lorry movements a day?

Not even close.
Given the modern standards in place and the current state of the construction industry, the cost is probably going to be north of a £250m.

4000t per day is only ~170t/h for 24 hour operation.

Such a thing is well within the capabilities of a modern industrial ropeway at a fraction of the cost of a rail solution.
The rail industry is incapable of expanding at reasonable cost - HS2 proves that more than anything.

 

[Bald Rick]

To install 13 miles of track as a low-speed (25-30 mph max) freight route with no signalling and assuming the extant structures are fit for use on the Longtown to Kershopefoot section- what would we be looking at (+/-) for cost per mile?

You can’t assume existing structures will be fit for use; and it’s not just structures but every embankment, cutting, culvert and drain. So at least £10m/mile, probably twice that. The costs of getting consent to build it alone will be north of £10m before you’ve even cut down the first bush.

 

[Bald Rick]

Such a thing is well within the capabilities of a modern industrial ropeway at a fraction of the cost of a rail solution.

Far better to use the existing solution with zero infrastructure cost.

 

[oldman]

A lot of Kielder timber goes to Egger's chipboard factory at Hexham - on the wrong side of the Tyne from the railway. Road to rail to road transhipment would be very expensive. How much would be going longer distance via Carlisle?

 

[Pinus contorta]

Some goes to Workington to the Iggesund plant.

 

[deltic08]

A lot of Kielder timber goes to Egger's chipboard factory at Hexham - on the wrong side of the Tyne from the railway. Road to rail to road transhipment would be very expensive. How much would be going longer distance via Carlisle?

I was thinking more about the paper factory in Hexham right next to the railway. Already chipped timber in containers would be no more difficult to transfer from a train in a siding than transferring and storing logs from a lorry in the chipboard factory.

 

[Paul Kerr]

You can’t assume existing structures will be fit for use; and it’s not just structures but every embankment, cutting, culvert and drain. So at least £10m/mile, probably twice that. The costs of getting consent to build it alone will be north of £10m before you’ve even cut down the first bush.

Yes I realize you can't assume a structure will be fit for purpose and the structures would require remediation before use, but in the end of the day the vast majority of the large iron bridges on the old Waverley line in the Gala Water valley were refurbished and are used on the reopened line. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the Thistle Viaduct and the Kershope bridge could be reused as well as they're used today for farm vehicle access and they appear to be in reasonable condition.

Also, are you really suggesting £20M per mile for essentially a basic siding with a 25mph speed restriction, no loops other than a ground-frame operated run round loop at the railhead, no signalling or associated support infrastructure, and no stations? If the Borders line could be rebuilt as a fully signalled 90mph line speed railway in 2014 with a 1/3 of it double track and 10% of it on an entirely new alignment at £12 million per mile based on published costs (and yes I realise you dispute the official published figures but still...), I would have thought reinstating a basic low speed single line on an essentially unobstructed solum could be done for a fraction of that cost. You wouldn't need a gold-plated spec for a freight siding operating a handful of trains per week.