Study to consider Borders Railway extension

[och aye]

Borders Railway extension prospects studied

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-39553993

A new study is to look at the possibility of extending the Borders Railway beyond Tweedbank to Carlisle.

Transport Scotland has announced it intends to award the contract to look at wider transport issues across the south of the country to Jacobs UK Ltd.

It is hoped the study can get under way later this month and will take about seven months to complete.

The findings will feed into the Scottish government's nationwide strategic transport projects review.

 

[snowball]

And here's the Transport Scotland press release on which that's based:

https://www.transport.gov.scot/news-item/58e76ab51639f60b5087ba4f

New study on Borders transport

Extending the Borders railway will be one of the options considered by a new study looking at improving transport provision in the south of Scotland across all modes including road, rail and public transport.

Transport Scotland today announced the intention to award the contract to Jacobs UK Ltd. Subject to completion of the mandatory standstill period, the study will start later this month and is expected to take around seven months to complete.

The findings will help inform the forthcoming refresh of the Scottish Government’s Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR) which will look at future transport proposals for the whole of Scotland, including the Scottish Borders.

Transport Minister Humza Yousaf said:

“In the Scottish Government’s Programme for Government a commitment was given to examine the case for an extension of the Borders railway along with improvements to the A1, A7 and A68.

“This study will take forward that commitment by considering how we improve accessibility in the Borders, link communities to key markets through strategic transport routes and identify where improvements to transport links are required.

“We want to build on the existing Borders railway by considering whether it should be extended to Carlisle. The study will also look at how we improve access from the Scottish Borders to key markets in to Edinburgh, Carlisle and Newcastle.

“Working with partners in Scottish Borders Council and SEStran, Transport Scotland will identify a range of options for improving transport that can be considered as part of the review of the Strategic Transport Projects Review which will look at future transport infrastructure projects for the whole of Scotland. These options could include new rail services, improvements to existing road infrastructure and improved public transport provision.”

 

[ld0595]

While I think it's great that they're looking into extending it, I think at the moment there are several more routes which are a higher priority - although an extension to Hawick is definitely worth considering. The Leven rail link springs to mind, along with Dunfermline, to Allow (although I suppose most of the infrastructure is in place,) and Fraserburgh/Ellon/Peterhead to Aberdeen.

 

[amarshe]

Hawick would be as far as it should go - and I think that may happen in the next 10-20 years.

Much as I would love to travel over Shankend viaduct and through Whitrope tunnel, the business case for a through line to Carlisle doesn't stack up. Far better to spend the money some of the lines ld0595 suggests. Or the Peebles line.

 

[QueensCurve]

Hawick would be as far as it should go - and I think that may happen in the next 10-20 years.

Much as I would love to travel over Shankend viaduct and through Whitrope tunnel, the business case for a through line to Carlisle doesn't stack up. Far better to spend the money some of the lines ld0595 suggests. Or the Peebles line.

Forgive me for commenting that is prejudging the result of the forthcoming study.

My personal view is that a full reopening to Carlisle would provide a useful diversionary route. It would have been invaluable during the Lamington Viaduct closure and would potentially be useful during engineering work such as that planned for the coming weekend.

 

[amarshe]

Forgive me for commenting that is prejudging the result of the forthcoming study.

My personal view is that a full reopening to Carlisle would provide a useful diversionary route. It would have been invaluable during the Lamington Viaduct closure and would potentially be useful during engineering work such as that planned for the coming weekend.

It is of course one of these rare occasions where I should be most pleased to be proved wrong, and indeed I agree with your view.

But I still think a report into full re-opening is the start of bargaining; everyone will consider themselves a winner of sorts if the line is extended to Hawick.

 

[D1009]

Forgive me for commenting that is prejudging the result of the forthcoming study.

My personal view is that a full reopening to Carlisle would provide a useful diversionary route.

Except for the fact that the single line sections on the existing stretch mean that there is little or no capacity for any additional trains.

 

[The Planner]

Diversions dont make a business case.

 

[SeanG]

I think that the majority of us on here would probably like to see it open, but the crux of the matter is if it is worth it over other projects such as those mentioned above. I think it would be more beneficial to extend to Hawick and double up the Borders railway as much as possible before extending further south

 

[Elecman]

What happens at the Scotland/English border as the Scotyish Government can't authorise works in England?

 

[Bald Rick]

Diversions dont make a business case.

... and never have done.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

What happens at the Scotland/English border as the Scottish Government can't authorise works in England?

If the Scottish government paid for the line all the way to the English border, I am absolutely certain Westminster would pay for the final stretch. It would make them look very foolish? (not sure that is the correct word) if they did not.

 

[Polarbear]

Personally, I can see a case for extending the line south from Tweedbank to Hawick. Beyond there, (as has been discussed many times on this forum & elsewhere), the population density is very low & there's relatively little potential for passenger traffic.

It may be nice to have an additional route as a diversionary option, but as mentioned earlier, wishes don't make a business case.

 

[BigCj34]

Hawick is probably a matter of when not if, especially when it goes through Melrose and St Boswells. Surely there's a case for connecting Selkirk as well? Unless the trackbed has been heavily compromised it would require relatively little track mileage to reinstate a town of 5,700 people.

At present the line is to Tweedmouth is 357 people served per track km. The Hawick extension serving 19,100 would be 764 per track km, while the 8km Selkirk branch is 712 people per track km. The latter two have a better business case than the original line in terms of distance, although parts of the existing line would need doubling. Presumably Selkirk branch would be single track.

 

[Ianno87]

Forgive me for commenting that is prejudging the result of the forthcoming study.

My personal view is that a full reopening to Carlisle would provide a useful diversionary route. It would have been invaluable during the Lamington Viaduct closure and would potentially be useful during engineering work such as that planned for the coming weekend.

But there already is/was a diversionary route: the Glasgow & South Western via Dumfries, which meant the majority of traffic (that to Glasgow) had a decent alternative.

 

[och aye]

Hawick is probably a matter of when not if, especially when it goes through Melrose and St Boswells. Surely there's a case for connecting Selkirk as well? Unless the trackbed has been heavily compromised it would require relatively little track mileage to reinstate a town of 5,700 people.

At present the line is to Tweedmouth is 357 people served per track km. The Hawick extension serving 19,100 would be 764 per track km, while the 8km Selkirk branch is 712 people per track km. The latter two have a better business case than the original line in terms of distance, although parts of the existing line would need doubling. Presumably Selkirk branch would be single track.

I did wonder about Selkirk myself. I'd imagine that a regular bus service to the Gala P&R is probably more cost effective than rebuilding the line (but I'm no expert, hence the study I guess ).

As a few others have said, I think extending towards Hawick is the most probable conclusion they will come up with and anything else will be a bonus. If the study is positive, maybe the scheme might be included for CP6?

 

[Bevan Price]

Forgive me for commenting that is prejudging the result of the forthcoming study.

My personal view is that a full reopening to Carlisle would provide a useful diversionary route. It would have been invaluable during the Lamington Viaduct closure and would potentially be useful during engineering work such as that planned for the coming weekend.

But they would still use buses between Carlisle & Edinburgh because:

1, The Waverley route would not be electrified.

2. Virgin WC train crews would probably have no route knowledge for the route. (Just as they seem to have allowed to lapse most of the route knowledge for diversions further south via Settle & Carlisle.)

3. Virgin WC would probably have not paid NR to get route clearance for Voyagers or "dragged" Pendolinos.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

The OP failed to add the following from the BBC report:

Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire MSP John Lamont welcomed the announcement of the study.

"The feasibility study was promised almost exactly a year ago and so I'm glad we are now moving forward," he said.

"Clearly the Borders Railway has been a huge success in terms of passenger numbers but we've already seen its effect on existing transport links with the withdrawal of First Group from the Borders.

"Any further study must look at the economic benefits of the line, but must do a better job of making sure we develop a properly integrated transport system so that the whole of the Borders benefits from any further investment."

He said it would be a "missed opportunity" to spend money extending the railway without looking closely at links to other public transport.

In some more rural areas re-opening a railway line, while providing a better quality link for those places connected by it, can possibly undermine the economics of parallel bus routes which could even be enough to make a wider network unviable. There certainly seems to be a suggestion that this has happened in the Borders. That's not to say that this should prevent railway re-openings but ought to be taken into account when considering any such proposals.

 

[och aye]

The OP failed to add the following from the BBC report:



In some more rural areas re-opening a railway line, while providing a better quality link for those places connected by it, can possibly undermine the economics of parallel bus routes which could even be enough to make a wider network unviable. There certainly seems to be a suggestion that this has happened in the Borders. That's not to say that this should prevent railway re-openings but ought to be taken into account when considering any such proposals.

I didn't realise it was forum etiquette to quote articles in full.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

In some more rural areas re-opening a railway line, while providing a better quality link for those places connected by it, can possibly undermine the economics of parallel bus routes which could even be enough to make a wider network unviable. There certainly seems to be a suggestion that this has happened in the Borders. That's not to say that this should prevent railway re-openings but ought to be taken into account when considering any such proposals.

I can see how a railway line can undermine parallel bus routes, but how can it make an entire network unviable?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I didn't realise it was forum etiquette to quote articles in full.

Just pointing out that there is more than one way to interpret the news!

I can see how a railway line can undermine parallel bus routes, but how can it make an entire network unviable?

It would be quite likely that the parallel bus routes are the best used which is part of the justification for re-opening the railway of course! But if the passengers switch from bus to rail (no-brainer for many) then the bus operator makes less money and is forced to review the viability of their other routes. Given that many rural bus services are already on a financial knife edge it won't take much to undermine them leaving the local transport authority, which probably supported the railway re-opening, to pick up the pieces. And supporting rural bus services is not a high priority for many authorities these days.

 

[Bald Rick]

But they would still use buses between Carlisle & Edinburgh because:

1, The Waverley route would not be electrified.

2. Virgin WC train crews would probably have no route knowledge for the route. (Just as they seem to have allowed to lapse most of the route knowledge for diversions further south via Settle & Carlisle.)

3. Virgin WC would probably have not paid NR to get route clearance for Voyagers or "dragged" Pendolinos.

In the event that various governments took leave of their senses / their responsibility to improve society, and reopened to Carlisle, the route would be built such that it would be clear for all mainline stock. Route knowledge issue would be easily resolved.

 

[daodao]

The OP failed to add the following from the BBC report:



In some more rural areas re-opening a railway line, while providing a better quality link for those places connected by it, can possibly undermine the economics of parallel bus routes which could even be enough to make a wider network unviable. There certainly seems to be a suggestion that this has happened in the Borders. That's not to say that this should prevent railway re-openings but ought to be taken into account when considering any such proposals.

This point is true whether the area is rural or urban, and is irrespective of transport mode. Many rail services were adversely affected by parallel tram and subsequently bus services in the early part of the 20th century. A current example is the imminent withdrawal of the direct bus from Wythenshawe Hospital and Northern Moor to central Manchester (route 109) following opening of a new tram line serving the area in 2015 and extension of the tram service to central Manchester earlier this year.

 

[daodao]

I can see how a railway line can undermine parallel bus routes, but how can it make an entire network unviable?

If the parallel bus route is the major service in an area's network, then making it non-viable affects the whole network.

 

[reddragon]

If the parallel bus route is the major service in an area's network, then making it non-viable affects the whole network.

Whilst the Borders Railway led to the end of a parallel bus route, as has happened elsewhere, the lessons learnt are the buses have to become feeders to the railway as they did to the trunk bus route.

With the railway carrying many more passengers than the lost bus route it actually makes feeder buses more viable, especially when Station car parks are full so early in the day.

This is no more than a transition stage from the old bus route network to a new one.

Manchester Trams resulted in the bus network of Manchester being totally recast, but that took years!

 

[ld0595]

In the event that various governments took leave of their senses / their responsibility to improve society, and reopened to Carlisle, the route would be built such that it would be clear for all mainline stock. Route knowledge issue would be easily resolved.

Has the current line been built such that it is clear to all mainline stock?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Whilst the Borders Railway led to the end of a parallel bus route, as has happened elsewhere, the lessons learnt are the buses have to become feeders to the railway as they did to the trunk bus route.

With the railway carrying many more passengers than the lost bus route it actually makes feeder buses more viable, especially when Station car parks are full so early in the day.

This is no more than a transition stage from the old bus route network to a new one.

That would have been my sense too. A bus feeding into a railway could potentially be more attractive than a bus feeding into another (slowish) bus route, so adapting the routes ought in principle to keep the wider network viable. I guess there are three issues though: Most obviously, if the previous bus network was all run by the same company, that makes it relatively easy to offer a single fare for the entire journey (I don't know how it works in the Borders, but in lots of other places in the UK, you'd typically get a 'ride anywhere on our network for the day' ticket reasonably cheaply). I'd imagine that's an important part of making feeder services more attractive, and is harder to do if the rail service is run by a different company - so would-be passengers end up paying one sizable fare to get to the station and then another one to get the train.

Also, if the main parallel route was the only profit-generating route, and its profits were being used in part to pay for the feeder routes, then with a rail service, the economics will no longer work for the bus company when those profits get gobbled up by the rail franchising system instead.

Also feeder services rely on good interchange facilities being provided at the stations - including building enough stations in such a way that buses can physically stop right outside them - which isn't always the case.

What that all points to is that a rail service ought to be able to make feeder bus routes more viable, not less viable, if only we had some kind of integrated ownership of bus/rail routes, but sadly we don't.

 

[QueensCurve]

Except for the fact that the single line sections on the existing stretch mean that there is little or no capacity for any additional trains.

Indeed and little passive provision for double tracking.

That said, during a prolongued Lamington style closure, there may be scope to replace the standard services with longer distance ones. During Lamington the Glasgow to Kilmarnock service was suspended to make way for the hourly shuttles to Carlisle.

 

[Chester1]

Indeed and little passive provision for double tracking.

That said, during a prolongued Lamington style closure, there may be scope to replace the standard services with longer distance ones. During Lamington the Glasgow to Kilmarnock service was suspended to make way for the hourly shuttles to Carlisle.

The best option for Okehampton to Bere Alston is single track due to the cost of rebuilding the line as double track to modern safety standards and the ability to have a foot / bridleway along side a single track line. If the Borders line was fully reopened single track is the only sensible option. In the event of diversions its reasonable to replace local services with buses and run a shuttle service for long distance passengers. Removing all allocations for advanced tickets would reduce demand substantialy.

 

[reddragon]

I guess there are three issues though: Most obviously, if the previous bus network was all run by the same company, that makes it relatively easy to offer a single fare for the entire journey (I don't know how it works in the Borders, but in lots of other places in the UK, you'd typically get a 'ride anywhere on our network for the day' ticket reasonably cheaply). I'd imagine that's an important part of making feeder services more attractive, and is harder to do if the rail service is run by a different company - so would-be passengers end up paying one sizable fare to get to the station and then another one to get the train.

In my area we have plusbus, a simple add on fare to the train fare that achieves exactly that.

http://www.plusbus.info/