Is the extension to the Borders Railway back on track?

[Hagbard Celine]

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.

No it doesn't. A6091 is not on the alignment anywhere between Tweedbank and the old Melrose station except at the BGH junction where the road briefly occupies the down line.

 

[Mr. SW]

The route is obliterated between the B6360 at Melrose Roundabout to a point just east of and adjacent to the cottage "Fullarton" where there are two bridge abutments either side of the footpath the pedestrian underpass. The route is then severely degraded adjacent to a footpath running on the north side of the bypass and then disappears altogether by the house "Camberley". The route does not appear again until a point just to the west of the far end of Quarrydene (Street), where it is taken over by a footpath and this continues to the old station at Melrose, where it promptly disappears again at the east end. The existing stone walls just to the north of the bridge at Dingleton Road are not bridge abutments but may contain material recovered from its demolition.

You could get a line through, but will cost mega-megabucks, so the only way you can justify a station at Melrose is going all the way to Hawick, because going just over 2.5km just ain't wurf it, mate. Do the whole lot or not at all.

Tweedbank is in the best possible place it could have been.

 

[47701]

I could save them the 'up to' £10m.

There are neither economic nor social benefits to be had by extending the line from Tweedbank to Carlisle. South of Hawick, population density is so small as to make such an extension prohibitively expensive.

Economic and social arguments can be made for an extension from Tweedbank to Hawick, however, in the present financial climate, the cost of this extension could not, currently, be funded.

End of report.

There are significant obstacles in the way of this extension, including:

1. How does the line get from Tweedbank to the Melrose bypass?
2. How do motorists access the car park at Tweedbank - does the line go over or under the access point, or does a new entrance and exit require to be built?
3. How does the line continue from the bypass through Melrose - is this single track?
4. Residents in Melrose would be rightly annoyed were the town not to be served - how can the current unused station be adapted to be accessibile?
5. How does the line then get from Melrose through Newtown St Boswells and on to Hawick?
6. Is it proposed to electrify the line from Newcraighall to Hawick?
7. Three coach trains are often standing room only in both directions - additional Hawick etc traffic would require additional coaches - where will those be found, however they are powered?
8. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that Saturday services would require to be half-hourly all day - currently, 6 coach sets are often standing room only leaving Waverley on a Saturday evening if rugby has been on.

Conclusion? Not going to happen in my lifetime, a waste of up to £10m, sorry.

The case of low population density is missing the point,Tweedbank-Carlisle could be a diversionary route for Edinburgh-Carstairs-Carlisle, & a useful freight route. Numerous times I see coaches outside Edinburgh Waverley heading to Carlisle,a journey of about 2h45m,Glasgow-Carlisle diverts via Kilmarnock. There's plenty money getting wasted on vanity projects right here in Edinburgh that would be better spent.

 

[Zomboid]

The case of low population density is missing the point,Tweedbank-Carlisle could be a diversionary route for Edinburgh-Carstairs-Carlisle, & a useful freight route. Numerous times I see coaches outside Edinburgh Waverley heading to Carlisle,a journey of about 2h45m,Glasgow-Carlisle diverts via Kilmarnock. There's plenty money getting wasted on vanity projects right here in Edinburgh that would be better spent.

Diversions do not make a business case for spending billions when there's already 3 routes between Edinburgh and Carlisle and there's almost nothing to serve en route.

 

[waverley47]

The case of low population density is missing the point,Tweedbank-Carlisle could be a diversionary route for Edinburgh-Carstairs-Carlisle, & a useful freight route. Numerous times I see coaches outside Edinburgh Waverley heading to Carlisle,a journey of about 2h45m,Glasgow-Carlisle diverts via Kilmarnock. There's plenty money getting wasted on vanity projects right here in Edinburgh that would be better spent.

Please see post no. 50 in this threat for a detailed explanation of why freight is not the answer.

As for a diversionary route;

Firstly, it's going to be long. It's already an hour to Tweedbank, and it's going to be at least another hour and a half from Tweedbank to Carlisle, more likely two hours.

Any diversionary route is going to be about the same duration, if not longer, than a replacement coach. That will seriously reduce it's attractiveness for Avanti and TPE.

Suddenly, a three and a half hour round trip from Carlisle, it becomes a six and a half hour round trip. I just cannot imagine that even on weekends, either of those operators are going to want to send that many units to keep the frequency running. If you reduce the frequency to keep the number of units needed the same, then you reduce capacity, which means in the end, you're going to need coaches to keep capacity the same anyway. Furthermore, it's going to be quicker for many passengers to catch a replacement coach anyway, as opposed to waiting at Carlisle for the 1tp3h that goes on a mystery tour through the Borders.

(I'd also add here that do you think that either Avanti or TPE would be willing to train enough staff for that, especially given that Avanti doesn't have a crew depot at either Edinburgh or Carlisle)

Secondly, infrastructure:

Both the 397s and the 390s are electric only. Edinburgh to Tweedbank is going to be wired, but that's at least five years away yet. As for the unbuilt infrastructure, are you seriously suggesting we build a new, fully wired route over the hills and around the mountains, so that on the two or three weekends a year then WCML is closed north of Carlisle, we can send 1tph from Carlisle to Edinburgh, instead of diverting people to change at Glasgow, or via Newcastle?

Thirdly, capacity. Fundamentally, if any extension is built, its going to be single track; there simply isn't enough demand for double track. That limits capacity. How many loops you build will depend entirely on how much money you're willing to spend, and I can absolutely guarantee you, from a position of vast experience, if it is built, which it won't be, there will be exactly enough loops to run 1tph in each direction, nothing more.

What's already there, from Portobello Jn to Tweedbank, has a theoretical maximum capacity of about 2tph. Unfortunately, as I also pointed out in that post, it was built with that theoretical maximum in mind. We build it dirt cheap, without successive signal sections, so that you can't flight trains; one train per single line section at a time.

If you want to use it as a diversionary route, then that's okay, let's begin there. You've built the 50 miles from Carlisle to Tweedbank. Let's even say you've built it double tracked, electrified throughout. You still need to either spend an enormous amount rebuilding the existing section to accommodate the diversions, and rebuild all the bridges to remove all the horrific speed restrictions for freight.

If you don't do that, then you have to bin at least half the ScotRail service every time you use it for diversions.

Fundamentally, I think it's more beneficial for the Borders to have 2tph to Edinburgh all the time, then binning half of the service to run a 2.5 hour non-stop diversion to Carlisle.

Basically, if you want to spend the billions it would take to build the thing to any sort of specification to be able to take the diversions and freight, then you're spending billions to mitigate a problem that doesn't happen very often at all. A billion would get you a single line, capable of 1tph in each direction of 3 car battery units, you'd be looking at many times more than that to fix what's already there, and build everything else to a specification capable of accepting 390s.

Also, just think about the cost, spread over the number of days in twenty years that the WCML is closed. What about every single day the WCML is open? Are you just leaving it there unused? Are you running 1tph down from Edinburgh to Carlisle, through nothingness and carting fresh air? What's the BCR there, how much would you have to charge per passenger to break even? Is it genuinely worth it to spend that money on something that's never ever going to carry enough passengers to justify it's own existence?

It's just cheaper, easier and probably faster to just run buses for passengers, and send the freight via Dumfries or via Newcastle.

 

[47701]

To be clear, I don't think Borders to Carlisle will happen.

But it could have more use than some of the branches.

It's a third England-Scotland route for contingency/diversions, it has freight potential, it connects into a significant place (Edinburgh) and the reopening to date has been a success. Plus in addition to slow services, you might see some faster ones (in stopping pattern, line speed will never be quick).

So it won't be inter city speed but could be a longer, semi-fast regional service - but likely an hourly Carlisle-Edinburgh service though, with peak extras on the current open part.

It has been pointed out to me that the populations of Inverness & Perth + all towns served inbetween,Carrbridge,Aviemore,Kingussie,Newtonmore,Dalwhinnie,Blair Atholl,Pitlochry & Dunkeld are all less than Edinburgh & Carlisle + towns inbetween. Add the fact that there is a mere 60 or 65 miles or so. France would have had the line rebuilt & probably wired by 5 years ago.

 

[Bald Rick]

France would have had the line rebuilt & probably wired by 5 years ago.

No, it wouldn’t. France would more likely have reduced the service to Inverness to a handful of trains a day and put a bus on for the rest.

Let’s be clear about Tweedbank - Carlisle. There is no case for it, and never will be even on the most optimistic assumptions. Were it to proceed it would be a criminal waste of public money. (But it won’t happen).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Sunday at 17:42 ==

It has been pointed out to me that the populations of Inverness & Perth + all towns served inbetween,Carrbridge,Aviemore,Kingussie,Newtonmore,Dalwhinnie,Blair Atholl,Pitlochry & Dunkeld are all less than Edinburgh & Carlisle + towns inbetween

Edinburgh & Carlisle are doing almost all the work there. They already have a rail link.

 

[stuu]

France would have had the line rebuilt & probably wired by 5 years ago.

Can you give any examples of very rural railways reopened in France in the last decade?

 

[47701]

Can you give any examples of very rural railways reopened in France in the last decade?

Only ever been there twice in my life, & not travelling much beyond the channel ports,so everything comes from reading RAIL. But there's a comparison,100s of km of high speed 25kv track. Lets just hope for Tweedbank-Hawick for now.

 

[stuu]

Only ever been there twice in my life, & not travelling much beyond the channel ports,so everything comes from reading RAIL. But there's a comparison,100s of km of high speed 25kv track. Lets just hope for Tweedbank-Hawick for now.

That's not remotely the same thing

 

[deltic08]

Diversions do not make a business case for spending billions when there's already 3 routes between Edinburgh and Carlisle and there's almost nothing to serve en route.

Have you ridden on a bus between Carlisle and Edinburgh? The A7 is not a good road even by car. It is hell by bus for nearly 3 hours.
I can only think of one route between Carlisle and Edinburgh and that is via Carstairs. The other two don't count. I think £2billion is value for money when HS2 will end up costing nearly a £billion per mile.

 

[Zomboid]

There's only one primary route between Edinburgh and Carlisle, but the point was that there are already two diversionary routes that could be used. Via Carlisle is a commonly used diversion for Newcastle - Edinburgh, so via Newcastle absolutely does count as a diversion for Carlisle - Edinburgh. It might not have been used much, but that's because the ICWC operator hasn't had enough diesel stock to do so, and Edinburgh isn't the primary destination of the WCML. There's no need to build another railway for that purpose.

Much like the Tavistock route, diversions just don't cut it as a reason to build a railway. They have to stand up on the 340+ days a year when there's no diversions, and other than Hawick (which I think might stand some chance if the Scottish government wanted to spend money on it) there's nothing there to serve.

HS2 is a very different prospect and will carry many, many more people than a reopened Waverley route ever would.

 

[The Planner]

Have you ridden on a bus between Carlisle and Edinburgh? The A7 is not a good road even by car. It is hell by bus for nearly 3 hours.
I can only think of one route between Carlisle and Edinburgh and that is via Carstairs. The other two don't count. I think £2billion is value for money when HS2 will end up costing nearly a £billion per mile.

Buses would use the A74(M) and A702.

 

[yoyothehobo]

Have you ridden on a bus between Carlisle and Edinburgh? The A7 is not a good road even by car. It is hell by bus for nearly 3 hours.
I can only think of one route between Carlisle and Edinburgh and that is via Carstairs. The other two don't count. I think £2billion is value for money when HS2 will end up costing nearly a £billion per mile.

Can you explain in simple terms why you would want a duplicate route with lower frequency and would take over twice as long as the existing route?

 

[Killingworth]

I think £2billion is value for money when HS2 will end up costing nearly a £billion per mile.

Thanks to HS2 all money spent on railways is under intense scrutiny and in truth a lot of it is not delivering value for money. Some might say most of it is poor value for the money spent.


The effects of Dr Beeching's era of cuts combined with decades of children brought up on the works of the Rev Awdry have produced a love to preserve railways at any cost, any and everywhere. Except in my back yard.

 

[Western Lord]

No, it wouldn’t. France would more likely have reduced the service to Inverness to a handful of trains a day and put a bus on for the rest.

Check out the Nantes-Bourdeaux line. In the last few years SNCF have reduced the central section of it to single track as they have no desire to increase the service level beyond the five or so trains a day. In this country such a link would be hourly. They would much rather people used TGVs via Paris!

 

[Zomboid]

Check out the Nantes-Bourdeaux line. In the last few years SNCF have reduced the central section of it to single track as they have no desire to increase the service level beyond the five or so trains a day. In this country such a link would be hourly. They would much rather people used TGVs via Paris!

My experience with SNCF is that they are (rightly) very proud of the LGV system, but they've no real interest in anything much beyond that and suburban routes.

 

[NCT]

SNCF only know how to run the LGVs like an airline-on-the-ground business. They don't know how to run a railway.