Study to consider Borders Railway extension

[FQTV]

Excellent, relevant points and not a complete nonsense argument. Well done.

... also almost exactly the same as providing the first fixed infrastructure link between the 2nd and 3rd largest economies in Europe, for the world's busiest international city to city travel pair, across the world's busiest sea lane.

I can think of a couple of minor differences to the Borders line, but relatively trivial.

Perhaps more clarity is required.

There is a current formula for assessing infrastructure investment business cases, which is highly complex.

The post to which I originally responded listed, in isolation, some population figures and then concluded with the suggestion that those figures, on their own, proved that only one investment was appropriate.

From observing past posts, the author of that post is of course acutely, if not professionally, aware of the complexity of the business case assessment process, and therefore my point is that those with less knowledge might find that particular post worthy of query.

For my part, I have not taken any position on whether I think any extension to the Borders Railway is worthwhile or desirable. Nor have I taken a position on whether I agree with the prevailing business case assessment rationale.

I was merely attempting to use a rather extreme example to, hopefully, light-heartedly address a post on a publicly-accessible and 'Googleable' website which I felt was rather too narrowly-presented.

Clearly, however, there is sensitivity around the subject.

 

[Altnabreac]

Perhaps more clarity is required.

There is a current formula for assessing infrastructure investment business cases, which is highly complex.

The post to which I originally responded listed, in isolation, some population figures and then concluded with the suggestion that those figures, on their own, proved that only one investment was appropriate.

From observing past posts, the author of that post is of course acutely, if not professionally, aware of the complexity of the business case assessment process, and therefore my point is that those with less knowledge might find that particular post worthy of query.

For my part, I have not taken any position on whether I think any extension to the Borders Railway is worthwhile or desirable. Nor have I taken a position on whether I agree with the prevailing business case assessment rationale.

I was merely attempting to use a rather extreme example to, hopefully, light-heartedly address a post on a publicly-accessible and 'Googleable' website which I felt was rather too narrowly-presented.

Clearly, however, there is sensitivity around the subject.

I'm quite happy for my contributions to be googled. I'm also aware that business cases are complex.

Having said that it is my firm view that any money spent on rebuilding a railway south of Hawick would be the largest waste of money in Scottish history, up to and including the Darien Expedition.

So long as councillors, MSPs and others continue to promote such a railway I will continue to say it is an utter waste of resources.

 

[oldman]

I agree that Hawick-Carlisle is daft but it makes sense for politicians to talk about it, A to avoid annoying its supporters and B in the hope that they might get Gala-Hawick as a sop, by building up the idea that the Borders needs more railways. However it looks like with Levenmouth is flavour of the month and I doubt if they will want two dubious reopenings at the same time.

 

[dcsprior]

I agree that Hawick-Carlisle is daft but it makes sense for politicians to talk about it, A to avoid annoying its supporters and B in the hope that they might get Gala-Hawick as a sop, by building up the idea that the Borders needs more railways. However it looks like with Levenmouth is flavour of the month and I doubt if they will want two dubious reopenings at the same time.

Is Levenmouth a dubious reopening? I've not read up on it myself, but many sensible posters on here seem to believe it's got a good case.

Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk

 

[najaB]

However it looks like with Levenmouth is flavour of the month and I doubt if they will want two dubious reopenings at the same time.

Levenmouth has population of around 30,000 people (give or take) for whom five miles of track renewal will give a sub one-hour journey time to Edinburgh.

Hawick-Carlisle is what, 50 miles to give fewer than 5000 people total a two-hour plus journey to Edinburgh?

Apple, meet Orange.

 

[47271]

Levenmouth is flavour of the month and I doubt if they will want two dubious reopenings at the same time.

You could argue that Levenmouth is a dubious reopening if you're opposed to the idea of reopenings generally, but assuming that isn't what you're saying, can you explain further?

 

[Altnabreac]

Is Levenmouth a dubious reopening? I've not read up on it myself, but many sensible posters on here seem to believe it's got a good case.

Levenmouth has a slightly questionable business case in that very few people from Levenmouth currently commute to Edinburgh and there is a reasonable, frequent, cheap bus service from Levenmouth to Kirkcaldy so relatively few people would be expected to use rail for Levenmouth to Kirkcaldy journeys.

However those weaknesses are also in many ways strengths as the fact that very few people from Levenmouth commute to Edinburgh means Levenmouth has lower wage levels, higher out migration of young adults, lower levels of HE takeup etc.

So really the whole point of the reopening is to try and change some of those current commuting patterns and help regenerate Levenmouth.

With an extant trackbed, short distance, large population served, regeneration potential and the existence of Fife Circle services that can be relatively easily extended Levenmouth has much the best Business CAse of any reopening in Scotland.

However that in itself is no guarantee of finding funding. A strong local campaign group and unanimous political support look positive though. I'd be surprised if Leven doesn't have a station by 2025 or so, hopefully sooner.

 

[mcmad]

The main fall down in the leven scheme is the lack of an existing service to extend without having to recast the whole fife circle timetable with the consequential knock on that would have.

It will also need a lot more than just the 5 miles of track renewal to bring it up to current passenger standards. Will be a good £50m assuming no major structures work.

 

[oldman]

I didn't really want to take the Borders thread off-topic, but my view on Levenmouth is based on scepticism about the regeneration argument that is often used in support of reopenings.

If you look at East Fife as a conurbation bounded by Kirkcaldy, Glenrothes and Leven (call it Greater Thornton), it is obvious parts of Levenmouth are relatively disadvantaged, just as some parts of Edinburgh are disadvantaged compared to the city as a whole. This is mainly to do with the housing mix - if you have a lot of low-end housing, you get more lot of disadvantaged people (crude generalisation obviously, but basically true). The ability to get a train to Edinburgh will not help those people because they are unlikely to have the skills to get the sort of jobs paying enough to make such a commute worthwhile.

Anyway those who want to commute to the city may prefer the more frequent and faster (or less slow) service from Markinch or Kirkcaldy than an hourly all-stations trundler from Leven.

There are trickle-down arguments about growing commuting but the way to help disadvantaged people is to help them as individuals to catch up with education and skills or tackle lifestyle issues which hold them back.

Levenmouth may well happen because it's cheap whereas the things that really need done are expensive, but it remains dubious to me.

 

[47271]

scepticism about the regeneration argument that is often used in support of reopenings.

Isn't that the same as a scepticism about all reopenings, which as I said upthread is a perfectly legitimate position to take, so I'm not really disagreeing with you?

None of those occurring in Scotland - Borders included, so we're not off topic - in the past ten years would have happened without regeneration being a major part of their case.

So Tweedbank-Hawick has a regeneration argument. Hawick-Carlisle doesn't, there's nothing there to regenerate.

Are there schemes that you'd support that don't have a regeneration argument but have all sorts of other good reasons for them to happen?

 

[edwin_m]

I didn't really want to take the Borders thread off-topic, but my view on Levenmouth is based on scepticism about the regeneration argument that is often used in support of reopenings.

If you look at East Fife as a conurbation bounded by Kirkcaldy, Glenrothes and Leven (call it Greater Thornton), it is obvious parts of Levenmouth are relatively disadvantaged, just as some parts of Edinburgh are disadvantaged compared to the city as a whole. This is mainly to do with the housing mix - if you have a lot of low-end housing, you get more lot of disadvantaged people (crude generalisation obviously, but basically true). The ability to get a train to Edinburgh will not help those people because they are unlikely to have the skills to get the sort of jobs paying enough to make such a commute worthwhile.

Anyway those who want to commute to the city may prefer the more frequent and faster (or less slow) service from Markinch or Kirkcaldy than an hourly all-stations trundler from Leven.

There are trickle-down arguments about growing commuting but the way to help disadvantaged people is to help them as individuals to catch up with education and skills or tackle lifestyle issues which hold them back.

Levenmouth may well happen because it's cheap whereas the things that really need done are expensive, but it remains dubious to me.

There's some truth in that but linking people to jobs can be successful even if the people didn't previously have the sort of skills that the jobs demand. For example the Robin Hood Line and the rejuvenated Valleys lines link former mining communities to cites with predominantly office-based jobs.

I'm not an expert but I guess the factors include re-training of those already of working age, their children coming through the education system with different skills, and new workers moving into an area where housing (new or existing) is cheaper.

 

[najaB]

... and new workers moving into an area where housing (new or existing) is cheaper.

This as much as anything. New, comparatively well-off people support local jobs. And businesses move out of expensive city-centre locations to newly-connected satellite towns.

 

[oldman]

Are there schemes that you'd support that don't have a regeneration argument but have all sorts of other good reasons for them to happen?

Not in the same price bracket, but a Halbeath cut-off would be more useful and would even make commuting from Levenmouth Parkway (aka Markinch) more attractive, apart from the other benefits. Improvements north of Dundee, through Newburgh (but without a new station!) and on the Highland line are needed. Our intercity links are way too slow.

Greater Glasgow is well provided for, Greater Edinburgh is not, but reopenings are probably not the answer. I don't know Greater Aberdeen well enough to say whether any reopenings there would be sensible.

 

[47271]

Not in the same price bracket, but a Halbeath cut-off would be more useful and would even make commuting from Levenmouth Parkway (aka Markinch) more attractive, apart from the other benefits. Improvements north of Dundee, through Newburgh (but without a new station!) and on the Highland line are needed. Our intercity links are way too slow.

Greater Glasgow is well provided for, Greater Edinburgh is not, but reopenings are probably not the answer. I don't know Greater Aberdeen well enough to say whether any reopenings there would be sensible.

Fair enough, so you're mainly focused on projects that are to the overall strategic benefit of the network rather than to serve an individual locality. That's a perfectly reasonable line to take when finite resources are in play. It's not how it works in the real world mind you!

On topic, the irony is that the most deluded supporters of completing from Tweedbank to Carlisle would have us believe that this is exactly what a reinstated Waverley route is justified as: a crucial strategic cross border link. lol

PS what have you got against a station at Newburgh, that seems to me every time I trundle through an inexpensive no brainer on a vastly improved Ladybank-Hilton line, which I agree is desperately needed?

 

[Altnabreac]

The other regeneration argument is about retention of your more ambitious young people.

The ability of young people to attend high education from their home address and/or to move home after higher education while continuing to access graduate level jobs in wider locations can be an important part of a wider regeneration strategy.

Otherwise you can spend a lot of time and money educating and improving the situation locally then everyone ambitious and educated leaves for a big city.

When you are then trying to attract more skilled jobs into the deprived area such as Levenmouth the inward investors may have concerns about a lack of skilled workforce.

So a reopening like Levenmouth can be a virtuous circle:
Transport links to Edinburgh
More skilled workers stay in Levenmouth
More skilled jobs created in Levenmouth
Reverse commuting into Levenmouth to access the skilled jobs.

If you look at a reopening like Bathgate in 1986, this is exactly the trajectory that has been followed and the Airdrie - Bathgate line has a real mix of commuters going in multiple directions to employment sites in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Livingston, Airdrie, Bathgate and Coatbridge.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Not in the same price bracket, but a Halbeath cut-off would be more useful and would even make commuting from Levenmouth Parkway (aka Markinch) more attractive, apart from the other benefits. Improvements north of Dundee, through Newburgh (but without a new station!) and on the Highland line are needed. Our intercity links are way too slow.

Greater Glasgow is well provided for, Greater Edinburgh is not, but reopenings are probably not the answer. I don't know Greater Aberdeen well enough to say whether any reopenings there would be sensible.

There is a possibility that a Leven reopening might need to wait for the Inverkeithing-Halbeath bypass line to open. Without it, it might well not be possible to provide a good enough service on the branch to justify reopening it. This is the sort of thing we can expect to fall out of the sort of detailed analysis that the Scottish Government now seems to have taken on.

I've thought that a general package of rail improvements in Fife (a sort of Forth-Tay Improvement Programme akin to EGIP) would be a good next step for the 2020s. As you say, improvements in Fife have a positive impact on essentially all long-distance travel north of Edinburgh, so there should be a pretty good business case for improvements.

The rail network serving Edinburgh is limited by the lack of separation between local and longer distance services. In Glasgow you have the low level lines and lots of independent routes in and out of Central high level. In Edinburgh, there's a bit of a zero-sum game where extra local services means slower or fewer InterCity ones. It's slowly changing, but it does seem unlikely that the network will expand much from where it is now.

 

[oldman]

PS what have you got against a station at Newburgh, that seems to me every time I trundle through an inexpensive no brainer on a vastly improved Ladybank-Hilton line, which I agree is desperately needed?

Because you are trundling through on an 'express' from Edinburgh to Inverness which is already making four stops in Fife - do you want to add Newburgh and no doubt Bridge of Earn to that? If there was enough traffic for a separate hourly Perth local, maybe, but I doubt if it would be any kind of value for money.

 

[railjock]

There is a possibility that a Leven reopening might need to wait for the Inverkeithing-Halbeath bypass line to open. Without it, it might well not be possible to provide a good enough service on the branch to justify reopening it. This is the sort of thing we can expect to fall out of the sort of detailed analysis that the Scottish Government now seems to have taken on.

I've thought that a general package of rail improvements in Fife (a sort of Forth-Tay Improvement Programme akin to EGIP) would be a good next step for the 2020s. As you say, improvements in Fife have a positive impact on essentially all long-distance travel north of Edinburgh, so there should be a pretty good business case for improvements.

The rail network serving Edinburgh is limited by the lack of separation between local and longer distance services. In Glasgow you have the low level lines and lots of independent routes in and out of Central high level. In Edinburgh, there's a bit of a zero-sum game where extra local services means slower or fewer InterCity ones. It's slowly changing, but it does seem unlikely that the network will expand much from where it is now.

Edinburgh suburban and outer urban services are indeed constrained by paths through Waverley and Haymarket. Unless someone bores some new tunnels through the city centre that is always going to be the case.

 

[oldman]

If you look at a reopening like Bathgate in 1986, this is exactly the trajectory that has been followed ...

Horses for courses. Bathgate-Edinburgh 30 mins (less to Edinburgh Park), Bathgate-Glasgow, Airdrie-Edinburgh 45, frequent service. Leven-Edinburgh, 60 mins, hourly service. The core central belt is not the same as eastern Fife.

I am unconvinced by the education argument - the stay-at-home HE student would still have a hell of a trek to get to college in Edinburgh (actually they would be better looking to Dundee/Abertay) and the attractions of the big city will still be there for the young and ambitious. The real problem is the proportion of people from parts of the area not succeeding at school (the NEETs).

People talk of Levenmouth as a discrete town - it isn't, look at the map. There is Leven, where the station would be, which has a diverse housing mix and does OK. The deprivation is most profound in areas like Buckhaven and Methil and the problem is the inability (relatively) to compete in the Greater Thornton employment market, which is down to the housing mix. Slightly easier travel to Edinburgh is not the issue in these areas.

 

[Altnabreac]

Horses for courses. Bathgate-Edinburgh 30 mins (less to Edinburgh Park), Bathgate-Glasgow, Airdrie-Edinburgh 45, frequent service. Leven-Edinburgh, 60 mins, hourly service. The core central belt is not the same as eastern Fife.

I am unconvinced by the education argument - the stay-at-home HE student would still have a hell of a trek to get to college in Edinburgh (actually they would be better looking to Dundee/Abertay) and the attractions of the big city will still be there for the young and ambitious. The real problem is the proportion of people from parts of the area not succeeding at school (the NEETs).

People talk of Levenmouth as a discrete town - it isn't, look at the map. There is Leven, where the station would be, which has a diverse housing mix and does OK. The deprivation is most profound in areas like Buckhaven and Methil and the problem is the inability (relatively) to compete in the Greater Thornton employment market, which is down to the housing mix. Slightly easier travel to Edinburgh is not the issue in these areas.

Well you look at the housing and employment patterns in Bathgate 30 years ago and now and you'll see a big change. Commuting distances are lengthening and 60-75 minutes is not seen as a barrier anymore.

A Levenmouth rail link is never going to be the answer to all the problems in East Fife but it can certainly make a positive contribution.

 

[47271]

Because you are trundling through on an 'express' from Edinburgh to Inverness which is already making four stops in Fife - do you want to add Newburgh and no doubt Bridge of Earn to that? If there was enough traffic for a separate hourly Perth local, maybe, but I doubt if it would be any kind of value for money.

We're miles off topic I know, but my understanding of the Edinburgh-Inverness timetable is that in general it provides a two hourly extension on the Edinburgh-Perth semi-fasts.

So if line capacity is increased between Ladybank and Hilton then those semi-fasts would continue to run alongside the HSTs, and would provide the Newburgh and Bridge of Earn calls, in the same way as Glasgow-Dundee semis will fit in around the Queen Street HSTs.

I completely agree that in no circumstances should two new stations be added to a 15 mile continuous single line section which is a major pain in the neck already, the infrastructure improvements have to come ahead of more stations and more trains, they're the icing on the cake.

Anyway off topic off topic off topic, sorry everyone...

 

[HSTEd]

What if the new stations came with Penryn esque passing loops?

 

[oldman]

Commuting distances are lengthening and 60-75 minutes is not seen as a barrier anymore.

75 minutes means 3-4 hours out of the house and a hefty season ticket bill. Some people may prefer that to the alternatives of relocation or not taking the job, but it is not a great choice to have to make and that limits the number of people likely to make it. We are not in the English home counties with those stratospheric house prices.

Take my next-door neighbours - from other parts of Scotland, met at uni, starting a family. They have chosen to stay in the city; they might have decided that country life would be good for the family - perhaps looked at the northern Borders. But Hawick - I don't think so. The long-distance market is likely to be limited.

(Interestingly, according to council figures the highest rate of unemployment in West Lothian is in Bathgate itself. I suspect housing mix is the reason, 30 years after 'Bathgate no more', just as it is for Methil and Buckhaven.)

 

[HowardGWR]

Much of the discussion on here has centered around commuting. One full train per day each way does not a business case make. The projected times from Hawick, unless they can be greatly reduced, would seem to me to be unlikely to produce much in the way of daytime shopping or evening leisure visits to Edinburgh. I suppose that goes, somewhat, for Leven as well as Hawick. I reckon 1.5 hour max for such trips, and one needs a late 2300 departure from the capital for those evening trips.

Am I too pessimistic? What are people in Gala or Tweedbank doing at present?

 

[Altnabreac]

75 minutes means 3-4 hours out of the house and a hefty season ticket bill. Some people may prefer that to the alternatives of relocation or not taking the job, but it is not a great choice to have to make and that limits the number of people likely to make it. We are not in the English home counties with those stratospheric house prices.

Take my next-door neighbours - from other parts of Scotland, met at uni, starting a family. They have chosen to stay in the city; they might have decided that country life would be good for the family - perhaps looked at the northern Borders. But Hawick - I don't think so. The long-distance market is likely to be limited.

(Interestingly, according to council figures the highest rate of unemployment in West Lothian is in Bathgate itself. I suspect housing mix is the reason, 30 years after 'Bathgate no more', just as it is for Methil and Buckhaven.)

The highest rate of unemployment is in Whitburn, not Bathgate. I'm afraid you've got that completely wrong.

 

[oldman]

Taken from Monitoring the West Lothian Economy September 2017, produced by WL Council Bathgate 2.4%, Whitburn and Blackburn 2.3. But I expect they've got it wrong .

 

[snowball]

Those figures suggest a very low unemployment area. The UK average is 4.3% isn't it?

 

[Altnabreac]

Taken from Monitoring the West Lothian Economy September 2017, produced by WL Council Bathgate 2.4%, Whitburn and Blackburn 2.3. But I expect they've got it wrong .

Well technically the ONS have got it wrong, not West Lothian Council.

Firstly you are looking at Multi Member Wards rather than Settlements or Localities.

But the main problem is the data source, namely the ONS claimant count with rates and proportions.

As you can see the absolute figures are also listed: 365 claimants for Whitburn and Blackburn MMW and 290 claimants for Bathgate MMW. This is a higher absolute number for Whitburn & Blackburn but of course you are interested in the rate per Working Age Population.

The ONS give a percentage rate that is higher for Bathgate. This is an error by ONS.

The working age population for Bathgate MMW in Mid 2014 was 14,153 (though this figure is technically 16-64 population and Working Age would be slightly smaller allowing for some women aged 60-64 who should be removed, differences are very small though).
The working age population for Whitburn and Blackburn MMW in Mid 2014 was 12,766 (again all 16-64 population).

On these figures the rates are:
Whitburn and Blackburn MMW Claimant Count rate 2.9%
Bathgate MMW Claimant Count rate 2.0%

The reason that the ONS gets this wrong is because it is still dividing the claimant count using a MMW population calculated using the 2001 datazones rather than the 2011 datazones. In particular the ONS assumes the entire population of Datazone S0106364, known to West Lothian Council as "Bathgate Whitehill / Whiteside and Redmill", is located in the Whitburn and Blackburn ward and not in the Bathgate ward.

In 2001 this datazone had a relatively small population (around 500) most of which was in the Redmill area of East Whitburn, within the Whitburn and Blackburn ward. For this reason the ONS classified the datazone as part of the Whitburn and Blackburn ward.

Subsequently the datazone underwent a huge population growth as several thousand private houses were build in the Wester Inch area of Bathgate at the former British Leyland Factory. By mid 2014 the datazone had a population of 5,570, 3,848 of whom were aged 16-64 and very few of whom would be claiming out of work benefits given the demographics associated with newly built private housing.

Sorry if you didn't want such a detailed explanation . Hopefully you now understand why Whitburn has a higher claimant count rate than Bathgate. Also to be hoped that ONS will update their population calculations for Scottish MMWs soon.

 

[Altnabreac]

Those figures suggest a very low unemployment area. The UK average is 4.3% isn't it?

The 4.3% is the Labour Market Survey figure which is a higher number based a survey sampling but it is not available at small area (sub Local Authority Level) so claimant count is used for small area comparisons even though we know the LMS data presents a more accurate picture as to what the actual level is UK wide.

The equivalent Claimant Count rate GB wide (for some reason NI is excluded) is 1.9%, Scotland wide the rate is 2.4%.

So Bathgate at 2.0% claimant count is around the GB average and below the Scottish average.
Whitburn at 2.9% claimant count is above both the GB and Scottish averages.

The existence of a frequent rail service in Bathgate is almost certainly part of this comparative difference.

 

[oldman]

Well technically the ONS have got it wrong, not West Lothian Council.

Thanks for putting me right. I think you are being a little generous to the WL people who really ought to know about the deficiencies of the numbers they are crunching. I am sure they would appreciate some advice from you. (But I still think you are wrong about 75 minute commuter journeys being at all desirable.)