Borders Railway - Now Open

[railjock]

It's at least two years since the design involving the dogleg and two roundabouts on the A7 was first announced.

2 years isn't long in the Borders Railway space time continuum though.

 

[fegguk]

What's happening where the B709 is crossed further South? It looks on Street View as though there was a station there.

The existing road will be closed and a new one built further south with a bridge over the railway, the same sort of thing is being done at fountainhall,where likewise there used to be a level crossing. These are both quite major works.

see details of the plans on the Borders railway website

Heriot
New bridge
http://www.bordersrailway.co.uk/media/13432/129713-ATK-DRG-MD-000037.pdf

Old level crossing
http://www.bordersrailway.co.uk/media/13429/129713-ATK-DRG-MD-000036.pdf

Fountain hall
http://www.bordersrailway.co.uk/media/13453/129713-ATK-DRG-MD-000044.pdf

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What's happening where the B709 is crossed further South? It looks on Street View as though there was a station there.

Indeed there was a station at Fountainhall on this historic iconic route which was opened by the North British Railway on 4th August 1848 with two facing platforms spanned by an iron lattice bridge. It was closed on 6th January 1969.

Fountainhall was also the location where the Lauder Light Railway left the main line.

 

[reb0118]

Yes, that was true. The signal frame from Fountainhall Jn. SB was moved to Edinburgh Signalling School (Slateford?) for training purposes ~ it might be in the Royal Museum of Scotland on Chambers Street now but don't quote me.

Further info from "Building Railways" from the Scotland's Past In Action Series by N.M.S. (National Museum of Scotland)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just found the seventh Network Rail project update e-mail in my inbox when I logged. My hard copy print out file that I am keeping for archive purposes is taking shape well now.

 

[railjock]

Drove up from Gala today and the are many and obvious earth workings underway along the whole route. It's getting quite exciting and I still have to pinch myself to believe that it's really happening after all these years.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In the recently published eighth project online newsletter, I note that one item makes reference to the engineers use of high explosive for the removal of rock from the Falahill area that commences on Monday, 16th September and with further blasting work scheduled on a twice-weekly basis for a period of 14 weeks.

 

[railjock]

Article in The Scotsman from Brian Monteith. He's never been a fan it is fair to say. I suppose the business cases of a shorter line with a 'borders park and ride' a few miles south of Gorebridge night have made more economic sense.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/brian-monteith-borders-railway-will-never-pay-1-3094739

Borders railway is a white elephant which will cost so much that it simply isn’t worth it, writes Brian Monteith

A project that is likely to be at least four years late and is approaching being five times its original projected cost, it is entirely fitting that the Borders railway is the spawn of the Holyrood parliament. More worrying still, and entirely in keeping with the management of the construction of their own temple to political self-indulgence, our MSPs have thus far not managed to exert any sort of control on what will become the most expensive railway in Scotland – if not Britain.

It is worth going back to those early days of 2000 when MSPs were still meeting at the Assembly Hall on the Mound and were dreaming of the many great projects they could unleash on an expectant public. There appeared to be no end to what could be done by the new Scottish Parliament – and re-opening a railway line from Edinburgh to Galashiels or thereabouts was an ideal contender.

For one thing it cemented the Labour–Liberal Democrat coalition, as Labour would get its pet schemes through (like the Glasgow Airport rail link) while the Liberal Democrats could claim the Borders railway as their great achievement.

Secondly, it would right what was portrayed as a great Tory wrong – the closing of the Waverley line, that most romantic but highly uneconomic direct route from Edinburgh to Gala, Hawick and on to Carlisle.

It was a moot point that the closure, recommended by the farsighted British rail chairman Dr Richard Beeching during the early 1960s, was actually carried out by Harold Wilson’s Labour government in 1969. The prevailing anti-Tory consensus did not want such truths to get in the way of any myth-making about the Scots-hating Tory party. Ironically, in an attempt to curry favour in the Borders and seem like all-round good guys, some Conservative MSPs, most vocally David Mundell, now an MP and Scotland Office minister, got behind the idea.

And so it left the drawing board, and an “independent study” commissioned by the Scottish Executive, Scottish Borders Council, Midlothian Council and Scottish Borders Enterprise reported that a half-hourly service from Tweedbank (almost but not quite Melrose) to Edinburgh could cover its operating costs and would have an estimated capital cost of £73 million.

By 2003 the cost was being quoted as between £125-£130m but by the time the proposal had been worked up and studied by a Parliamentary Bill committee and passed by 114 votes to one (that one being me) the cost had doubled to £155m, an ominous sign that might have woken politicians up to the dangers. These were, however, still the days of loadsamoney government, so almost everybody slapped their backs and looked forward to riding on the first trains in 2011.

Unfortunately the timetable and ticket price turned out to be beyond the scope of any fat controllers.

After 2007 the project was in the hands of the minority SNP government and the price had, within a year, risen to between £235-£295m and delivery was shunted into 2013. By 2010 the target completion had slipped again into 2014 and in 2012 it was put back further – to September 2015. When announced, this date was admitted to be “challenging” by the new minister in charge, Keith Brown. His arithmetic was no less challenging as his quoted figure of £294m construction conveniently left out some £54m costs already spent.

So let us just clear away the steam and soot surrounding the project. It is admitted to be four years late – but could be later – and standing today at £353m is approaching five times the original quoted cost – but could be costlier.

The truth is that the Borders railway will be costlier for there are aspects of the project that are being kept off the balance sheet; and there is absolutely no prospect that – as was claimed – the railway will pay its way. The Borders railway is continuing to bust its own budget and is set to become the most expensive and heavily subsidised line in Scotland if not the whole of the UK (the latter claim, while alarming, is irrelevant as it us Scots who will subsidise it).

Here is why. If the Borders railway had not been started there would have been no need to make engineering changes to Portobello junction, but because of it there were and these costs – in undisclosed millions – have not been credited to the project. Neither have extensions to platform lengths previously uncosted.

Secondly, if the railway had not gone beyond Gorebridge it would not have required a new bridge at Falahill. This bridge, not included in the costs of the project managers, Transport Scotland, is now on its third design (having previously involved significant realignment of the A720 and the addition of two roundabouts that have now been dropped in favour of a more expensive slew bridge).

The costs for this exercise have yet to appear – I suggest looking at road costs rather than the Borders railway project where it would cause embarrassment.

The difference of the economics of the railway travelling south of Gorebridge to Galashiels and Tweedbank is key – for the official projections admit that 70 per cent of the passenger numbers are on 7.9 per cent of the route between Edinburgh and Gorebridge. Had politicians been given a business case that split the viability of building a commuter railway to Gorebridge and then a second part to the heart of the Borders – as they should have – then they would have been able to see the white elephant they were proposing.

That the parliamentary Bill committee did not demand such information – as was its right – was an abrogation of those MSPs’ fiduciary duty to the public.

If we compare the number of passengers being carried per kilometre being run, with a UK average of 101, a Scottish average of 66, and the Borders railway at around 30, we can see how low the traffic will be. When we consider the low number includes commuters and that most trains will therefore be closer to empty, we can see that for all the cost, the Borders railway is Holyrood’s greatest folly yet.

 

[tbtc]

Article in The Scotsman from Brian Monteith. He's never been a fan it is fair to say. I suppose the business cases of a shorter line with a 'borders park and ride' a few miles south of Gorebridge night have made more economic sense

Interesting article, which makes me nostalgic for those optimistic days around the Millenium (when the Parliament was at the Mound), before things got dragged down by the humdrum everyday debates (and the costs of the new Parliament building spiralled like the "Borders" railway, which gave the MSPs a reputation that took a long time to get over).

Anyhow, I agree with Mr Monteith's viewpoint - I've always thought that the Midlothian line (stimulating new housing around the ERI area on the outskirts of Edinburgh, taking a few vehicles away from the Sherrifhall roundabout) was the "steak", but it needed the romance of a line to Galashiels as the "sizzle" to persuade people to fund it.

I'm all in favour of a Gorebridge line (which, with the North Berwick services, could have given a "turn up and go" frequency to any new station around Portobello/ Meadowbank), but the line south of Gorebridge has a much weaker case.

 

[Altnabreac]

Article in The Scotsman from Brian Monteith. He's never been a fan it is fair to say. I suppose the business cases of a shorter line with a 'borders park and ride' a few miles south of Gorebridge night have made more economic sense.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/brian-monteith-borders-railway-will-never-pay-1-3094739


Borders railway is a white elephant which will cost so much that it simply isn’t worth it, writes Brian Monteith

Some semi valid points mixed in with Brian Monteith's usual nonsense.

Firstly where I disagree with him: Borders Rail doesn't increase the number of trains crossing Portobello junction so the works to create a double lead there are for increased network resilience and would equally apply to trains terminating at Newcraighall (as now) or indeed his preferred destination of Gorebridge.

Secondly Newcraighall to Gorebridge is around 8 miles while Gorebridge to Tweedbank is 21 miles or so. I make that 27% of the line to get to Gorebridge rather than 7.9% so I'm not sure where he's getting those numbers from.

Thirdly it was always acknowledged that the business case was better for a plain Midlothian commuter line but the reopening to Tweedbank was planned for two main reasons:

The first, a practical reason, is to allow the Borders to take up some of the required new housing demand for the Edinburgh Travel to Work market. This is long term infrastructure and planning policy linkage that should be encouraged!

The second reason, is as he says, the political need, to provide a rail connection to the two mainland Scottish Local Authorities not served by a rail station.

We can all say we regret the cost overruns and redesigns but it is likely that as with previous Scottish reopenings passenger numbers will probably exceed predicted demand, especially once housing growth takes place and commuters move into the area. You only have to look at the Bathgate branch to see what is likely to happen over 20 years or so.

We should be pleased that politicians have strategic vision to look at benefits over a 30 year timescale and how infrastructure projects can change demand in the medium term rather than just a short term outlook of serve only current demand.

 

[Blindtraveler]

and they might be able to do the North of England a favour too - with another flagship rail project, namely EGIP, also nicely clocking up the delay minutes, the borders line could provide a home for some 142s as the intended Scottish sprinters woant be freed up in time where as the north of England wires will, in stark contrast be ready to go!

 

[Altnabreac]

and they might be able to do the North of England a favour too - with another flagship rail project, namely EGIP, also nicely clocking up the delay minutes, the borders line could provide a home for some 142s as the intended Scottish sprinters woant be freed up in time where as the north of England wires will, in stark contrast be ready to go!

Sadly while the full version of EGIP is slightly behind schedule I would think that the Cumbernauld and Whifflet electrifications will generate enough DMUs to serve Borders Rail. We'll just have to miss out on the joys of 142s north of the Border :cry:

 

[Blindtraveler]

for those interested the new road layout at Sheriffhall is now up and running after 2 consecutive weekend closures, the first of which took longer than planned. also BBC Scotland reporting work underway in Gala to realign Stirling Street and associated carparks. One thing Im unclear about is will the new transport interchange there replace the grim and draughty hole that is Galashiels Bus Station?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sadly while the full version of EGIP is slightly behind schedule I would think that the Cumbernauld and Whifflet electrifications will generate enough DMUs to serve Borders Rail. We'll just have to miss out on the joys of 142s north of the Border :cry:

Your confidence is admired but not shared!

 

[kylemore]

Who cares what Brian Monteith thinks?

Scottish Newspaper readership is in Freefall - this won't even reach the rapidly shrinking Scottish "Chattering Classes"!

The money spent on the Borders line is as well spent on that than on say the Pentland Firth tidal power project for instance.

 

[Buttsy]

The money spent on the Borders line is as well spent on that than on say the Pentland Firth tidal power project for instance.

It would appear that, based on the distance, it is better value than the A9 dualling at £3bn...

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Great to see a major reopening project taking place.
I am sure it will be a huge success, and give weight for more schemes to follow.
Btw are the new over bridges being constructed for single (or double) track?
Is their a possibility of it being extended to Carlisle in the (very) distant future?

 

[Altnabreac]

Great to see a major reopening project taking place.
I am sure it will be a huge success, and give weight for more schemes to follow.
Btw are the new over bridges being constructed for single (or double) track?
Is their a possibility of it being extended to Carlisle in the (very) distant future?

Hawick yes, Carlisle no chance. What would be the market for services south of Hawick?

The only population centres served directly are Newcastleton (800 people) and Longtown (3,000). They are too far from Edinburgh to be commutable and the commuter market to Carlisle is more limited.

It could also indirectly serve Langholm (2,500 people) and Canonbie (400) via a park and ride.

7,000 people is barely enough to justify a station on an existing line, never mind 40+ miles of new railway.

So the markets you would be looking at serving are:
Local freight: timber at Kielder often comes up but experience elsewhere has shown its difficult even to run timber services on existing tracks, never mind pay for new infrastructure.
Long distance freight: journey times via the Waverley line will not be competitive with the Caledonian main line so it would have to be a capacity issue with Edinburgh - Carlisle services and to be honest there is plenty of capacity there for additional services.
Central Borders - England passenger traffic:
Even Carlisle is probably too far away for regular commuting so this market is likely to be the London/Manchester/Birmingham to Central Borders long distance traffic. It would have to compete with existing options of Berwick upon Tweed as railhead by bus/car as well as changing at Edinburgh via the new rail link. The marginal time savings on what is a relatively small market are unlikely to justify the costs.

What the successful Scottish rail reopenings of the last 20 years show us are that you need 2 things:
A strong employment market generating in commuters (Edinburgh or Glasgow, basically).
A non rail served town (or part of a larger town) with a population of 10,000 or more within a 60-75 minute journey time of that employment market.

Bathgate, Larkhall, Alloa, Paisley Canal, Airdrie-Bathgate, all follow this basic pattern.

An extension to Melrose, Newtown St Boswells and Hawick has the potential to fulfill these criteria, south of Hawick just doesn't generate enough traffic to pay for itself.

 

[Eagle]

Wasn't one of the main benefits of reopening Alloa the act that it required zero extra rolling stock? (The Glasgow to Stirling service had a long enough layover at Stirling that there was enough time to send it to Alloa and back.)

 

[clc]

Your confidence is admired but not shared!

Why not? Cumbernauld and Whifflet electrification will be completed in plenty of time to allow transfer of DMUs to the Borders line.

 

[Eagle]

Indeed, the masts for those schemes have already started appearing.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Cumbernauld line yes, so I believe, but the other? I haven't seen the slightest little Whiff of mast yet, but perhaps work has started at the Coatbridge end which I see less often.

 

[tomatwark]

Hawick yes, Carlisle no chance. What would be the market for services south of Hawick?


An extension to Melrose, Newtown St Boswells and Hawick has the potential to fulfill these criteria, south of Hawick just doesn't generate enough traffic to pay for itself.

I am not to sure if it would be cost effective to open it all the way to Carlisle or even Hawick for that matter.

Another alternative would be to open it to St Boswells and then on through Kelso and on to the ECML at Berwick this would then give people a chance of travelling south from the central borders by train.

I am aware the it would mean a new station at Berwick but it would not be a major problem to build one south of the existing one the other side of the river.

I would suspect that this option would be cheaper than opening the Waverley route through to Carlisle.

One big problem of opening right to Carlisle is the the missing bridge at Hawick.

 

[clc]

Cumbernauld line yes, so I believe, but the other? I haven't seen the slightest little Whiff of mast yet, but perhaps work has started at the Coatbridge end which I see less often.

When Whifflet electrification was announced in May the Scottish Govt said the reason for bringing it forward by 4 years was to allow greater flexibility in deploying trains during the Commonwealth Games and to free up rolling stock for the Ryder Cup. Given the political importance of both of these events the SG must be very confident the scheme will be complete by next Summer for it to make such a public commitment.

Edit: Also, during the Rail debate on 30 May Keith Brown stated: "I mentioned the Whifflet route electrification, which will take place by summer 2014. Work on that will start next month..."

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Another alternative would be to open it to St Boswells and then on through Kelso and on to the ECML at Berwick this would then give people a chance of travelling south from the central borders by train. I would suspect that this option would be cheaper than opening the Waverley route through to Carlisle.

Interesting as this proposal sounds, you are then taking the route back to the East Coast which is not much in the way of consolation should the intended destinations be those of Carlisle, Lancaster, Preston, etc.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Perhaps adding the spur to Jedburgh into this proposed reopening, but with two curves onto the ECML rather than just the south facing one at Tweedmouth? I highly doubt it'd be worth it, though.

A more realistic option might be simply an ordinary spur off the Waverley line there instead, with the main line going to Hawick. I can't see any case for any main line extensions south of there without going straight on to Carlisle, as the only viable station as far as I can tell is at Newcastleton, a metropolis of 772. The next I could see would be a seasonal one at Scots' Dyke, but that would be seriously pushing it. On from there, Longtown and other viable towns on the old line are less than 9 miles from Carlisle. An extension down into Northumberland, splitting off at the old Riccarton Junction and eventually joining the Tyne Valley Line at Hexham would serve a considerably larger (although still tiny) population, but you'd have to build a bridge over Kielder Water which is right in the middle of a national park and the like. It's a no go whichever way you look at it. There may be a case for both in 20-30 years serving as freight diversionary routes for the northern WCML and ECML respectively for anything coming from eastern Scotland, with passenger services simply sweetening the deal, however. It'd be pretty good for tourism to Northumberland National Park, too, in a similar vain to the Oxenholme branch.

 

[Altnabreac]

I am not to sure if it would be cost effective to open it all the way to Carlisle or even Hawick for that matter.

Another alternative would be to open it to St Boswells and then on through Kelso and on to the ECML at Berwick this would then give people a chance of travelling south from the central borders by train.

I am aware the it would mean a new station at Berwick but it would not be a major problem to build one south of the existing one the other side of the river.

I would suspect that this option would be cheaper than opening the Waverley route through to Carlisle.

One big problem of opening right to Carlisle is the the missing bridge at Hawick.

Hawick is by far the largest town remaining in Scottish Borders not served by rail once the first phase opens:
Galashiels 14,510
Hawick 13,680
Peebles 8,260
Selkirk 5,530
Kelso 5,450
Jedburgh 4,020
Eyemouth 3,370
Innerleithen 3,120
Duns 2,730
Melrose 2,210
Coldstream 2,010
Earlston 1,790
Lauder 1,740
West Linton 1,560
St Boswells 1,490
Chirnside 1,310
Newtown St Boswells 1,300
Maxwellheugh 1,190
Newcastleton 720
Stow 710
Mid 2010 estimates from GRO Scotland:
http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/stat...a/settlements-localities/mid-2010/tables.html

Selkirk, Jedburgh, Kelso, Earlston are all much smaller than Hawick, which is the only realistic extension for the line.

 

[tomatwark]

I know the population is smaller than Hawick.

The only people who will use the line at the southern end will live within a couple of miles of Galashiels as much further out it will be quicker to drive.

I certainly will be, as for me it is 29 miles to Galashiels and 18 in the wrong direction to Berwick, so I would be half way to Edinburgh by the time I got to the station.

If the case had been made for opening the whole route to Carlisle and putting freight on it as well it may have been a viable option but as much as I would like to see a railway open in the borders I think that the scheme in its current form is going to be a bit of a white elephant at the southern end.

At least connecting it to Berwick would give the people a choice of travelling south by train if they wanted.

I honestly can't see it being extended further south and probably will end up with a reduced service on the southern end 5-10 years after opening.

Hopefully I will be proved wrong and they will open the whole route with a train an hour on it.

 

[tbtc]

No chance of further extension any time soon - they've ticked a box by opening a "new" line into a previously unserved area - there's a lot of other reopenings/ extensions in the Central Belt that I'd prioritise ahead of an extended Borders line (given the size of some settlements there).

Alloa to Dunfermline?
GARL?
Paisley Canal extension?
Leuchars - St Andrews?
Thornton - Methil?

(etc)

 

[TheKnightWho]

No chance of further extension any time soon - they've ticked a box by opening a "new" line into a previously unserved area - there's a lot of other reopenings/ extensions in the Central Belt that I'd prioritise ahead of an extended Borders line (given the size of some settlements there).

Alloa to Dunfermline?
GARL?
Paisley Canal extension?
Leuchars - St Andrews?
Thornton - Methil?

(etc)

I'm pretty sure a St Andrews line is in the works, although I don't know if they're just planning a shuttle, or if they have a longer distance service in mind.

Would it be feasible to restart the GARL project?

 

[Altnabreac]

No chance of further extension any time soon - they've ticked a box by opening a "new" line into a previously unserved area - there's a lot of other reopenings/ extensions in the Central Belt that I'd prioritise ahead of an extended Borders line (given the size of some settlements there).

Alloa to Dunfermline?
GARL?
Paisley Canal extension?
Leuchars - St Andrews?
Thornton - Methil?

(etc)

I'd agree that Hawick is not at the top of the list for next reopening, either as a political priority (as money has just been spent in the Borders), or on pure BCR either.

I still reckon my 2 rules (10,000 population and a 75 min commute to Edinburgh/Glasgow) give us a list of the possible Scottish branch line reopenings of the next 20 years in likelihood of happening:

1 - Levenmouth. 30,000 people with a 75 minute journey time to Edinburgh.

2 - Grangemouth. 18,000 people with a 60 minute journey time to Glasgow (and a similar
time to Edinburgh with a change at Falkirk Grahamston).

3 - Penicuik. 23,000 people (including Loanhead/Roslin) with a 30 minute journey time to Edinburgh.

4 - Bridge of Weir (either as Paisley Canal extension, or branch from main line) 21,000 people (including Linwood and Houston) with a 40 minute journey time to Glasgow.

5 - Hawick. 18,000 people (including Melrose/Newtown St Boswells) with a 90 minute journey time to Edinburgh.

6 - Banchory. 15,000 people (including Milltimber, Peterculter, Cults) with a 30 minute journey to Aberdeen. The business case is probably actually really good for this one but planners likely to be more nervous when dealing with Aberdeen as there isn't the past evidence of commuting demand that Edinburgh/Glasgow have.

One thing the SNP government realised early on is that no one lives at airports so there are few votes to be gained in rail links. I don't see GARL being back on the table until Labour are back in power (2020?) and who knows what the demand for flights will be by then.

I am also unconvinced by the case for St Andrews, too many students for regular commuting, line facing the wrong way for Edinburgh connections and then if you're driving to a station anyway why not go straight to Leuchars. It's also just a bit too long a journey for regular commuting to Edinburgh. Maybe could go ahead in a second tier of schemes.

Alloa - Dunfermline is another funny one. On the plus side the line is there, on the downside the intermeiate population at Clackmannan and Kincardine is minimal and journey times to Edinburgh/Glasgow would be very slow, so the main market you are serving is Fife - Stirling and I'm not sure that is sufficient to generate passenger numbers.

Then there is a 2nd tier of schemes that serve smaller communities: Haddington (9,000), Peebles (8,000) Strathaven (7,000)/Stonehouse (5,000). These could have some mileage if they were part of a plan to drive significant new housing growth in these areas but probably aren't viable at the moment.

I'd hope that all the top 6 schemes listed go ahead in the next 20 years, but I suspect the only one to happen in the next 10 years will be Levenmouth. Maybe at a push Grangemouth as well, especially if it can be combined with elements of EGIP and electrification.