Is the extension to the Borders Railway back on track?

[Bertie the bus]

The main problem with spending/wasting money trying to kill off a project like this that will never die is it only emboldens those campaigning for its reopening. They will point out that a large sum has already been spent and that will only have been wasted if the line reopening doesn't go ahead. Pandering is never a good idea in cases like this. What it needs is honesty.

 

[jh64]

Center Parcs have put out a proposal for a site just north of Hawick - if approved, a plus point towards a short extension of the existing line.

New details of Center Parcs holiday village just 60 miles from Newcastle

The holiday giant is developing a £400m proposal for its first Scottish site

www.chroniclelive.co.uk

Center Parcs has revealed more about plans for its new site that will be an hour and half away from Newcastle.

The new site, near Hawick in the Scottish Borders, will be around 60 miles north-west of Newcastle and 55 miles south of Edinburgh. The company has unveiled a new zoning plan which marks the first step in bringing the village to life.

Center Parcs say the zoning plan is not a final document and will be subject to change as technical work progresses and consultee feedback is received in the coming months. Those insights will play a crucial role in shaping the eventual masterplan which will form part of the planning application when it is submitted later this year.

 

[brad465]

How many Center Parcs' customers travel to one of their sites by train? Given the family attraction sell, and many of them not being near a station, I imagine most go by car. As such I can't see how this new site will help the business case for reopening the railway.

 

[jh64]

Point taken, but I am actually going to the Penrith one this summer by train and bus!

 

[Mr. SW]

I spent Christmas in the Scottish Borders and picked up some local news and I tell you there's much more.

The local press has been full of puff about the Center Parcs development and there have been meetings with local residents.

Full steam ahead for holiday complex beside old railway station in Borders

A railway-themed holiday home complex has been put on track beside an old Borders train station.

www.bordertelegraph.com

A RAILWAY-THEMED holiday home complex has been put on track beside an old Borders train station.


It was full steam ahead this week for a planning bid submitted to Scottish Borders Council which proposes six new holiday lets near Station House at Saughtree in Newcastleton.
The proposal is for four new camping pods and two shepherd's huts, on land adjoining the old station.
The pods would be positioned in a field above the station buildings on the northern part of the site.
It is proposed the huts be located in rail wagons on the existing railway lines.

and

First stage of exciting plans for £5m Borders holiday park filed with council

Exciting plans for a new high quality £5m holiday lodge park in Jedburgh have been placed on Scottish Borders Council’s planning portal.

www.bordertelegraph.com

EXCITING plans for a new high quality £5m holiday lodge park in Jedburgh have been placed on Scottish Borders Council’s planning portal.


A proposal of application (PAN) was submitted to the local authority late last year for the proposed development on land to the west and incorporating Earlsheugh Farm.
The application covers the use of the land for up to 40 lodges, along with proposed access from the A68 road.
The company behind the bid, CampbellMac Developments, says the £5m investment would create up to 18 new jobs.

There are some establishments run by Hoseasons in the area.

It's a region worth visiting though, full of historical castles, abbey ruins, houses and attractive villages.

The problem with all these developments are that they are all off the route of the Waverley Line. For example: the CP development is almost exactly halfway between Hawick and Selkirk, but there will be be pressure put on the roads in the area by such developments.

So, I would qualify any extension of the Borders Line to serve these, even remotely, with a definite 'Hmm'.

 

[Killingworth]

I spent Christmas in the Scottish Borders and picked up some local news and I tell you there's much more.

The local press has been full of puff about the Center Parcs development and there have been meetings with local residents.

Full steam ahead for holiday complex beside old railway station in Borders

A railway-themed holiday home complex has been put on track beside an old Borders train station.

www.bordertelegraph.com

and

First stage of exciting plans for £5m Borders holiday park filed with council

Exciting plans for a new high quality £5m holiday lodge park in Jedburgh have been placed on Scottish Borders Council’s planning portal.

www.bordertelegraph.com

There are some establishments run by Hoseasons in the area.

It's a region worth visiting though, full of historical castles, abbey ruins, houses and attractive villages.

The problem with all these developments are that they are all off the route of the Waverley Line. For example: the CP development is almost exactly halfway between Hawick and Selkirk, but there will be be pressure put on the roads in the area by such developments.

So, I would qualify any extension of the Borders Line to serve these, even remotely, with a definite 'Hmm'.

I'd say it makes no difference as Tweedbank was built where it is for the very good reason that it's a good rail head for the region - and getting round Melrose would add immense extra costs for negligible additional revenue.

Yes, I've stayed in a Center Parc. A few had come by bike, some may have come by bus but the vast majority of us had driven hundreds of miles door to door from home to our bungalow. Clutching at straws to use this as a significant factor, although some guests will certainly take the train from Tweedbank into Edinburgh. A positive development for that reason.

 

[Bald Rick]

How many Center Parcs' customers travel to one of their sites by train? Given the family attraction sell, and many of them not being near a station, I imagine most go by car. As such I can't see how this new site will help the business case for reopening the railway.

Essentially none travel in by train. I am perhaps one of the few that has done so; I used the Center Parcs guest shuttle from Flitwick to Woburn Forest. I was one of 4 to do so in that hour of the Friday change over (when around 2000 guests would be arriving). The previous center parcs branded shuttle is now a minicab, which CP will pay for if you choose to route that way.

People going to CP are almost exclusively in groups of 3+, in full cars usually with a bootfull of stuff for 3-4 nights, and more than half have bikes or other bulky stuff on board. Not easily transferrable to rail on any account. And even if it was, the peaky nature (Mondays and Fridays) would not be helpful.

Finally, it’s not a short extension. It’s about 20miles, and would cost more than twice as much as the park itself (park estimated at £400m).

To put it all in context, the £10m which is being allocated for the development / business case could buy 10 electric executive coaches, and operate a half hourly express service from Tweedbank to Carlisle early till late and make it free for passengers. For two years. And that could be done by Easter this year. If a completely free, express, carbon neutral, luxury coach service doesn’t bring in the passengers, then it’s reasonable to assume a paid for, non carbon neutral, not as luxurious train service wouldn’t either.

 

[styles]

How many Center Parcs' customers travel to one of their sites by train? Given the family attraction sell, and many of them not being near a station, I imagine most go by car. As such I can't see how this new site will help the business case for reopening the railway.

I imagine the number is negligible.

People going to Center Parcs tend to be carting a fair bit of luggage, more than the average person would like to take on a train. Even fewer will want to deal with the unavoidable change at Carlisle or Edinburgh if they don't happen to live near another station on the line.

Hawick would be one of the sensible settlements for a station in general though, if any.

 

[Killingworth]

Hawick would be one of the sensible settlements for a station in general though, if anany.

Assuming the Melrose bypass hadn't been built on the old trackbed and there was a larger population in the area. Tweedbank is there because it's a reasonable compromise for the wider area.

Look at OS maps and the small population numbers in the surrounding area.

 

[styles]

Assuming the Melrose bypass hadn't been built on the old trackbed and there was a larger population in the area. Tweedbank is there because it's a reasonable compromise for the wider area.

Look at OS maps and the small population numbers in the surrounding area.

Hence the, 'if any' (with added typo mind)!

That said, there are stations on the line which are already open and serve smaller populations. Newtongrange for example has half the population of Hawick, and the population on the outer of Newtongrange are served by Eskbank and Gorebridge stations also.

The real question imo is - would it be just too far for Hawick residents to consider it a viable commute option? It's already over an hour from Tweedbank to Waverley. 5.5bn km were travelled by season ticket holders in the last 12 months. 183m journeys made on season tickets, which gives a mean of 30km per season ticket journey. It's going to be around 80km between Hawick and Waverley. Not sure what the distribution is like on average journey lengths by ticket type, or by duration, but definitely goes into the, "I don't want to commute that far on the regular.", category for me put it that way. Obviously there's leisure, and leisure trips make up ~2/3rds of km travelled; maybe many would prefer saving 30 minutes on the train compared to the less-frequent X95 Carlisle-Edinburgh bus?

 

[Bald Rick]

maybe many would prefer saving 30 minutes on the train compared to the less-frequent X95 Carlisle-Edinburgh bus?

maybe some would, in which case the quick, easy and cheap answer is to spend our money on making the bus quicker (a lot fewer stops) and more frequent, as per my post above.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

The £10m could cover between 10 and 20 miles of cycleway on the trackbed, maybe more depending on the state of the structures. (The Tyvi Valley Way is currently under construction at £17m for 17 miles, but that includes a couple of new-build river bridges, is entirely in floodplain, and has entailed difficult land ownership negotiations.)

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Assuming the Melrose bypass hadn't been built on the old trackbed and there was a larger population in the area. Tweedbank is there because it's a reasonable compromise for the wider area.

Look at OS maps and the small population numbers in the surrounding area.

The Melrose bypass wasn't built on the old trackbed apart from two short stretches, one immediately to the east of the old Melrose station and another to the east of Newstead.

Dean Road between Melrose and Newstead is on the trackbed and there are two bungalows possibly on the trackbed at Darnick. Most of the rest of the former trackbed round Melrose is a tarmac footpath.

 

[Zomboid]

There's no need for it as a local service beyond Hawick because there's nothing there, and the WCML already does a good enough job if being an Intercity route between Carlisle and Edinburgh.

In a world where money's no object, Hawick might make sense, but even then there'd be no reason to go further.

 

[Killingworth]

The Melrose bypass wasn't built on the old trackbed apart from two short stretches, one immediately to the east of the old Melrose station and another to the east of Newstead.

Dean Road between Melrose and Newstead is on the trackbed and there are two bungalows possibly on the trackbed at Darnick. Most of the rest of the former trackbed round Melrose is a tarmac footpath.

Splitting straws. Enough of the old track bed has been repurposed to make a very dubious need into an incredibly expensive proposition.

 

[Killingworth]

Rail's latest edition 1036 includes a note that Scottish Borders Council has appointed Turner and Townsend as project managers for the feasibility study, see below.

Curiously I was sifting through old papers earlier today searching for something I'd put aside on an unrelated subject. It wasn't in Rail Issue 825 from May 2017!

But there was a double page article by Richard Clinnick featuring a forthcoming study of options to improve transport links in the South of Scotland, including this line. He reported that on April 10th (2017) Transport for Scotland announced that "a contract will be awarded to Jacobs UK Ltd , subject to completion of the mandatory standstill period. Work on the project is expected to start within days and TS expects it to take around seven months to complete."

Project managers appointed for £10m Borders Railway feasibility study​

27/05/2025 in News

Project managers have been appointed to conduct a feasibility study into reinstating a railway line on the old Waverley route from Tweedbank in the Scottish Borders to Carlisle.
In February it was announced that £10 million was being allocated for a feasibility study with the Department for Transport and Scottish Government both contributing £5m.
The Scottish Borders Council has appointed Turner and Townsend as project managers. The international company has worked on major projects such as the Borders Railway phase one to Tweedbank, the Elizabeth line and the extension of Edinburgh trams to Newhaven.
Councillor Euan Jardine, the leader of Scottish Borders Council, described it as “a really significant development that will allow important groundwork to be undertaken to establish how feasible an extension to the Borders Railway beyond Tweedbank and to Hawick and Carlisle is.”
For Peter Heubeck, the Technical Adviser to the Campaign for Borders Rail, it is a “positive development.”
In a feature in RAIL1034, he praised the work of the team which built the Edinburgh to Tweedbank line and said he believes similar work can overcome engineering challenges facing the reinstatement of the line to Carlisle.

The study will look at different route options, including following the existing disused trackbed through Newcastleton and an alternative route via Langholm, never on the original Waverley route which closed in January 1969.
In appointing Turner and Townsend, Scottish Borders Council said the company had “vast experience in delivering complex major projects from business case through to completion.”
Marion Short, who chairs the Campaign for Borders Rail, does not want just an add-on to the existing line to Tweedbank: “We always call it the completion of the Borders Railway, not the extension…we’re firmly of the belief that this is for future generations.”

• Author: Andy Comfort
• [email protected]

 

[MatthewHutton]

There is no intended passenger traffic of any size that warrants a line. There is no freight potential, and despite the hollering, no desire for a two and a half hour diversionary route to Carlisle either.

We did a business case in 2004, which justified a line only as far as a 'Melrose Parkway,' which for infrastructure issues became Tweedbank. Even then, we fudged the numbers somewhat outrageously.

They used to run a lot of freight on the Waverley line.

 

[360xup]

There is a lot of love on here for the prospect of extending it seems. Good lord people on rail forums are cynical, if you applied some of the logic shown on this thread nothing new would ever happen anywhere

 

[yoyothehobo]

There is a lot of love on here for the prospect of extending it seems. Good lord people on rail forums are cynical, if you applied some of the logic shown on this thread nothing new would ever happen anywhere

You say cynical, we just say realistic. Just because we are enjoyers of the railway as such, it doesnt mean we are separate from reality.

 

[waverley47]

They used to run a lot of freight on the Waverley line.

This is true, but the line closed in the sixties. Sixty years ago, most stations still had a goods yard, and freight brought in goods and parcels to stations across the country. The original line was built to main line specification, with double tracks and the capacity to fit freight in between passenger services, and most importantly, far more freight moved by rail; road transport just didn't exist to the same extent.

There are very solid reasons why freight isn't the solution to a business case.

Theoretically, you could create demand for timber traffic. Most likely, this would be starting in the middle and heading south, to Carlisle. But if that's the case, then why hasn't a stub from Longtown to Newcastleton or Langholm already been built to serve this? Timber is an incredibly low value commodity, and yes, if you built the line, I'm sure they'd like to use it, however you're not going to create a business case from hypothetical timber traffic.
If we pick a random day, there are three freights scheduled past Auchengray, going from Carlisle to Edinburgh, or vice versa.

There is a daily each way departmental Carlisle NY - Millerhill. This theoretically could, however there's no link from the Borders line into Millerhill at the north end, so you'd need to run round somewhere, probably at Niddrie. Alternatively you could reverse it up the hill for about a mile, but I'm pretty sure the signalling rules wouldn't like that very much.

There is the weekly Torness - Sellafield, which again theoretically could, however again there's no direct link, so again you'd need to run round or reverse somewhere, probably at Portobello, on the Leith Docks branch. This one is easier, as you could run them top and tail.

There is the Oxwellmains - Carlisle cement working, which again suffers with needing to run round. This time there's no loco at either end, so a run round is necessary. Running around at either Niddrie or Leith has its issues, the former you're blocking the platform at Newcraighall and I'm not even sure that the signalling is set up to do that, the latter you're crossing the ECML twice at Portobello junction, which would be a big performance hit.

Next, it is reasonable to expect all freight would be worked by class 66 (cement/departmental), 70 (cement) or 68/88 (flasks). All class 66 hauled workings are subject to severe speed restrictions across a number of weak underbridges, down to 20mph. Currently, although it would be possible to change, again subject to severe speed restrictions, classes 68, 70 or 88 are not permitted over the line.

If you try running a freight in the middle of the day, there's not really the space in the timetable to fit them in. Having to crawl down the single line sections, and the very very simple signalling setup, which basically amounts to single aspect signalling with repeaters, doesn't allow you to run more than the timetable already in place without signalling improvements.

The weak underbridges and the bare minimum signalling are poor in retrospect, because they limit the potential for freight without infrastructure interventions. However, when we say that the only way we got the line through was by fudging the numbers, this is what we were doing. We specified the bare minimum infrastructure for a 2tph service, because completely eliminating any future freight use from the plans was the only way we could ever have justified building the line.

Sure, thats a pretty ****ty situation to be in ten years down the line if a freight company did want to use it, but if we'd needed to upgrade the bridges and signalling to fit more than 2tph of multiple units, the line wouldn't be there for a freight company to use in the first place.

There is a lot of love on here for the prospect of extending it seems. Good lord people on rail forums are cynical, if you applied some of the logic shown on this thread nothing new would ever happen anywhere

There is a lot of love, and there is a lot of cynicism. A lack of business case here doesn't mean that nothing will ever happen. It's important to say that there is a business case in places where there is, and acknowledge a lack of business case in plans like this, so that lines like this don't become a pet project, and fail to ever wash their own face.

 

[stevieinselby]

This is true, but the line closed in the sixties. Sixty years ago, most stations still had a goods yard, and freight brought in goods and parcels to stations across the country. The original line was built to main line specification, with double tracks and the capacity to fit freight in between passenger services, and most importantly, far more freight moved by rail; road transport just didn't exist to the same extent.

There are very solid reasons why freight isn't the solution to a business case.

The main reason why freight isn't the solution is that there is very little need/use for sending freight into the eastern end of Edinburgh – most freight is either heading to the Strathclyde area (in which case Edinburgh is a very long way round) or is heading further north (in which case it is better served going via Coatbridge than mucking about on the Suburban Line and then working through the congested western approaches to Edinburgh).

 

[waverley47]

The main reason why freight isn't the solution is that there is very little need/use for sending freight into the eastern end of Edinburgh – most freight is either heading to the Strathclyde area (in which case Edinburgh is a very long way round) or is heading further north (in which case it is better served going via Coatbridge than mucking about on the Suburban Line and then working through the congested western approaches to Edinburgh).

Well yes, and this is completely true. However, saying that 'most freight isn't going the right way' doesn't adequately describe why freight isn't the answer, because the argument is always that some freight going the right way, and more freight can be encouraged.

The first thing we'd look at doing a big feasibility study was demand, which is what you're doing. However the question here, of does freight justify the opening of the borders line, isn't a question of demand, because the argument that people use of 'freight demand might justify the reopening' is more circular:

e.g; Freight demand justifies the reopening, which means the line can be reopened, which means freight can move onto the line, which means that there is a freight demand for the line which in turn justifies the reopening.


I'd argue it's more instructive here to do the reverse, and show limitations of what's already there from an infrastructure point of view, because the infrastructure is an issue, regardless of any actual passenger flows.

e.g; It's impractical for freight to use what's already there without massive infrastructure interventions, which means it's not worth entertaining any freight demand, and therefore freight cannot be used to justify the reopening until a business case proves otherwise.

If you argue demand isn't there (which it's not, I agree) then you're entertaining the fact that might not always be true, and freight demand might arise in the future.

I'm not sure that I've explained this very well, but my basic point is that saying 'it's not possible for freight to use the line' rather than 'there is no freight that would use the line' is more instructive in this scenario, because it gives a more honest reflection of the actual issues at stake.

 

[Trainman40083]

Well yes, and this is completely true. However, saying that 'most freight isn't going the right way' doesn't adequately describe why freight isn't the answer, because the argument is always that some freight going the right way, and more freight can be encouraged.

The first thing we'd look at doing a big feasibility study was demand, which is what you're doing. However the question here, of does freight justify the opening of the borders line, isn't a question of demand, because the argument that people use of 'freight demand might justify the reopening' is more circular:

e.g; Freight demand justifies the reopening, which means the line can be reopened, which means freight can move onto the line, which means that there is a freight demand for the line which in turn justifies the reopening.


I'd argue it's more instructive here to do the reverse, and show limitations of what's already there from an infrastructure point of view, because the infrastructure is an issue, regardless of any actual passenger flows.

e.g; It's impractical for freight to use what's already there without massive infrastructure interventions, which means it's not worth entertaining any freight demand, and therefore freight cannot be used to justify the reopening until a business case proves otherwise.

If you argue demand isn't there (which it's not, I agree) then you're entertaining the fact that might not always be true, and freight demand might arise in the future.

I'm not sure that I've explained this very well, but my basic point is that saying 'it's not possible for freight to use the line' rather than 'there is no freight that would use the line' is more instructive in this scenario, because it gives a more honest reflection of the actual issues at stake.

I would think the Edinburgh area consumes a lot that could be moved by rail. Supermarket Trafford example, which is probably loaded from Strathclyde or Grangemouth areas.

 

[waverley47]

I would think the Edinburgh area consumes a lot that could be moved by rail. Supermarket Trafford example, which is probably loaded from Strathclyde or Grangemouth areas.

Indeed it does, and a not insignificant portion of that will be moved in the endless stream of cross-border container traffic to Grangemouth, Mossend and Coatbridge.

These are all conveniently placed on the motorway network, near distribution hubs, and allow for much greater efficiency, serving pretty much the entire Central Belt instead of either Glasgow or Edinburgh with separate flows. Basically post-industrial and more modern planning decisions have allowed North Lanarkshire to become the logistics hub of central Scotland, and it works reasonably efficiently. After all, it's only forty minutes down the M8 for a hgv from Mossend to Edinburgh.

If you're asking 'why doesn't Edinburgh have it's own container/aggregates terminals?' then it's a bit more nebulous. Theres nothing stopping, for example, GBRf building a crane or a hard standing at Millerhill and serving it as an intermediate stop on their daily flows. I'd assume the reason they haven't is that demand isn't there, and there's really not much that isn't better served by the North Lanarkshire hub.

Secondly, apart from Millerhill, there isn't really anywhere you could build a big enough terminal without screwing up pathing across Portobello Jn, or gridlocking some of the local road network, or both. Land is very expensive in Edinburgh, but I'd imagine its going very cheaply at the moment in Grangemouth.

I'd agree that in terms of aggregate, there's probably some degree of unfulfilled demand for bulk flows into Millerhill, but where you get them from is a much bigger question.

 

[Trainman40083]

Indeed it does, and a not insignificant portion of that will be moved in the endless stream of cross-border container traffic to Grangemouth, Mossend and Coatbridge.

These are all conveniently placed on the motorway network, near distribution hubs, and allow for much greater efficiency, serving pretty much the entire Central Belt instead of either Glasgow or Edinburgh with separate flows. Basically post-industrial and more modern planning decisions have allowed North Lanarkshire to become the logistics hub of central Scotland, and it works reasonably efficiently. After all, it's only forty minutes down the M8 for a hgv from Mossend to Edinburgh.

If you're asking 'why doesn't Edinburgh have it's own container/aggregates terminals?' then it's a bit more nebulous. Theres nothing stopping, for example, GBRf building a crane or a hard standing at Millerhill and serving it as an intermediate stop on their daily flows. I'd assume the reason they haven't is that demand isn't there, and there's really not much that isn't better served by the North Lanarkshire hub.

Secondly, apart from Millerhill, there isn't really anywhere you could build a big enough terminal without screwing up pathing across Portobello Jn, or gridlocking some of the local road network, or both. Land is very expensive in Edinburgh, but I'd imagine its going very cheaply at the moment in Grangemouth.

I'd agree that in terms of aggregate, there's probably some degree of unfulfilled demand for bulk flows into Millerhill, but where you get them from is a much bigger question.

Ah yes. The lack of capacity at Portobello Junction

 

[A S Leib]

Sorry if it's been mentioned here or other threads, or if it's off-topic; why didn't Melrose get a station when the line was being reopened rather than Tweedbank?

I think the distance between Tweedbank and Melrose is shorter than between e.g. Eskbank and Newtongrange, but that such a short distance would be much easier to justify on existing lines. Melrose and Tweedbank have around the same population, but the former has more leisure appeal, and somewhere inbetween (looking at a map, near Borders General Hospital?) could serve both places if only one station could be afforded. I'm guessing cost is a large part of the answer to my original question.

 

[Trainman40083]

Sorry if it's been mentioned here or other threads, or if it's off-topic; why didn't Melrose get a station when the line was being reopened rather than Tweedbank?

I think the distance between Tweedbank and Melrose is shorter than between e.g. Eskbank and Newtongrange, but that such a short distance would be much easier to justify on existing lines. Melrose and Tweedbank have around the same population, but the former has more leisure appeal, and somewhere inbetween (looking at a map, near Borders General Hospital?) could serve both places if only one station could be afforded. I'm guessing cost is a large part of the answer to my original question.

I seem to recall when the project was being planned, the idea was to do it at the minimum possible cost...The concrete troughing was the smallest size (C/1/6).. I would think that few expected it to be a huge success and maybe would never get enhanced. So, hypothetically should the line ever be extended, I'd think quite of work would be needed to the existing formation.

 

[Mr. SW]

I visited the Borders over Christmas and had a good snoop.
1: Tweedbank station is in the best position to provide a park-and-ride service. There was a pocket of open land on the north side of the station site which was available. (Galashiels provides the bus interchange).
2: Extension to Melrose would have meant a great deal of infrastructure work: 3/4/5 bridges, cuttings etc. i.e a de facto new railway.
3: Reinstating the old station (if you wanted to do that) was out of the question as the terminus due to site restrictions.
4: Putting a station by the hospital would mean putting a platform in Darnick, again with site restrictions.
5: And if you're going to put a station in Melrose, it would be better if the line went through and that means going to Newtown St. B and/or Hawick.
6: etc, etc...

Ignore freight. It's not happening unless some enormous depot opens up in SE Edinburgh.

Interestingly, I found out why Tweedbank station has a narrow platform and is offset to the north with respect to the line of the original railway. There's an underground 132kV powerline running down the southern edge of the solum. There are little yellow signs all over the place saying "Do not Dig".

 

[Killingworth]

Sorry if it's been mentioned here or other threads, or if it's off-topic; why didn't Melrose get a station when the line was being reopened rather than Tweedbank?

I think the distance between Tweedbank and Melrose is shorter than between e.g. Eskbank and Newtongrange, but that such a short distance would be much easier to justify on existing lines. Melrose and Tweedbank have around the same population, but the former has more leisure appeal, and somewhere inbetween (looking at a map, near Borders General Hospital?) could serve both places if only one station could be afforded. I'm guessing cost is a large part of the answer to my original question.

Without a visit a quick look at an OS map will show that the A6091 Melrose by-pass uses most of the original trackbed so the Tweedbank compromise was a reasonable solution. No doubt other locations were considered at the time reopening was planned.

 

[Bald Rick]

Without a visit a quick look at an OS map will show that the A6091 Melrose by-pass uses most of the original trackbed so the Twedbank compromise was a reasonable solution. No doubt other locations were considered at the time reopening was planned.

And this is one of the many reasons why the railway is not going beyond Tweedbank.