Borders Railway - Now Open

[PaxVobiscum]

Did you notice the date on the Scotsman article you linked?

(It's over a year old).

However, the Borders Telegraph article you mentioned is recent: http://www.bordertelegraph.com/news...ents_planned_for_Borders_Railway/?ref=mr&lp=6

£14 million of improvements planned for Borders Railway

CELEBRATIONS to mark the Borders Railway were used by Transport Minister Humza Yousaf to announce a package of measures to improve the service.

Despite the line being hailed a huge success regarding passenger numbers, it has been fraught with failures, cancellations, delays and overcrowding.

As the Transport Minister blew out the first candle at Waverley Station on Friday he unveiled a ScotRal Alliance £14 million improvement plan, which will include the replacement of the unreliable Class 158 diesel trains and work on the unreliable signalling system.

Mr Yousaf said: "Not only has the railway linked communities in the Borders and Midlothian with the wider Scottish rail network for the first time in 46 years, but the increased accessibility has breathed new life into the region, boosting tourism and employment opportunities.

"Performance on this line in my view has not been acceptable.

"I am pleased the ScotRail Alliance has put together an improvement plan.

"I will push them to do that as quickly as possible, and expect reliability to be significantly improved.

Last week on the Borders Railway, of the 132 scheduled trains, six were cancelled and 90 were late - only 36 arrived at Tweedbank on time.

The line has never provided right-time arrivals higher than 70 per cent across any one week since last October.

And has recently dipped below 30 per cent.

Railway campaigner and author David Spaven is pleased with the announcement.

But he also warned not to expect a quick fix. He told us: "It is encouraging that the Transport Minister has now acknowledged the scale of the reliability problem on the Borders Railway, and hopefully the ScotRail Alliance improvement plan will be able to deliver some worthwhile enhancement of performance.

"But sadly, due to Transport Scotland’s lack of strategic vision over the last five years, there are underlying problems with the line’s largely single-track infrastructure and its Class 158 trains that cannot be fully resolved by any quick fix."

Despite the problems over the past 12 months there was still a mood of celebration at Waverley on Friday.

And ScotRail Alliance managing director Phil Verster was delighted that well over one million passenger journeys had been made since the opening last year.

He said: "We are very proud of the popularity of the new line, are striving to continually improve the service we offer on in it, and look forward to welcoming even more passengers aboard Borders services in the years ahead.”

More seats will be introduced on peak services next year along with plans to introduce longer trains on more services from 2018 – providing longer term increases in capacity.

Significant investment in the rolling stock will also deliver enhancements worth over £14 million to the trains over the next two years.

These improvements include fitting power sockets, flooring, lighting, painting, re-livery and creating spaces for wheelchairs.

Managing Director of operators Abellio UK, Dominic Booth, added: “As with anything new of this scale, we know there is room to strengthen and grow.

"We are excited about what lies ahead for the Borders line and are proud to be celebrating the first year, with a positive outlook of improvements and developments to come."

 

[WatcherZero]

They must have just dusted it off and republished it lol.

 

[gingerheid]

1. Cambridge railway station is absolutely fine in terms of its positioning for pretty much most people who live there. Sure, a station in the original planned position near Christ's Pieces would have been better to get people into the heart of Cambridge, but it's no worse sited than other stations for cities of that size.

2. Cambridge North station is going to be built for the commuters to the science park, increasing the commuting potential.

3. Cambridge has a colossal influx of tourists. It's ridiculous. They all get there by train pretty much.

4. The region through which EWR is going to be built is heavily trafficked. The A14, A428 and A10 which currently handle the entirety of East-West traffic in the area are at capacity. The X5 bus, which currently handles public transport from East to West is surprisingly well loaded for a bus that takes well over 3 hours from Oxford to Cambridge.

Those are the reasons Bedford - Cambridge is very likely to be built.

I'm nervous about dragging this further off topic by sustaining the conversation about Cambridge further, but something very much worth mentioning in relation to Cambridge is that the city centre (perhaps because of the location of the station!) isn't actually that much of the commuting destination within the city! In terms of offices, for example, there's probably a lot more in the area around the station than there is in the city centre. Apart from shop / cafe jobs, the main employment areas in Cambridge are Science Park/Research Park/Innovation Centre, Addenbrooke's/Biomedical Campus, West Cambridge, and around the railway station.

You can see how much commuters don't care about ending up at the railway station and do care about the frequency of the service by comparing bus and train timetables. If it was something that mattered to people there'd be more than two rush hour buses from Ely (and those go past the Science Park on their way to the centre). The bus service to Royston is also awful and almost unused, and there are slightly more buses to Newmarket (perhaps on account of the train service being worse.

Re Borders... there's been lots of talk about the unreliable signalling, but what's actually unreliable about it? And why is this happening these days? The signalling upgrade for... oh no.... here I go again... Cambridge - Norwich was also an almost unmitigated disaster, partly because they tried to use automation to get rid of too many crossing keepers. Is there some kind of problem with modern signalling?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Re Borders... there's been lots of talk about the unreliable signalling, but what's actually unreliable about it? And why is this happening these days? The signalling upgrade for... oh no.... here I go again... Cambridge - Norwich was also an almost unmitigated disaster, partly because they tried to use automation to get rid of too many crossing keepers. Is there some kind of problem with modern signalling?

ERTMS can't come quickly enough, honestly.

 

[neil57d]

The main problem with the signalling seems to have been faults with axle counters. When a fault has developed they have chosen to stop all trains and wait for technicians to fix the problem rather than institute pilotman working on the single line sections and keep the train service going.

 

[edwin_m]

Perhaps because in the time it takes a pilotman to arrive by road, a technician could arrive instead?

 

[deltic08]

Well put.

There are a number of other non-Scottish examples of cross country routes linking provincial towns, which would be very difficult and expensive to reconstruct, that are enthusiastically but inappropriately promoted on this site. One is Cambridge-Bedford, which has minimal commuter potential as Cambridge station is extremely poorly sited. Others include Ripon-Northallerton, Beverley-Market Weighton-York and Caerfyrddin-Aberystwyth.

Have you done a study on the Ripon-Northallerton reinstatement? No, I thought not but I have and it isn't inappropriately promoted. Get your facts right before making incorrect statements like this about this reinstatement again please.

 

[The Ham]

Have you done a study on the Ripon-Northallerton reinstatement? No, I thought not but I have and it isn't inappropriately promoted. Get your facts right before making incorrect statements like this about this reinstatement again please.

They said that it was:

inappropriately promoted on this site

Not that it wasn't necessarily (with the appropriate funding) a suitable candidate for reinstatement or even that it wasn't being promoted well elsewhere.

 

[PHILIPE]

Article published today by BBC regarding the problems on this route:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-37802277

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Article published today by BBC regarding the problems on this route:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-37802277

Good to see that the Scottish Ministry is taking the blame for their cheaping out on this route. All too often the TOCs seem to take all of the blame for things that are out of their control (see the Twitter teams endlessly having to explain that they can't just "buy new trains" for busy routes).

Given that these issues seem to be ongoing pretty much since the route opened, I'm guessing everyone is just hoping it will put people off enough that the trains become quieter? A good old BR technique!

 

[clc]

If they hadn't value engineered the line it wouldn't have been built. However, that's not going to wash with the public who are wondering why a brand new line has such poor reliability and punctuality.

It's going to continue to cause the Scottish Government embarrassment for quite a while I think.

 

[asylumxl]

Article published today by BBC regarding the problems on this route:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-37802277

Good to see that the Scottish Ministry is taking the blame for their cheaping out on this route. All too often the TOCs seem to take all of the blame for things that are out of their control (see the Twitter teams endlessly having to explain that they can't just "buy new trains" for busy routes).

Given that these issues seem to be ongoing pretty much since the route opened, I'm guessing everyone is just hoping it will put people off enough that the trains become quieter? A good old BR technique!

Not one single source for this story has provided a link to the report and a quick Google search found nothing.

The statistics such "campaigners" have used in the past to claim such dire punctuality have been for right-time arrivals and departures, rather than the on-time statistics.

Abellio and the ROSCO should take some blame. The simple fact is a lot of the issues are due to unreliability of the rolling stock, which is their responsibility. Yes, there have been signalling issues on the Borders but there are many all over the UK daily, it's hardly limited to this one route.

I get the impression that these issues are just a stick for the Border's Tory voters to beat the SNP with.

 

[fgwrich]

If they hadn't value engineered the line it wouldn't have been built. However, that's not going to wash with the public who are wondering why a brand new line has such poor reliability and punctuality.

It's going to continue to cause the Scottish Government embarrassment for quite a while I think.

I dont disagree with the statement about having to value engineer it to allow it to be built but it's just a shame that they've done it in a way that will make doubling it or sections of it harder and more expensive in the future. E.g. Rather than building it with the line centrally, sections could have been designed and built with enough space to easily lay a second track when the time and finances permit...

I do however agree with you on that it'll be a statement of embarrassment for years to come!

 

[Tim R-T-C]

The statistics such "campaigners" have used in the past to claim such dire punctuality have been for right-time arrivals and departures, rather than the on-time statistics.

Well they say they are using RTT, which doesn't always tally with a published timetable which might include catch-up time.

 

[thealexweb]

I cannot fathom this response to Class 158s being used. If this new line had opened in the north of England it would probably be operating with pacers. Then they would see what a real problem looks like.

 

[LeylandLen]

In my opinion , its Civil Servants who haven't been in the job long thinking they know better than time-served experienced railway people.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Spaven is beginning to sound like a broken record.

Yes, the 158s are rubbish but it was announced months ago that they'll be replaced by 170s once EGIP is finished.

Yes, Portobello East junction is not fit for purpose but that's not really part of the Borders railway and it is in the programme for upgrading, as is the Waverley eastern approach.

Yes, there could have been more provision for double track but if everything else works to plan it shouldn't be needed.

Why doesn't he find something new to investigate. Perhaps he could find out why so many unnecessary new footbridges were built or why none of the compulsorily purchased buildings have been sold off.

 

[92002]

I dont disagree with the statement about having to value engineer it to allow it to be built but it's just a shame that they've done it in a way that will make doubling it or sections of it harder and more expensive in the future. E.g. Rather than building it with the line centrally, sections could have been designed and built with enough space to easily lay a second track when the time and finances permit...

I do however agree with you on that it'll be a statement of embarrassment for years to come!

The simple facts of the value engineering were that had the line been built as a double track railway the sums would not have added up and it would not have been built at all.

The reliability problems not only in Borders will not be solved until 70 new Class 385s are delivered, lines electrified and other types of DMU are displaced. Then the useless 158s can be sent to a new owner.

 

[clc]

Phil Verster recently told a Holyrood committee that once the 158s had been fitted with new radiators the overheating problem which leads to loss of engine power would be solved meaning they'd no longer lose time going up Falahill. He said overheating would no longer be a problem from next year.

 

[47271]

The worst thing about the Borders Railway and its 158s is the way that their use on the route has left the rest of Scotrail slammed for diesel stock.

Like others, I'm tiring of this line being made a special case for moaning. They've got a very frequent service from early in the morning until late in the evening far superior to any other rural route in Scotland, whether it has single or double track, and they know that they're getting 170s soon.

Mind you, anyone who's been on a 170 crawling up Slochd can tell them not to get too excited about the prospect of zooming up Fala in one.

 

[Altnabreac]

The worst thing about the Borders Railway and its 158s is the way that their use on the route has left the rest of Scotrail slammed for diesel stock.

Like others, I'm tiring of this line being made a special case for moaning. They've got a very frequent service from early in the morning until late in the evening far superior to any other rural route in Scotland, whether it has single or double track, and they know that they're getting 170s soon.

Mind you, anyone who's been on a 170 crawling up Slochd can tell them not to get too excited about the prospect of zooming up Fala in one.

You do wonder if a case will be made for electrification of the Borders line sooner rather than later. Given the fact there are no level crossings and all the clearances should be ok (although maybe not to the new higher standards?) it should be a relatively cheap electrification on a per km cost.

Downside would be that it would make it more difficult to generate a positive business case for extending to Hawick.

Maybe Borders folk need to be careful what they wish for.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I dont think 170s are a particularly good idea on the borders route. They are at their optimum when running flat out at 100mph on a fast flat mainline. Taking them off 1 hilly route to then allocate them to another is simply fanning the chritical journalistic flames.

If the idiots at TS/Scotrail thought out of the box they could be negociating an aggreement on the surplus 185s nobody seams to want. These would work rather well on not only borders but on HML additional summer workings alongside HSTs and on the likes of the G ans SW where hill climbing and pelting along the WCML both feature.

In the case of the borders their acceleration would maximise portobello JN and the crouded ECMl, allow them to climb up through midlothian and pic up any lost time on the streights near Stow and Gala.

 

[glbotu]

A use for some of those 185s going "spare"?

 

[Carntyne]

I dont think 170s are a particularly good idea on the borders route. They are at their optimum when running flat out at 100mph on a fast flat mainline. Taking them off 1 hilly route to then allocate them to another is simply fanning the chritical journalistic flames.

If the idiots at TS/Scotrail thought out of the box they could be negociating an aggreement on the surplus 185s nobody seams to want. These would work rather well on not only borders but on HML additional summer workings alongside HSTs and on the likes of the G ans SW where hill climbing and pelting along the WCML both feature.

In the case of the borders their acceleration would maximise portobello JN and the crouded ECMl, allow them to climb up through midlothian and pic up any lost time on the streights near Stow and Gala.

The 170's are fine on the Borders route at the moment when they run.

 

[fgwrich]

The simple facts of the value engineering were that had the line been built as a double track railway the sums would not have added up and it would not have been built at all.

The reliability problems not only in Borders will not be solved until 70 new Class 385s are delivered, lines electrified and other types of DMU are displaced. Then the useless 158s can be sent to a new owner.

I understand and know that, it's just disappointing that the value engineering saw most of the track placed centrally than 'either side'. Surely it wouldn't have made the costs that more expensive considering they were effectively starting from new. Value engineering it doesn't have to deliberately make expanding it more expensive in the future, which seems to have happened here.

 

[fegguk]

I understand and know that, it's just disappointing that the value engineering saw most of the track placed centrally than 'either side'. Surely it wouldn't have made the costs that more expensive considering they were effectively starting from new. Value engineering it doesn't have to deliberately make expanding it more expensive in the future, which seems to have happened here.

Locating the track centrally at over bridges will make electrification less expensive at the cost of making doubling more expensive. Which is more likely, the Network rail engineer in charge the building said when speaking to a CBR meeting last year, that electrification would be the best way to improve performance in the long run.

The new single track bridges are a far larger impediment to double track in the future. Extending the existing double track loops or adding new ones is not likely to happen soon. Doing this would in effect create a double track railway with far more capacity than will ever be required just to serve the Borders and Midlothian which is what the line was intended to do. It was not re-built as a through route main line to Carlisle so why spend extra money on the basis that it might become one at the cost of not having that money to spend elsewhere on the network. Planning and investing for something that was thought at the time very unlikely to happen doesn’t really make much sense. Though it depends on how you judge the likelihood.

 

[chiltern trev]

Another newspaper article, http://www.bordertelegraph.com/news...ins_and_cancellations_on_the_Borders_Railway/, has an updates as follows:

The ScotRail Alliance, who recently unveiled a major improvement plan for the country's railways, uncovered an issue with the diesel Class 158 trains’ radiators overheating on the Falahill climb.

The reduction in speed, and occasional engine failure, resulted in some trains being delayed.

Two of the units have now been fitted with new trial radiators - which may be rolled out to the entire stock if successful.

Would I be correct in thinking the new radiators have a much greater thermal capacity?

Also, are the radiators fans electric (and not mechanical off the engine revs) and also is the radiator/fan assembly fitted with cowls/ducting to assist the airflow (and thus cooling) through the radiator?

 

[deltic08]

Spaven is beginning to sound like a broken record.

Yes, the 158s are rubbish but it was announced months ago that they'll be replaced by 170s once EGIP is finished.

Yes, Portobello East junction is not fit for purpose but that's not really part of the Borders railway and it is in the programme for upgrading, as is the Waverley eastern approach.

Yes, there could have been more provision for double track but if everything else works to plan it shouldn't be needed.

Why doesn't he find something new to investigate. Perhaps he could find out why so many unnecessary new footbridges were built or why none of the compulsorily purchased buildings have been sold off.

But everything is not going to plan and even the general public realised that this amount of single track could not cope with out of course delays. Where else do timetable services have to be cancelled to fit in a charter service? Tweedbank was designed for charter trains but the rest of the route was not. Barking. Who pays these so called consultants? That alone is proof that the line is not fit for purpose.

 

[fegguk]

But everything is not going to plan and even the general public realised that this amount of single track could not cope with out of course delays. Where else do timetable services have to be cancelled to fit in a charter service? Tweedbank was designed for charter trains but the rest of the route was not. Barking. Who pays these so called consultants? That alone is proof that the line is not fit for purpose.

There is a difference between extending a couple of platforms to take the occational charter trains and redesigning the whole thing to accomodate them. This year the regular charters have run on Sundays where they don't interfere with the service. With the improvements proposed it should meet its designed 2thp service requirement more consitently than it has been doing without being double track all the way. Time wil tell.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

But everything is not going to plan and even the general public realised that this amount of single track could not cope with out of course delays. Where else do timetable services have to be cancelled to fit in a charter service? Tweedbank was designed for charter trains but the rest of the route was not. Barking. Who pays these so called consultants? That alone is proof that the line is not fit for purpose.

Additional double track may have helped with out of course delays but that would be equally true of the lines to Inverness, Oban, Fort William, Kyle, Wick etc.
The Scott Wilson report published in early 2000 envisaged the line being open by 2006. That report did not consider charter trains. The line was already over five years late by the time the design for Tweedbank was altered to accommodate charters. If the rest of the line had been redesigned at the same time there would have been further delays and cost increases with the probable result that the entire project would have been cancelled.