Borders Railway - Now Open

[OxtedL]

Lack of foresight is why the route between Alloa and Stirling is just single track.

Quite possibly, although I'm not sure that when they reinstated it that they did anything serious to prejudice doubling? And looking at the morning peak, they already have the ability to send quite a bit down there (including some freight paths) if they want to.

 

[Tobbes]

Quite possibly, although I'm not sure that when they reinstated it that they did anything serious to prejudice doubling? And looking at the morning peak, they already have the ability to send quite a bit down there (including some freight paths) if they want to.

Surely this is the key point. As long as you do nothing to limit redoubling in future, it may or may not make sense to have passive provision. In the case of the ring road tunnel, it clearly makes sense to have a double track solution, because of the cost of doubling it if you ever needed to in future (ie, at least as much as you're spending now, and probably more as the second deviation would also need a tunnel over the line.)

I would've thought that was the case with new bridges, too. Possibly not the case with old bridges if you had separate spans, however.

Tobbes

 

[NotATrainspott]

The people who are moaning most about it not being doubled from the start seem to believe that it would serve some immediate purpose by being reopened all the way to Carlisle. Yes, it could be extended for a few more kilometres to reach a few more population centres but is there anything beyond that? The closed route is twisting and steep and would be no faster than either of the existing routes. The (Scottish) southern WCML only has two EPS125 paths, a 100mph TPX and a few freight movements per hour at most. In the same timescale as the complete reopening of the Waverley route, we will have built HSR to take off all the passengers and leave the WCML as an electrified, W10/W12-gauged freight route. Unless we are going to build the new towns of the 21st century all in the Borders, there's never going to be the passenger demand for an entirely new line. There's already a diversionary route for the WCML in the form of the South Western line which can be electrified and redoubled for much less than the cost of doing the same, on top of reopening, for the Waverley route.

 

[Tobbes]

The people who are moaning most about it not being doubled from the start seem to believe that it would serve some immediate purpose by being reopened all the way to Carlisle. Yes, it could be extended for a few more kilometres to reach a few more population centres but is there anything beyond that? The closed route is twisting and steep and would be no faster than either of the existing routes. The (Scottish) southern WCML only has two EPS125 paths, a 100mph TPX and a few freight movements per hour at most. In the same timescale as the complete reopening of the Waverley route, we will have built HSR to take off all the passengers and leave the WCML as an electrified, W10/W12-gauged freight route. Unless we are going to build the new towns of the 21st century all in the Borders, there's never going to be the passenger demand for an entirely new line. There's already a diversionary route for the WCML in the form of the South Western line which can be electrified and redoubled for much less than the cost of doing the same, on top of reopening, for the Waverley route.

N-A-T,

You're surely right that the case for the Waverley throughout has yet to be made - but given the above expectation passenger numbers from previous Scottish reopenings (e.g. Alloa), there is reasonable hope that Borders Rail will prove similarly successful. That having been said, Hawick (c. 90 mins to Waverley?) would seem to be as far as the commuter service would go.

On any extension to provide alternative cross-border routes / freight paths, you could go SE from Gala to Kelso / Coldstream / Tweedmouth / ECML. Can't imagine that there's a sensible business case for this, though.

Tobbes

 

[NotATrainspott]

N-A-T,

You're surely right that the case for the Waverley throughout has yet to be made - but given the above expectation passenger numbers from previous Scottish reopenings (e.g. Alloa), there is reasonable hope that Borders Rail will prove similarly successful. That having been said, Hawick (c. 90 mins to Waverley?) would seem to be as far as the commuter service would go.

On any extension to provide alternative cross-border routes / freight paths, you could go SE from Gala to Kelso / Coldstream / Tweedmouth / ECML. Can't imagine that there's a sensible business case for this, though.

Tobbes

What I have a problem with is people complaining that the route hasn't been goldplated so that it could return to its former glory as an intercity route. The route will be a success because the passenger forecasts are set to on the safe side of the probability curve. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if they were reduced on purpose so that the passenger numbers would represent an enormous success - the case for further reopenings is better if the headlines say others have exceeded their (artificially low) targets.

As I said, I think there is definitely a case to extend the route further into the nearby other towns, as otherwise many people will still drive the whole way rather than transfer. The demand these people cause probably won't be enough to absolutely require more paths though as the platforms and infrastructure are there for longer trains than will be used to begin with.

At the northern end, around the city bypass area, the additional demand could be satisfied with electrification and reopening towards Penicuik. Then there'll be a rail route heading out along each of the main roads to Edinburgh.

 

[Tobbes]

Double posted

 

[route:oxford]

The closed route is twisting and steep and would be no faster than either of the existing routes.

I really can't see it being quicker to send an Edinburgh-Carlisle service via Dumfries than using a re-opened route between Tweedbank and Carlisle.

Did you know there is no statute that prevents a re-opened railway from using modern construction techniques to straighten out curves or take alternative route?

 

[onyxcrowle]

The link to the Ecml ( can someone please name it). Is more logical. Again if anyone has any photos please?

As Id bet that opening that and putting more longths of passing loops on the new Borders line would allow slow stoppers and frieght , The likes of which slowed The top gear steam train down. Freeing up the top end of the Ecml to be then upgraded so that actually the Pendelinos could use the faster Ecml and the rest go through gala and perhaps the line that ran from the village whos name escaoes me to the east of Gala could be linked in.
To the West extend out beyond Hawick. With some kind of grant/crown funding , Historic Scotland type input into joining up the Hwaick 'Terminus' To the WRHA line. Giving the the required funding to reach their goal to Riccarton junction. Make that a destination.
Rebuild that village using authentic methods and materials.
Build hotels n make a destination out of it. Nothing low brow but breathe life into the borders .
Perhaps Riccarton could be a real train centre.
And hopefully expand toward the section planned toward keilder.
With that push for Cumbria to finish it off.
Rebuild Penicuik and other small borders routes. Because its the hidden gem of Scotland. Theres a generation who has no idea just how scenic it is.
But with all of the above build in freight use so logging trains can use it.
Hell involve Stobart Rail. And before you shout me Down look at SEN (Southend) Sirport .
He made that work

The point being we need a lot of fresh ideas out of the box thinking. Rail travel is as much
a service we need in the same importance as Electric water and internet.
Open these routes and in one go you change the lives of community giving them chances that they dont have as there is no Transport.
Im all for new roads but id like to see more schemes like this.
Tourism is a big business and hopefully will boom over coming years

 

[TheKnightWho]

I won't give a detailed account of my opinion on reopenings and the like, but I think it might be useful for everyone to see a map of the area with all the historic lines shown. It should certainly explain why these proposed diversionary lines will probably be too expensive to ever reopen. Bear in mind, most of these were little-used, single-track lines even in their heydays.

The black line is the Waverley line.
Grey lines are current railway lines.
Light blue lines are historic lines.
Purple lines are historic lines preserved as footpaths.

I've added some annotations to make things a bit clearer.

The problem is that to even get to Hawick they need to reopen at least half as far again, over what isn't a particularly direct route. There are only two stations worth reopening in between - Melrose and St. Boswells - and each only serves a town of around 1,000 people. Hawick itself is a decent 15,000, though.

Hawick to Carlisle is the same distance as Edinburgh to Hawick, with a grand total of 2 settlements en route worth giving stations to - Newcastleton and Longtown. Newcastleton has around 700 people, and Longtown about 3,000. I would propose that any reopening diverges from the old route at Newcastleton and heads down to Langholm (pop. 2,500) instead. At this point it would join the old branch line back onto the Waverley, and onwards towards Carlisle. There are literally no other populated settlements in the area at all. That's to say nothing of the fact that I'm assuming all of this is even possible, given what might have been built in the towns since the closure. I think it should be obvious that any reopening south of Hawick is a complete non-starter for passenger services, as they'd be carrying hot air around for half of the journey. The type of service that would run on here would only likely be running between Edinburgh and Carlisle, too, so it's not like things would pick up later or that they'd be carrying through traffic from/to further south. I could only ever see this happening if there was pressing need for a diversionary/freight route, and wouldn't expect to see more than 3 or 4 passenger trains a day each-way regularly south of Hawick.

I would estimate Edinburgh to Hawick at 90 minutes, with Hawick to Carlisle at 2 hours, given the slower nature of the southern half of the route. A 3 1/2 hour journey would not be competitive at all, but as I said it may serve as a diversionary route.

EDIT: Another diversion from the old route might be useful between Tweedbank and Hawick, going through Jedburgh (pop. 7,000) as well. It would add about 10 minutes onto the journey, but would serve a lot more people. Branching off to Kelso would be good, too.

 

[Altnabreac]

I won't give a detailed account of my opinion on reopenings and the like, but I think it might be useful for everyone to see a map of the area with all the historic lines shown. It should certainly explain why these proposed diversionary lines will probably be too expensive to ever reopen. Bear in mind, most of these were little-used, single-track lines even in their heydays.

The black line is the Waverley line.
Grey lines are current railway lines.
Light blue lines are historic lines.
Purple lines are historic lines preserved as footpaths.

I've added some annotations to make things a bit clearer.

The problem is that to even get to Hawick they need to reopen at least half as far again, over what isn't a particularly direct route. There are only two stations worth reopening in between - Melrose and St. Boswells - and each only serves a town of around 1,000 people. Hawick itself is a decent 15,000, though.

Hawick to Carlisle is the same distance as Edinburgh to Hawick, with a grand total of 2 settlements en route worth giving stations to - Newcastleton and Longtown. Newcastleton has around 700 people, and Longtown about 3,000. I would propose that any reopening diverges from the old route at Newcastleton and heads down to Langholm (pop. 2,500) instead. At this point it would join the old branch line back onto the Waverley, and onwards towards Carlisle. There are literally no other populated settlements in the area at all. That's to say nothing of the fact that I'm assuming all of this is even possible, given what might have been built in the towns since the closure. I think it should be obvious that any reopening south of Hawick is a complete non-starter for passenger services, as they'd be carrying hot air around for half of the journey. The type of service that would run on here would only likely be running between Edinburgh and Carlisle, too, so it's not like things would pick up later or that they'd be carrying through traffic from/to further south. I could only ever see this happening if there was pressing need for a diversionary/freight route, and wouldn't expect to see more than 3 or 4 passenger trains a day each-way regularly south of Hawick.

I would estimate Edinburgh to Hawick at 90 minutes, with Hawick to Carlisle at 2 hours, given the slower nature of the southern half of the route. A 3 1/2 hour journey would not be competitive at all, but as I said it may serve as a diversionary route.

EDIT: Another diversion from the old route might be useful between Tweedbank and Hawick, going through Jedburgh (pop. 7,000) as well. It would add about 10 minutes onto the journey, but would serve a lot more people. Branching off to Kelso would be good, too.

A useful post. As I have said before on this thread, any reopening south of Hawick is a complete non starter, no intermediate population, a slower journey time than alternative routes and an expensive job to rebuild the line.

With regards to potential double track requirements it is unlikely that a greater than 2tph service is ever going to be needed south of Gorebridge. Even if the line is extended to Hawick this can be done by extending planned services southwards without additional infrastructure requirements between Tweedbank and Gorebridge.

The one change you might consider making in a few years if the line was really successful would be to run a 2tph stopping service Edinburgh to Gorebridge and a 2tph semi fast to Galashiels (and Hawick etc) stopping only at Eskbank, Gorebridge and Stow. This timetable would not require any additional double track south of Gorebridge but might require some additional doubling of the section from Eskbank to Gorebridge which is all currently planned as single track.

It is passive provision in this area both in station design and track positioning that would have most potential future benefit. Hopefully the designers have been mindful of this. Passive provision south of Gorebridge to allow through running to Carlisle is never going to have a positive cost benefit.

 

[jopsuk]

Lack of foresight is why the route between Alloa and Stirling is just single track.

How much of the route ever was double track? Pretty sure when it was just handling the molasses trains to Menstrie it was single track all the way.

 

[HowardGWR]

A useful post. As I have said before on this thread, any reopening south of Hawick is a complete non starter, no intermediate population, a slower journey time than alternative routes and an expensive job to rebuild the line.

With regards to potential double track requirements it is unlikely that a greater than 2tph service is ever going to be needed south of Gorebridge. Even if the line is extended to Hawick this can be done by extending planned services southwards without additional infrastructure requirements between Tweedbank and Gorebridge.

The one change you might consider making in a few years if the line was really successful would be to run a 2tph stopping service Edinburgh to Gorebridge and a 2tph semi fast to Galashiels (and Hawick etc) stopping only at Eskbank, Gorebridge and Stow. This timetable would not require any additional double track south of Gorebridge but might require some additional doubling of the section from Eskbank to Gorebridge which is all currently planned as single track.

It is passive provision in this area both in station design and track positioning that would have most potential future benefit. Hopefully the designers have been mindful of this. Passive provision south of Gorebridge to allow through running to Carlisle is never going to have a positive cost benefit.

I am sure that is correct as a prognosis. However, on the Salisbury to Exeter line there is continual conflict through the single line stretches and this is only mitigated by large recovery allowances and halting trains in wayside sidings (eg Chard Junction).

It's very important that the Tweedbank services get off to a good start, as the reliability for commuters and others is essential. My view is that single lines with two trains per hour is a recipe for poor performance. This can be seen today on the Real Time Trains site for the aforementioned line (have a look at Yeovil Junction around 0700 onwards).

Thus I believe that not double line to Tweedbank is a mistake and any out of course delays will be magnified hugely. The only way not to have these is to have a separate up and down line so that breakdowns on one service do not stop the job for the others.

I expect colleagues good give other examples of this single line type frailty.

 

[mr_jrt]

Slight tangent, but I always figured had the Midland managed it's old plan to link the Bradford stations then via the Settle-Carlisle and the Waverley Route we would have had our third independent mainline route to Edinburgh (counting the WCML via Glasgow).

 

[OxtedL]

It's very important that the Tweedbank services get off to a good start, as the reliability for commuters and others is essential. My view is that single lines with two trains per hour is a recipe for poor performance. This can be seen today on the Real Time Trains site for the aforementioned line (have a look at Yeovil Junction around 0700 onwards).

Single line 'frailty' is a well known and well understood phenomenon, but is only a problem some of the time in all but the worst examples. Whilst frustrating, it's mainly an issue where services feed into busy corridors - this is doubtless why Borders trains will apparently go no further than Edinburgh. The loops as planned are quite long, and if there is any long term issue with reliability, it should be possible to mitigate it with adjustments to the timetable.

The most obvious alternative to single track with loops is double track with appalling signalling headways, an environment where delays still compound.

There are a few places on the route, particularly in and around Galashiels, where it appears double track would have been prohibitively expensive and would have required a very different design solution. As has been explained, two trains an hour is the absolute maximum anyone ever expects south of Gorebridge, and it is difficult to see how that will be warranted outside peak times for the foreseeable future.

It is important to always remember that this isn't a new main line, it's a branch line being built at great expense to access a frankly minimal population south of Gorebridge, with slightly fuzzy economic justification. Ideologically, double track would be amazing, but is a completely unreasonable request in the circumstances.

 

[Railsigns]

How much of the route ever was double track? Pretty sure when it was just handling the molasses trains to Menstrie it was single track all the way.

Stirling - Alloa was originally double track throughout. Manor Powis to Cambus was singled in 1958; the remainder in 1972/73.

 

[HowardGWR]

@OxtedL
Just a point on "mainly an issue where services feed into busy corridors".

Most of the difficulties on the LSW line from Salisbury to Exeter are demonstrably caused by the single line with passing places syndrome. As the line is essentially self contained (it's almost like starting on a new railway when you reach Salisbury) I think the situation is fairly comparable. As it is the SWT cope manfully and even contrive to run some commuter services between the Exeter to Waterloo ones (which stop at every farmyard anyway).

I would love to know what a non-stopper 159 could do if it was non-stop between Exeter and Salisbury (say). A bit off topic but you have to have ridden the frustrating LSWR line to relate to what might be the experience of Tweedbank 'P and R' pax when the Borders service starts.

 

[OxtedL]

@OxtedL
Just a point on "mainly an issue where services feed into busy corridors".

Most of the difficulties on the LSW line from Salisbury to Exeter are demonstrably caused by the single line with passing places syndrome.

I wasn't clear, I was talking about where it causes bigger problems - on a line that is self contained it is less of an issue than one where other services get delayed by and delay the one in question.

Living as I do at the north end of the Uckfield branch, I too have spent a lot of time over the years watching a single line timetable all but fall apart, on a route where the problem can exponentiate by having to share with East Grinstead trains on the two track railway north of Hurst Green, in turn feeding into Croydon where even small delays can sometimes end up tacking on to every train for the next half an hour.

Salisbury to Exeter is a lot longer than the Borders line, and I think is exposed to more delay risk by having to cross more trains enroute as a result. Together with slotting into everything else on the long journey onwards to London, I don't agree that it's comparable to the Borders line.

I see your point about restricting growth and future opportunities on the Salisbury to Exeter section, but I think we've done to death why the Borders line is unlikely to be in an even slightly comparable situation for a very long time.

 

[Chris125]

Surely this is the key point. As long as you do nothing to limit redoubling in future, it may or may not make sense to have passive provision.

They have limited any future re-doubling by saving relatively insignificant sums positioning the track down the centre of the formation and building new overbridges for single track.

While it's unlikely the line will ever be redoubled throughout, of much more concern is the cutting back of the dynamic loops to the minimum required for the envisaged rolling stock - this has obvious impacts on reliability and flexibility.

Chris

 

[tbtc]

What's the potential capacity going to be on the Borders line?

Capable of a six coach train every half hour?

I could see the Midlothian stations justifying this in the long term, but there are going to be a lot of empty seats at the Tweedbank end of the route for many years. Maybe there'll be some artificially low projections for passenger numbers, to allow people to claim it as a success (lets face it, the reason the line is opening to Tweedbank isn't because of an amazing cost/benefit ratio, its politics), but I doubt we'll need to worry about double tracking the entire line/ extension to Carlisle/ extension to Berwick and the ECML in my lifetime.

 

[TheKnightWho]

What's the potential capacity going to be on the Borders line?

Capable of a six coach train every half hour?

I could see the Midlothian stations justifying this in the long term, but there are going to be a lot of empty seats at the Tweedbank end of the route for many years. Maybe there'll be some artificially low projections for passenger numbers, to allow people to claim it as a success (lets face it, the reason the line is opening to Tweedbank isn't because of an amazing cost/benefit ratio, its politics), but I doubt we'll need to worry about double tracking the entire line/ extension to Carlisle/ extension to Berwick and the ECML in my lifetime.

If there was to be any extension to act as an ECML diversion, I'd propose a new alignment to Jedburgh, and then continuing relatively parallel to the A68 before rejoining the old Border Union railway just to the east of Kielder Reservoir at Bellingham. This could then continue down to the Tyne Valley line at Hexham, and on towards Newcastle. There are a number of places along this route that could do with a service to Newcastle.

a) This would be a route passing through significantly more places than the Waverley line did after Hawick: Byrness, Otterburn, West Woodburn, Bellingham, Wark, Barrasford, Humshaugh, Wall and (a slight diversion from the old route to) Acomb. All of these places have a population of between 500 and 2,000 people, and there are enough of them with people who work in Hexham and Newcastle to make the route worth running. Jedburgh itself has 4,000. A stopping service to Hexham that then goes non-stop to Newcastle from Jedburgh would go down pretty well and would help to make them a bit less isolated.

b) A branch line into Kielder Forest would be very useful for logging freight from Kielder to Hexham (and beyond) - the TVL passes right by the large chipboard factory there, and there would be room for a very short connecting freight line at the southern end by the look of things. This would also be good for tourism to Northumberland National Park, which is currently criminally undervisited.

c) If two curves were placed on the southern end, it could be a diversionary route for both the ECML and the WCML as and when necessary. Even with the extra distance for the latter, it would still be faster than bustitution.

Map included. Black line shows the entire route, with all stations marked.

Again, I want to emphasise that this is complete fantasy, but would be considerably more useful than just continuing the old Waverley line to Carlisle. I'd propose that the old route is simply extended to Hawick and Kelso as branch lines, with services from Edinburgh serving each at 1tph. There would also be 1tph from Jedburgh to Edinburgh, and 1tph to Newcastle. There would be no regular through trains at Jedburgh, but commuting from the town is currently split between Edinburgh and Newcastle which means services in either direction would see demand.

 

[onyxcrowle]

If there was to be any extension to act as an ECML diversion, I'd propose a new alignment to Jedburgh, and then continuing relatively parallel to the A68 before rejoining the old Border Union railway just to the east of Kielder Reservoir at Bellingham. This could then continue down to the Tyne Valley line at Hexham, and on towards Newcastle. There are a number of places along this route that could do with a service to Newcastle.

a) This would be a route passing through significantly more places than the Waverley line did after Hawick: Byrness, Otterburn, West Woodburn, Bellingham, Wark, Barrasford, Humshaugh, Wall and (a slight diversion from the old route to) Acomb. All of these places have a population of between 500 and 2,000 people, and there are enough of them with people who work in Hexham and Newcastle to make the route worth running. Jedburgh itself has 4,000. A stopping service to Hexham that then goes non-stop to Newcastle from Jedburgh would go down pretty well and would help to make them a bit less isolated.

b) A branch line into Kielder Forest would be very useful for logging freight from Kielder to Hexham (and beyond) - the TVL passes right by the large chipboard factory there, and there would be room for a very short connecting freight line at the southern end by the look of things. This would also be good for tourism to Northumberland National Park, which is currently criminally undervisited.

c) If two curves were placed on the southern end, it could be a diversionary route for both the ECML and the WCML as and when necessary. Even with the extra distance for the latter, it would still be faster than bustitution.

Map included. Black line shows the entire route, with all stations marked.

Again, I want to emphasise that this is complete fantasy, but would be considerably more useful than just continuing the old Waverley line to Carlisle. I'd propose that the old route is simply extended to Hawick and Kelso as branch lines, with services from Edinburgh serving each at 1tph. There would also be 1tph from Jedburgh to Edinburgh, and 1tph to Newcastle. There would be no regular through trains at Jedburgh, but commuting from the town is currently split between Edinburgh and Newcastle which means services in either direction would see demand.

Your idea has merrit. but.you would need longer and.more oassing loops.
Could that single lime through.gala redoubled and the whole route through to Carlisle and as you.say Link it to the Ecml giving the Borders direct accses to London Manchester. and beyond.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Personally speaking, I think the current route that is being reopened is ideal in respect for the facilty that it will offer to the communities that it will serve.

 

[johnnychips]

a) This would be a route passing through significantly more places than the Waverley line did after Hawick: Byrness, Otterburn, West Woodburn, Bellingham, Wark, Barrasford, Humshaugh, Wall and (a slight diversion from the old route to) Acomb. All of these places have a population of between 500 and 2,000 people, and there are enough of them with people who work in Hexham and Newcastle to make the route worth running. Jedburgh itself has 4,000. A stopping service to Hexham that then goes non-stop to Newcastle from Jedburgh would go down pretty well and would help to make them a bit less isolated.

I think we are being a bit over-optimistic here. Are the people going to use the line for work, when travelling by car is not arduous and over-congested like in London; and people in these areas would hardly give up a car which they need for other things? I'm not expressing myself very well, but even if Jedburgh, with a population of 4000 put an optimistic 5% of its population on a train every day, that just isn't economical.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I think we are being a bit over-optimistic here. Are the people going to use the line for work, when travelling by car is not arduous and over-congested like in London; and people in these areas would hardly give up a car which they need for other things? I'm not expressing myself very well, but even if Jedburgh, with a population of 4000 put an optimistic 5% of its population on a train every day, that just isn't economical.

Living in the area, the roads in questions are absolutely terrible. They might be A-roads, but they're single lane, winding, dangerous(!) and slow. Those communities I mentioned are extremely isolated and I expect would see a much higher footfall than populations of their size might usually merit.

Plus Egger, the chipboard factory in Hexham, is currently looking to expand. I expect the freight from that alone would generate a much higher revenue than the TVL is currently getting from the odd freight train it sees. At the moment, the roads are clogged up with large HGVs travelling on roads they really weren't designed for.

 

[route:oxford]

I think we are being a bit over-optimistic here. Are the people going to use the line for work, when travelling by car is not arduous and over-congested like in London; and people in these areas would hardly give up a car which they need for other things? I'm not expressing myself very well, but even if Jedburgh, with a population of 4000 put an optimistic 5% of its population on a train every day, that just isn't economical.

Don't worry about the economics too much.

By the time the Borders Rail line re-opens it may well be covered in the "International" section of this forum...

 

[DaveNewcastle]

If there was to be any extension to act as an ECML diversion, I'd propose a new alignment to Jedburgh, and then continuing relatively parallel to the A68 before rejoining the old Border Union railway just to the east of Kielder Reservoir at Bellingham.

Wow!
What a railway that would be!
You'll have gradients around 1 in 50 for 10 miles, with a lot of viaducts, cuttings and enbankments, to get under the Cheviots from the Jed Valley to the Rede Valley, else some substantial tunnelling and still a significant climb.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If there was to be any extension to act as an ECML diversion, I'd propose a new alignment to Jedburgh, and then continuing relatively parallel to the A68 before rejoining the old Border Union railway just to the east of Kielder Reservoir at Bellingham.

I think that the Kielder area is one that you would find yourself up against a number of scientific organisations. Is the scientific "ultra-quiet" nightime area situated very close to the line of your proposed railway ?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Wow!
What a railway that would be!
You'll have gradients around 1 in 50 for 10 miles, with a lot of viaducts, cuttings and enbankments, to get under the Cheviots from the Jed Valley to the Rede Valley, else some substantial tunnelling and still a significant climb.

I did say it was a complete fantasy Still, there's no doubting that it'd be a hell of a lot more useful than just extending the Waverley line down to Carlisle, and I don't think 1 in 50 gradients are anything much to worry about these days.

I think that the Kielder area is one that you would find yourself up against a number of scientific organisations. Is the scientific "ultra-quiet" nightime area situated very close to the line of your proposed railway ?

I think you right about that one, although I'm not sure how much of it is covered. I believe it's just been designated, hasn't it? And that it's more to do with being "ultra dark" than being "ultra quiet".

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Thought this might be of interest to any others who had seen this:

Just discovered this website: www.bordersrailway.info (aka http://www.hotdisc.co.uk/railway/index.htm)

"Borders Railway - From Start To Finish" is a series of monthly programmes which will track the return of the railway line from Edinburgh into the Scottish Borders.
We will be talking to key people behind the project, hearing views from people in favour of the Railway and those against it. There are plenty of facts and figures to reveal and keeping you up to date with events as they develop through to the re-launch of the railway in 2015.
www.BordersRailway.info is the website to accompany the programmes.

Some interesting and professionally executed videos on the progress of the line presented by Paul Brownlee of Radio Borders and produced by Stuart Cameron of Hotdisc Studios, Selkirk.


Borders Railway - From Start To Finish: episode 1 (October 2013)

Paul Brownlee talks about the history of the Borders Railway, or, as it was known then,
The Waverley Line, and speaks to author David Spavey about the past and how it all ended in 1969.
We also hear from the man largely responsible for the rebirth of the project, Councillor David Parker.

Borders Railway - From Start To Finish: episode 2 (November 2013)

Paul Brownlee chatting to Bill Jamieson, who successfully campaigned for a station on the new Borders Railway. There's a look at the work being done on the line between Galashiels and Stow, including a special visit inside the Bowshank Tunnel, and more facts about the Borders Railway.

Borders Railway - From Start To Finish: episode 3 (December 2013)

In this episode Stuart Cameron brings us a report on the Campaign for Borders Rail's efforts to get the line extended to Hawick and beyond. We track the progress of the Borders Railway from Stow to Tynehead, there are more facts and figures on the project and we bring you some exclusive shots of Tweedbank and Galashiels from the air.

Borders Railway - From Start To Finish: episode 4 (January 2014)

In a packed edition of the programme, we meet Stuart Farrell, one of the 10 new drivers who have been recruited to drive trains on the Borders Railway. We sit in the cab as he takes us down from Edinburgh to Dunbar as part of his training. Michael Moore MP raises concerns about the state of the A7 and other roads as construction work traffic has an impact on road conditions during the winter. We talk steam trains with the leader of the Scottish Borders Council, David Parker and we trace the work being done on the route between Tynehead and Hardengreen. Plus more facts about the Borders Railway.

 

[railjock]

Draft timetable at this link.

http://e.groupspaces.com/click/4564...m_source=group-mail&utm_term=group-mail-43985