Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
You'd advocate stopping 1p2h of express trains to both Manchester and Euston via Birmingham, on top of 2tph ScotRail, in a field 20 minutes from Haymarket? I admire your optimism.
Livingston has a similar population to Motherwell and the proposed site is a 7 minute drive from Junction 3 of the M8. Compare this to trying to drive into Edinburgh (or take the train and double back), and you suddenly make train travel to England far more attractive to a large portion of the central belt who would otherwise be simply driving down the M74.
A not wholly dissimilar concept would be Worcestershire Parkway, which had 339,000 entries and exits last year.
Livingston has a similar population to Motherwell and the proposed site is a 7 minute drive from Junction 3 of the M8. Compare this to trying to drive into Edinburgh (or take the train and double back), and you suddenly make train travel to England far more attractive to a large portion of the central belt who would otherwise be simply driving down the M74.
A not wholly dissimilar concept would be Worcestershire Parkway, which had 339,000 entries and exits last year.
It's noticeable that XC doesn't stop their long distances high speed services there. It's still only served by the shorter distance services.
Also see that Avanti doesn't call at Lockerbie beyond 3tpd in each direction, when it's a station that serves an area about the same size as is encircled by the M25.
It's also ten minutes from the M8 through the centre of Livingston, which makes it significantly more of a trek than you assume.
Motherwell also has connecting services to an enormous swathe of Strathclyde, as opposed to such a Livingston parkway which would have direct services to precisely nowhere that wasn't already served by a change at Haymarket.
All in all, it just doesn't tick enough boxes to build it.
The service frequencies are awful on much of the Cathcart Circle and branches for an inner suburban railway. Also ticketing could be improved in Strathclyde by having integrated tap in and tap out ticketing for subway/train/bus with the bramble card as it already in use on the subway.
Service frequencies is a fair point, but must be a low priority for improvement compared to other ScotRail lines (and a Clyde Metro should be the next big rail-based transit investment in the Greater Glasgow area).
I do agree that proper integrated ticketing is something that would be justified within Strathclyde though.
Service frequencies is a fair point, but must be a low priority for improvement compared to other ScotRail lines (and a Clyde Metro should be the next big rail-based transit investment in the Greater Glasgow area).
Integrated ticketing. London's had it for 25 years.
Ticket gates at more stations (Partick, Paisley Gilmour Street, Bridgeton, Dalmarnock and Bellgrove).
Refurbish and modernise all the central Glasgow stations. Glasgow Central Low Level is the priority here. Also I'd include Partick, which despite being relatively new, is in a terrible condition and suffers from SPT/ScotRail/Network Rail bickering. It's filthy.
At Charing Cross, take advantage of the massive amount of construction immediately above the station and redevelop it with proper facilities and space.
Integrated ticketing. London's had it for 25 years.
Ticket gates at more stations (Partick, Paisley Gilmour Street, Bridgeton, Dalmarnock and Bellgrove).
Refurbish and modernise all the central Glasgow stations. Glasgow Central Low Level is the priority here. Also I'd include Partick, which despite being relatively new, is in a terrible condition and suffers from SPT/ScotRail/Network Rail bickering. It's filthy.
At Charing Cross, take advantage of the massive amount of construction immediately above the station and redevelop it with proper facilities and space.
Also, perhaps naming for lines for better way finding like what has been done with the London Overground and new metro style rolling stock to replace class 318s/320s.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Glasgow Metro will probably be what the government goes for anyway so this speculation is pointless.
Integrated ticketing. London's had it for 25 years.
Ticket gates at more stations (Partick, Paisley Gilmour Street, Bridgeton, Dalmarnock and Bellgrove).
Refurbish and modernise all the central Glasgow stations. Glasgow Central Low Level is the priority here. Also I'd include Partick, which despite being relatively new, is in a terrible condition and suffers from SPT/ScotRail/Network Rail bickering. It's filthy.
At Charing Cross, take advantage of the massive amount of construction immediately above the station and redevelop it with proper facilities and space.
There had been plans to refurbish the station, improving connections to the east end, using a funding package which included City Deal money.
news.stv.tv
A proposal to redevelop Glasgow’s High Street station isn’t going ahead as Transport Scotland is “currently unable to offer funding”.
There had been plans to refurbish the station, improving connections to the east end, using a funding package which included City Deal money.
But a recent update on City Deal projects — a more than £1bn infrastructure investment programme funded by both governments — revealed the High Street scheme is “no longer viable”.
A Glasgow City Council spokeswoman said the available City Deal funding alone couldn’t cover the cost of the project, but public realm improvements are still planned.
Transport Scotland, which said it has provided £700,000 towards the development of the scheme, has suggested the council could change the scope to make it more affordable.
The City Deal update to Glasgow councillors stated many funding bodies are “struggling with budgetary and inflationary pressures” and have reviewed available funds.
as a genuine question from the perspective of a relative layman, on the scale between "only if the world changes" and "could be achieved within reasonable effort", just how realistic would restoring Peterhead be?
as a genuine question from the perspective of a relative layman, on the scale between "only if the world changes" and "could be achieved within reasonable effort", just how realistic would restoring Peterhead be?
IMO, on a value-for-money (VFM) scale of 0-10 (none to excellent), I would rate re-opening/constructing a rail line to Peterhead/Fraserburgh as 2 (i.e. fairly poor VFM). It is much better to spend money on expanding rail provision in/close to major conurbations than re-opening rail lines to serve sparsely populated remote rural areas such as Buchan.
as a genuine question from the perspective of a relative layman, on the scale between "only if the world changes" and "could be achieved within reasonable effort", just how realistic would restoring Peterhead be?
Economically, I suspect it's unlikely to produce a business case that will satisfy the bean counters. Politically, restoring rail service to Buchan and to the largest, most remote communities from the railway in Scotland would be popular.
The Scottish Government does have a record of supporting economically nonsensical projects because they're popular but also of then not actually funding them - see the A9 dualling.
as a genuine question from the perspective of a relative layman, on the scale between "only if the world changes" and "could be achieved within reasonable effort", just how realistic would restoring Peterhead be?
On a good day I could get a BCR in pure economic terms up to about 1.1, but that's by deliberately misrepresenting data.
If you could serve Peterhead and Fraserburgh on the same line, it would be better, but geographically that's borderline impossible. Economically the country isn't in the same state it was two decades ago when we were signing of on reopenings every five years. Demographically the end of north sea oil means that those towns and Aberdeen are going to quickly become an economic black hole, which makes it harder in many ways and easier in some to justify.
We put an outsized emphasis on regeneration and connectivity metrics, which was easy when the cost of borrowing was bottomed out, but now the cost of servicing the loan to reopen it would be prohibitive itself.
Ten years ago it was twenty years away maybe. Today it's probably more like twenty five years away.
Maybe I could get a BCR today to break even, but anything above 1.1 and you're kidding yourself.
One proposed route is to re-open the previous line from Dyce to Ellon, then the former line via Cruden Bay to Boddam, then a new line via Peterhead to join the former line to Fraserburgh near the former Lonmay station. It would not be cheap to build, but would avoid the previous split service arrangement and probably have lower operating costs.
One proposed route is to re-open the previous line from Dyce to Ellon, then the former line via Cruden Bay to Boddam, then a new line via Peterhead to join the former line to Fraserburgh near the former Lonmay station. It would not be cheap to build, but would avoid the previous split service arrangement and probably have lower operating costs.
Please see this and this post for previous discussions of this subject.
Unfortunately we're into the realm of feedback discussion here. Something is proposed on a subject on a forum such as this, and recycled and regurgitated until it's 'a proposal'
Noone ever seriously looked at reopening the Cruden Bay branch, because if looks at Google maps they find that such a line would be a monumental undertaking, driving a route along the cliffs, and around the bypass of Peterhead. Too much of the line is under main roads or houses, and at that point just driving a new line from scratch would be exponentially easier.
Isn’t that principally because they fear that too many people would get on to what are already overcrowded services (and possible timetabling constraints - which are totally unconnected to possible demand).
Isn’t that principally because they fear that too many people would get on to what are already overcrowded services (and possible timetabling constraints - which are totally unconnected to possible demand).
Yes, and it was not an entirely fair comparison, however the point still stands. The station is not served by the NE-SW axis services because of fears that the train would fill up with local passengers, making short trips.
For a service that goes for 6.5 hours, and primarily serves either cheap advances from Edinburgh-London and as the primary Edinburgh service for a decent swathe of the Midlands and the North, stopping in a field 20 minutes out of Haymarket just isn't a priority.
I would be genuinely astounded if you could find a positive business case for this station anyway, let alone stopping every train there.
Please see this and this post for previous discussions of this subject.
Unfortunately we're into the realm of feedback discussion here. Something is proposed on a subject on a forum such as this, and recycled and regurgitated until it's 'a proposal'
Noone ever seriously looked at reopening the Cruden Bay branch, because if looks at Google maps they find that such a line would be a monumental undertaking, driving a route along the cliffs, and around the bypass of Peterhead. Too much of the line is under main roads or houses, and at that point just driving a new line from scratch would be exponentially easier.
I based my comment on the Buchan Sustainable Transport Study, published in May 2024, where option A2, a new passenger and freight rail line between Aberdeen and Fraserburgh via Ellon, Cruden Bay and Peterhead, is one of 3 preferred options recommended for further study in a detailed options appraisal (section 5.1 of report).
Buchan Sustainable Transport Study - Executive Summary
Campaign for North East Rail and Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce AECOM in partnership with Stantec UK Limited
May 2024
I based my comment on the Buchan Sustainable Transport Study, published in May 2024, where option A2, a new passenger and freight rail line between Aberdeen and Fraserburgh via Ellon, Cruden Bay and Peterhead, is one of 3 preferred options recommended for further study in a detailed options appraisal (section 5.1 of report).
I based my comment on the Buchan Sustainable Transport Study, published in May 2024, where option A2, a new passenger and freight rail line between Aberdeen and Fraserburgh via Ellon, Cruden Bay and Peterhead, is one of 3 preferred options recommended for further study in a detailed options appraisal (section 5.1 of report).
Right, having gone through the thing with a comb, there are some issues with this report. I have some deeper and more introspective thoughts coming, but for now:
It seems to think that Aberdeenshire and Buchan are growth regions, when it's firmly possible that they aren't. It gives an enormous amount of weight to regeneration and connectivity outcomes, which is good, but it's already reached a conclusion without searching for the
The repot comes with a very, very narrow purview: "How can we increase safety along the A90, and reduce journey times into Aberdeen centre, in a sustainable way?"
There are five desired outcomes, but there is no examination of these outcomes beyond how they were reached.
If I wrote a report on that subject, then of course I'd also come to the conclusion that we had to reopen the line at any cost. There's very, very little in the way of actual statistics, very little examining of what people are actually doing in Buchan, and whether or not a railway would serve people's needs.
Theres not a single cost estimate in the report. Not one. Every single option is 'high risk' for affordability.
It's not really a report or an investigation. It's a question with one answer. It's a guideline for what might happen next, but one report does not a business case make.
Yep and west beyond Glasgow Airport to Erskine/Inchinnan would be great. If it was designed as light rail, it could surface and run as a faster tram in the medians of the A8 out as far as Bargeddie station for interchange from the east.
Integrated ticketing. London's had it for 25 years.
Ticket gates at more stations (Partick, Paisley Gilmour Street, Bridgeton, Dalmarnock and Bellgrove).
Refurbish and modernise all the central Glasgow stations. Glasgow Central Low Level is the priority here. Also I'd include Partick, which despite being relatively new, is in a terrible condition and suffers from SPT/ScotRail/Network Rail bickering. It's filthy.
At Charing Cross, take advantage of the massive amount of construction immediately above the station and redevelop it with proper facilities and space.
Ticketing and system entry controls are something worth upgrading, sure.
Would station refurbishments really drive increased passenger numbers on the Glasgow suburban network? Maybe a cleanup of the worst ones could be done as a community service project, but I don't see a purpose beyond that really, most people don't spend a long time in these places.
If there's a **** ton of construction above Charing Cross station, why isn't there a developer contribution to at least a half decent station upgrade?
If I wrote a report on that subject, then of course I'd also come to the conclusion that we had to reopen the line at any cost. There's very, very little in the way of actual statistics, very little examining of what people are actually doing in Buchan, and whether or not a railway would serve people's needs.
It may be called a 'Sustainable Transport Study', but it was paid for by the Campaign for North-East Rail and the scope was clearly pitched as 'how should a new railway to Peterhead and Fraserburgh look?'
With that in mind, if the consultant had been asked to develop proposals for a railway between Barra and Stornoway, they would have done - and collected their cheque quite happily!
Altnabreac station, miles from the nearest road in the Flow Country peat bogs, has been closed since November amid an alleged dispute over an access path
www.thetimes.com
The above is an article by The Times suggesting that the station may be open by September this year, subject to access & the works being complete.
Altnabreac station, miles from the nearest road in the Flow Country peat bogs, has been closed since November amid an alleged dispute over an access path
www.thetimes.com
The above is an article by The Times suggesting that the station may be open by September this year, subject to access & the works being complete.
That doesn't necessarily negate the point about people not kicking up a fuss about closing it. Even before closure it sees less than 1 passenger per day. Take out the hobbyists visiting it for the novelty, and it might even be 1 person every 2 days.
ScotRail will push to open it again because it's a station they manage and don't want the hassle of closing it (certainly not because of a neighbour who can't help but cause trouble). That doesn't mean there'd be uproar if it was proposed for closure though. I imagine most people would say yeah fair enough, especially if they knew the cost of operating it (and dealing with the neighbouring landowner).
Assuming two things to be true, that we aren't allowed to propose new track infrastructure (no new lines) and that we aren't allowed to propose new services (that each station opened has to fit into an existing service pattern) then the list is actually very easy.
1. Winchburgh.
This station has a formal design already agreed, and the mechanisms for funding it exist, but haven't yet been triggered. Slot it into the Dunblane services for an easy 2tph off the bat, with extra calls in the peak time Edinburgh to Glasgows. It's about as easy an opening as you can get.
These all have a service that could be easily stopped, giving a minimum of 2tph right off the bat. They all exist on lines with a relative degree of timetable flexibility, meaning that you could slow down those services and add in an extra stop in each direction without scuffing turnaround times or needing an extra unit.
The first three all have had planning processes started and paused, meaning they've at least proven to be technically feasible, although not necessarily economically so.
Cove, Dysart and Bucksburn are somewhat reliant on future electrification allowing journey time improvements, so you don't slow down end to end journey times by too much, but they're all possible without.
They're all in economically underproductive areas, which buys you points in the economic growth category. They're all less than thirty minutes journey time from the nearest major city centre station, meaning that they get you points in the connectivity category. They're all in areas with poor to moderate public transport provisions, again boosting connectivity.
The exact ordering is probably inconsequential, but again I'd think it likely that reopening stations on electrified lines is altogether better, as you can reduce journey times at the same time as increasing capacity, so I reckon that Cove and Bucksburn would be the last to happen of the bunch (additionally Aberdeen council are generally seen as being unsupportive of rail infrastructure)
8-10
After those six it gets a bit more nebulous.
Cumnock isn't a terrible site for a station, but any station would be underserved with 1tp2h in each direction. Cumnock itself as a fair old way from Glasgow, and Carlisle just doesn't offer the same economic pull. You run very quickly into the fact that economically, any station would be a basket case, even if it would have very positive scores for connectivity and deprivation.
Grangemouth would be a great place for a station, but it's a terrible site for a station. The infrastructure isn't there in the way it would need to be, with the services going to Glasgow and not Edinburgh. Any services to Glasgow would be significantly slower than just driving to Polmont. The station would be in a terrible site for the town, and you'd need more of an infrastructure intervention than just a simple platform.
Cambus would tick a few boxes, get an even 2tph, but it's not that far to Stirling, and there's not much there to connect with a station.
Newtonhill, north of Stonehaven, would be helpful, and 1tph in each direction would be a good boost to the town, but it's a small place.
Mossend/Ravenscraig would fit nicely in the Glasgow suburban network, but it's a bit uncertain what you'd be building it to serve. Maybe if and when the Ravenscraig redevelopment comes online you could get a station through developer contribution funding, but again it's a bit of a long way from Glasgow.
Portobello would be a nice to have, but seems entirely unnecessary given the patching constraints on the ECML out to Drem. Brunstane, although underutilised, is only fifteen minutes walk away, and it's not like Edinburgh doesn't have an amazing, if slow, bus network. You'd probably only be stopping the North Berwick services there as well, which is still only 1tph because of those same capacity constraints, and 1tph for what would be a city station wouldn't compete with buses to any degree.
Blindwells with a big car park would prove to be busy, but again those same pathing constraints make it difficult, and it's not that far to walk to Prestonpans.
A WCML parkway station at Moffat would again be a nice to have, but you run into pathing constraints and service provision issues very quickly. 1tp2h to each of Edinburgh and Glasgow, if you stopped all TPE trains there, would struggle to make a business case.
Ultimately, my 8-10 would be Cambus, Newtonhill and Mossend/Ravenscraig, simply because they're the easiest to reopen, most likely to not be an economic basket case, and easiest to serve.
Would you expect to find a cost estimate? It's a summary of a pre-STAG report. How much work do you think to estimate costs gets done before you actually start the STAG?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Isn’t that principally because they fear that too many people would get on to what are already overcrowded services (and possible timetabling constraints - which are totally unconnected to possible demand).
This is a bit of a red herring. It's not like the Cardiff Central service isn't long-distance or has more available capacity than any of the ones via Bristol Parkway. In recognition of that point, Worcestershire Parkway is gaining services to Bristol anyway.
Eh, neither here nor there. If there were still stations there, we wouldn't be closing them, and we should be reopening them now, but we can't because money isn't infinite.
Newburgh has the best case, being the farthest from an existing station, followed by Bridge of Earn and finally Abernethy. In terms of absolute BCR, I could probably make a case for all three of them as simple single platform modular affairs, however that would probably make the timetable fall over.
You need some double tracking to add the stopping time from any more than one of the three stations, which suddenly makes the costs spiral. Is there an argument for double tracking anyway, probably.
I don't know. I could construct a business case for any of them that would show positive or negative, depending on what you're after, but I'd say on balance that a station at the west end of Newburgh has the best chance. They're not really showstoppers, but hey're probably worthy to some degree; the problem remains that in a finite pot of money, we have to prioritise, and none of these three would be a priority.
Would you expect to find a cost estimate? It's a summary of a pre-STAG report. How much work do you think to estimate costs gets done before you actually start the STAG?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Have you read the report? Or only the summary available at the above link?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
This is at least accurate.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Where does it say that?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I agree that your point about costs is valid; my problem with the full report not including costs is that you end up with a report that says there is a problem, which I think we can all agree that there is, to develop context, without actually saying anything beyond that. In many respects, the summary is actually more helpful than the full report, because it comes to conclusions that are lacking from the report.
I will agree that my message that you're referring to was based on the executive summary, because the message I was replying to was in reference to the executive summary, not the full report. The summary is published at the bottom of the full report, however there are no references to any rail reopenings in the full report. We were discussing the comparative merits of different routes for a hypothetical reopened railway line, and not the intricacies of a 249 page study into travel and freight patterns across Buchan.
Turning to the full report now, and therefore to a broader discussion about sustainable transport, this particular study, and the STAG process...
The full 249 page report may have made its way to me at some point, and although I agree wholeheartedly that the full report is much more concerned with analysis than the executive summary, in my expert opinion, I still find the report to be flawed. I must have contributed to thousands of these things in my professional life, and my name is on both the feasibility studies and business cases for the Borders, Airdrie-Bathgate and Larkhall line reopenings, among many many others.
This particular study starts by asking the question; 'how can we use strategic infrastructure to improve sustainable transport links between Buchan and Aberdeen?' The problem is that it's not actually looking for the best answer to that question, it's looking for answers to five other, related undoubtedly, but distinctly separate questions:
The priority outcomes begin on page 131, and that is where my comment about reopening the line at any cost comes from. TPOs 1 & 2 are to reduce the number of accidents along sections of trunk road in Buchan, and reduce congestion along those trunk roads.
A five minute look at how much a mile of new railway costs, a map of the area, and a walk along Peterhead and Fraserburgh harbour piers would lead you to one conclusion; give everyone in Buchan enough money to switch to an electric car, build ten thousand car charging points, and turn the A90 into a motorway. Obviously, that's not a helpful conclusion for anyone, and so we move on.
TPOs 3 & 4 are about improving connectivity and jobs access, which do naturally lead you to the solution of reopening a railway. TPO 5 touches upon the need for transport to be sustainable and supportive of the local communities, which is a moot point. Any public transport is more sustainable and productive than cars along congested roads in a rural area, especially given the lack thereof in Buchan. Whether or not such a railway is a useful, desirable, affordable proposition is neither here nor there; as you so agreed, one feasibility study does not a business case make.
This lack of direction is quite helpfully outlined in the notes at the top of page twelve; "for this study, it will be important to demonstrate that that there are safety issues on the network and/or transport problems which are affecting existing and/or merging industries [read also: commuters, visitors, and local residents]"
This is I think the crux of the issue. The desire for an alternative to road transport isn't being examined on its own merit; instead the problems with the local road network are the basis for a need for an alternative that isn't road based.
It's a self reinforcing proposition; if you need a solution to this problem that isn't road based, because the roads are the problem, then roads will continue to be a problem because any solution won't fix the issues with the roads.
Let's be honest, frozen fish, bottles of liquid CO2 and parts for wind turbines aren't going to tip the balance in favour of a rail link from a freight perspective. Aberdeen Airport, the football club, the P&J live and the university aren't going to push a business case over the edge. If you read the stakeholder section in the appendices, you'll see that most of the stakeholders are lukewarm at best about a railway line. I can guarantee that if the line reopened tomorrow, over three quarters of fish will still be using road transport in a decade, for reasons outside of rail's control.
Opening a railway there doesn't really improve the business environment for the stakeholders directly, but I conceded indirectly it will most definitely.
Cumulatively, all this might be able to turn it into a positive BCR. I did a BCR for the line back in the early 2000s, back when ScotGov had hot and cold running money, and I could get it up to about 1.3, but that was with the same creative accountancy we used to get the Borders line through, and at the time, Buchan voted Conservative so it wasn't a priority.
The summary in particular, but the full report in it's own way, comes from a good place; 'how can we encourage sustainable transport alternatives in an area underserved by sustainable transport, to make travel easier, faster and safer?'
However they've written a report with narrow terms, with five specific desired outcomes. Section 3.1 of the executive summary is the only point in the whole report where they talk about option generation; it's a grand total of three paragraphs and four bullet points. They don't talk to any length about the methodology behind the options, about the modelling behind them, or about why not a single option focuses on improving bus routes for example.
I know it's not a business case, and I know it's the first stage, and I know all of these things, but the executive summary sums it up nicely.
It's a report written with a desired outcome in mind; reopen the railway. The only three options put forward for improving sustainability, reducing accidents and road congestion are reopening a line that closed 60 years ago, for a couple of billion quid? The only way of reducing journey times into Aberdeen in the morning peak is reopening a railway line? The only way of supporting growth industries is to reopen a railway line?
Somehow I doubt it.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I would like to add by the way, from a more personal note, that I have nothing against reopening the line. I hope it does. I never got to ride it before it closed, and I think that Buchan is a criminally underrated part of Scotland. I'd love to see electric freight taking fresh Fraserburgh shellfish to the continent every day.
My problem with this report is purely from an academic standpoint; this is a very well written report, but it's written with a very bad scope. This is the sort of thing that politicians would wave at us and ask, 'why don't we just give you some money for buses?' or 'why don't we build a bypass, it's cheaper?'
For this line to be built, bear in mind it would easily be the largest undertaking of reopening a closed line in the UK so far; sixty-five miles give or take would be almost double the length of the Borders line. This has to be perfect, the numbers have to be perfect, every single alternative option has to be exhausted for this to be built. This report and it's narrow scope isn't going to help.
Eh, neither here nor there. If there were still stations there, we wouldn't be closing them, and we should be reopening them now, but we can't because money isn't infinite.
Newburgh has the best case, being the farthest from an existing station, followed by Bridge of Earn and finally Abernethy. In terms of absolute BCR, I could probably make a case for all three of them as simple single platform modular affairs, however that would probably make the timetable fall over.
You need some double tracking to add the stopping time from any more than one of the three stations, which suddenly makes the costs spiral. Is there an argument for double tracking anyway, probably.
I don't know. I could construct a business case for any of them that would show positive or negative, depending on what you're after, but I'd say on balance that a station at the west end of Newburgh has the best chance. They're not really showstoppers, but hey're probably worthy to some degree; the problem remains that in a finite pot of money, we have to prioritise, and none of these three would be a priority.
I agree that your point about costs is valid; my problem with the full report not including costs is that you end up with a report that says there is a problem, which I think we can all agree that there is, to develop context, without actually saying anything beyond that. In many respects, the summary is actually more helpful than the full report, because it comes to conclusions that are lacking from the report.
I will agree that my message that you're referring to was based on the executive summary, because the message I was replying to was in reference to the executive summary, not the full report. The summary is published at the bottom of the full report, however there are no references to any rail reopenings in the full report. We were discussing the comparative merits of different routes for a hypothetical reopened railway line, and not the intricacies of a 249 page study into travel and freight patterns across Buchan.
Turning to the full report now, and therefore to a broader discussion about sustainable transport, this particular study, and the STAG process...
The full 249 page report may have made its way to me at some point, and although I agree wholeheartedly that the full report is much more concerned with analysis than the executive summary, in my expert opinion, I still find the report to be flawed. I must have contributed to thousands of these things in my professional life, and my name is on both the feasibility studies and business cases for the Borders, Airdrie-Bathgate and Larkhall line reopenings, among many many others.
This particular study starts by asking the question; 'how can we use strategic infrastructure to improve sustainable transport links between Buchan and Aberdeen?' The problem is that it's not actually looking for the best answer to that question, it's looking for answers to five other, related undoubtedly, but distinctly separate questions:
The priority outcomes begin on page 131, and that is where my comment about reopening the line at any cost comes from. TPOs 1 & 2 are to reduce the number of accidents along sections of trunk road in Buchan, and reduce congestion along those trunk roads.
A five minute look at how much a mile of new railway costs, a map of the area, and a walk along Peterhead and Fraserburgh harbour piers would lead you to one conclusion; give everyone in Buchan enough money to switch to an electric car, build ten thousand car charging points, and turn the A90 into a motorway. Obviously, that's not a helpful conclusion for anyone, and so we move on.
TPOs 3 & 4 are about improving connectivity and jobs access, which do naturally lead you to the solution of reopening a railway. TPO 5 touches upon the need for transport to be sustainable and supportive of the local communities, which is a moot point. Any public transport is more sustainable and productive than cars along congested roads in a rural area, especially given the lack thereof in Buchan. Whether or not such a railway is a useful, desirable, affordable proposition is neither here nor there; as you so agreed, one feasibility study does not a business case make.
This lack of direction is quite helpfully outlined in the notes at the top of page twelve; "for this study, it will be important to demonstrate that that there are safety issues on the network and/or transport problems which are affecting existing and/or merging industries [read also: commuters, visitors, and local residents]"
This is I think the crux of the issue. The desire for an alternative to road transport isn't being examined on its own merit; instead the problems with the local road network are the basis for a need for an alternative that isn't road based.
It's a self reinforcing proposition; if you need a solution to this problem that isn't road based, because the roads are the problem, then roads will continue to be a problem because any solution won't fix the issues with the roads.
Let's be honest, frozen fish, bottles of liquid CO2 and parts for wind turbines aren't going to tip the balance in favour of a rail link from a freight perspective. Aberdeen Airport, the football club, the P&J live and the university aren't going to push a business case over the edge. If you read the stakeholder section in the appendices, you'll see that most of the stakeholders are lukewarm at best about a railway line. I can guarantee that if the line reopened tomorrow, over three quarters of fish will still be using road transport in a decade, for reasons outside of rail's control.
Opening a railway there doesn't really improve the business environment for the stakeholders directly, but I conceded indirectly it will most definitely.
Cumulatively, all this might be able to turn it into a positive BCR. I did a BCR for the line back in the early 2000s, back when ScotGov had hot and cold running money, and I could get it up to about 1.3, but that was with the same creative accountancy we used to get the Borders line through, and at the time, Buchan voted Conservative so it wasn't a priority.
The summary in particular, but the full report in it's own way, comes from a good place; 'how can we encourage sustainable transport alternatives in an area underserved by sustainable transport, to make travel easier, faster and safer?'
However they've written a report with narrow terms, with five specific desired outcomes. Section 3.1 of the executive summary is the only point in the whole report where they talk about option generation; it's a grand total of three paragraphs and four bullet points. They don't talk to any length about the methodology behind the options, about the modelling behind them, or about why not a single option focuses on improving bus routes for example.
I know it's not a business case, and I know it's the first stage, and I know all of these things, but the executive summary sums it up nicely.
It's a report written with a desired outcome in mind; reopen the railway. The only three options put forward for improving sustainability, reducing accidents and road congestion are reopening a line that closed 60 years ago, for a couple of billion quid? The only way of reducing journey times into Aberdeen in the morning peak is reopening a railway line? The only way of supporting growth industries is to reopen a railway line?
Somehow I doubt it.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I would like to add by the way, from a more personal note, that I have nothing against reopening the line. I hope it does. I never got to ride it before it closed, and I think that Buchan is a criminally underrated part of Scotland. I'd love to see electric freight taking fresh Fraserburgh shellfish to the continent every day.
My problem with this report is purely from an academic standpoint; this is a very well written report, but it's written with a very bad scope. This is the sort of thing that politicians would wave at us and ask, 'why don't we just give you some money for buses?' or 'why don't we build a bypass, it's cheaper?'
For this line to be built, bear in mind it would easily be the largest undertaking of reopening a closed line in the UK so far; sixty-five miles give or take would be almost double the length of the Borders line. This has to be perfect, the numbers have to be perfect, every single alternative option has to be exhausted for this to be built. This report and it's narrow scope isn't going to help.
It's very good of you to write all of this down in this way but I'm not sure I can agree with your takeaway from the wording. I do agree with your approach to the analysis. The take I took from it is that the BCR will never reach 1 and as such there won't be any chance of any of the studied options making it through a STAG. However, for very obvious reasons, the consultant was hardly going to write it in those terms. There's lots of stuff that's useful for a strategic dimension but bit that's not really needed yet. You use the term conclusion. I'd say there are no conclusions beyond it's worth studying, because it's not proper to have any until you've actually done the first step of STAG / SOC. Obviously my conclusion would be there are other things worth studying more, but at the end of the day it's not my decision. Unfortunately that's life. Reston was built and provides almost no benefits, because almost nobody uses it, and meaningful disbenefits for the capacity of the line and journey times. The Borders Railway was built but was approved on a BCR of 0.5. It should surprise nobody that short DMUs with crews on ScotRail roles cost a bomb to run, and can physically carry far too few people to even cover operating costs, let alone 'repay' capital costs.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Go to the top of the class with reconnection to Hillfoots. It'd relieve the already overworked Forth Bridge of Stirling-Fife traffic inc' freight.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Trivia (& apologies if passed & posted already). Given the nos that commute from East Kilbride to Edinburgh (or @ least Livingstone), would only 2/3 miles of new alignment would be req' to connect with WCML's Newton-Uddingston swathe? That is also to some minimally obstructed disused track east of EK Stn. This imaginary line would also cross the Hamilton/Larkhall line imm' south and joinable via (say) a rail-chord.
Assuming two things to be true, that we aren't allowed to propose new track infrastructure (no new lines) and that we aren't allowed to propose new services (that each station opened has to fit into an existing service pattern) then the list is actually very easy.
1. Winchburgh.
This station has a formal design already agreed, and the mechanisms for funding it exist, but haven't yet been triggered. Slot it into the Dunblane services for an easy 2tph off the bat, with extra calls in the peak time Edinburgh to Glasgows. It's about as easy an opening as you can get.
These all have a service that could be easily stopped, giving a minimum of 2tph right off the bat. They all exist on lines with a relative degree of timetable flexibility, meaning that you could slow down those services and add in an extra stop in each direction without scuffing turnaround times or needing an extra unit.
The first three all have had planning processes started and paused, meaning they've at least proven to be technically feasible, although not necessarily economically so.
Cove, Dysart and Bucksburn are somewhat reliant on future electrification allowing journey time improvements, so you don't slow down end to end journey times by too much, but they're all possible without.
They're all in economically underproductive areas, which buys you points in the economic growth category. They're all less than thirty minutes journey time from the nearest major city centre station, meaning that they get you points in the connectivity category. They're all in areas with poor to moderate public transport provisions, again boosting connectivity.
The exact ordering is probably inconsequential, but again I'd think it likely that reopening stations on electrified lines is altogether better, as you can reduce journey times at the same time as increasing capacity, so I reckon that Cove and Bucksburn would be the last to happen of the bunch (additionally Aberdeen council are generally seen as being unsupportive of rail infrastructure)
8-10
After those six it gets a bit more nebulous.
Cumnock isn't a terrible site for a station, but any station would be underserved with 1tp2h in each direction. Cumnock itself as a fair old way from Glasgow, and Carlisle just doesn't offer the same economic pull. You run very quickly into the fact that economically, any station would be a basket case, even if it would have very positive scores for connectivity and deprivation.
Grangemouth would be a great place for a station, but it's a terrible site for a station. The infrastructure isn't there in the way it would need to be, with the services going to Glasgow and not Edinburgh. Any services to Glasgow would be significantly slower than just driving to Polmont. The station would be in a terrible site for the town, and you'd need more of an infrastructure intervention than just a simple platform.
Cambus would tick a few boxes, get an even 2tph, but it's not that far to Stirling, and there's not much there to connect with a station.
Newtonhill, north of Stonehaven, would be helpful, and 1tph in each direction would be a good boost to the town, but it's a small place.
Mossend/Ravenscraig would fit nicely in the Glasgow suburban network, but it's a bit uncertain what you'd be building it to serve. Maybe if and when the Ravenscraig redevelopment comes online you could get a station through developer contribution funding, but again it's a bit of a long way from Glasgow.
Portobello would be a nice to have, but seems entirely unnecessary given the patching constraints on the ECML out to Drem. Brunstane, although underutilised, is only fifteen minutes walk away, and it's not like Edinburgh doesn't have an amazing, if slow, bus network. You'd probably only be stopping the North Berwick services there as well, which is still only 1tph because of those same capacity constraints, and 1tph for what would be a city station wouldn't compete with buses to any degree.
Blindwells with a big car park would prove to be busy, but again those same pathing constraints make it difficult, and it's not that far to walk to Prestonpans.
A WCML parkway station at Moffat would again be a nice to have, but you run into pathing constraints and service provision issues very quickly. 1tp2h to each of Edinburgh and Glasgow, if you stopped all TPE trains there, would struggle to make a business case.
Ultimately, my 8-10 would be Cambus, Newtonhill and Mossend/Ravenscraig, simply because they're the easiest to reopen, most likely to not be an economic basket case, and easiest to serve.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
news.stv.tv
www.thetimes.com
