Study to consider Borders Railway extension

[Mordac]

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.

Northern Ireland is excluded because technically welfare and social security are devolved there, and so administered separately. In practice, legislation is usually kept identical to provide parity of benefits. Claimant count is 3.3% there.

 

[ItsGrimUpNorth]

From today’s News & Star in North Cumbria

A campaign to extend the Borders Railway from Scotland to Cumbria has been given further backing - after members voted to continue pressing ahead with their case.

The vote was taken at the Campaign for Borders Rail AGM, which was held in Hawick at the weekend.

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/C...-pace-4b48c1e6-e933-4b03-b002-9b0eecc635c7-ds

 

[snowball]

It would have been a bit of a surprise if they had voted differently, given that that's what their organisation is for.

 

[najaB]

It would have been a bit of a surprise if they had voted differently, given that that's what their organisation is for.

I agree. The next headline was probably 'Bears **** in the woods.".

 

[BigCj34]

Just how lucrative is freight for railway revenue? Would timber transportation in the border areas use the line much if at all?

 

[route:oxford]

Just how lucrative is freight for railway revenue? Would timber transportation in the border areas use the line much if at all?

That all depends on the subsidies...

 

[JohnR]

Had a discussion with Nigel Harris of Rail magazine on twitter last night - he's all for an extension to Carlisle. Seems to think diversions are enough...

 

[BantamMenace]

Had a discussion with Nigel Harris of Rail magazine on twitter last night - he's all for an extension to Carlisle. Seems to think diversions are enough...

Diversions don't build business cases unless there was a planned extensive closure of a busy section of line (like Kemble redouble's business case).

Also, personally I think the use of diversions are disappearing in favour of road transport. Something I would like to see is the maintenance of route knowledge for diversions specified in ITTs and franchises fined for the use of road transport when a pre specified diversion was available. Not's not one for this thread though.

 

[najaB]

Had a discussion with Nigel Harris of Rail magazine on twitter last night - he's all for an extension to Carlisle. Seems to think diversions are enough...

c. £1B spent for a sub-optimal diversionary timetable on 30 or fewer days a year. Good way to spend money.

 

[Bald Rick]

Had a discussion with Nigel Harris of Rail magazine on twitter last night - he's all for an extension to Carlisle. Seems to think diversions are enough...

Assuming he wasn't having you on, that says all you need to know about Rail magazine

 

[paul1609]

or possibly the rail industry as a whole

 

[Altnabreac]

Assuming he wasn't having you on, that says all you need to know about Rail magazine

John did his best to promote reason but Nigel's argument was "Its the most direct route to Edinburgh from the south".

Oh dear. Lunatics taking over the asylum, at least with Alex Hynes you can assume he was just tellling CBR what they wanted to hear while knowing it was nonsense.

Nigel on the other hand should be telling truth to power.

 

[snowball]

John did his best to promote reason but Nigel's argument was "Its the most direct route to Edinburgh from the south".

Quite apart from the obvious multiple daftnesses in there, there's a technical detail he's overlooking.

Some web searching suggests the Edinburgh-Carlisle distance was 98 miles compared with 101 via Carstairs.

However that 3-mile advantage looks very similar to the extra distance that would result from the necessary rerouting west of Longtown, as a result of the construction of the A74 (now M6) across the original route near Harker.

 

[JohnR]

I pointed out that it was only 1 hr 26 from Carlisle - Edinburgh via Carstairs, and that a route via Hawick could never compete. The train takes an hour to Tweedbank as it is! The variation in distance only tells part of the story, as the route via Carstairs has high linespeeds.

Yes, if the route existed, its use as a diversionary route would be very useful. But it wont pay for such a route to be built (I estimate Hawick-Carlisle would be at least £400m, as I reckon an extension to Hawick is reasonable.

I generally find Nigel Harris to be fairly clued up and sensible, despite what some here might say. So I thought his views were out of character!

 

[TBirdFrank]

So the needs of the good residents of Melrose, Galashiels and Hawick to be in contact with the rest of Britain to the south still count for nothing in the minds of the we don't want it set! With the bonus of a diversionary route if it did happen.

No wonder I despair of today's generation of crayon wielders!

 

[Altnabreac]

So the needs of the good residents of Melrose, Galashiels and Hawick to be in contact with the rest of Britain to the south still count for nothing in the minds of the we don't want it set! With the bonus of a diversionary route if it did happen.

No wonder I despair of today's generation of crayon wielders!

They count for something. But not £500m worth of something because there isn't a daily commuter demand to make the business case work.

 

[InOban]

Any cost-benefit analysis will show that there are far, far better ways of investing £500 million in the Scottish Railway network

 

[Ginaro]

So the needs of the good residents of Melrose, Galashiels and Hawick to be in contact with the rest of Britain to the south still count for nothing in the minds of the we don't want it set! With the bonus of a diversionary route if it did happen.

No wonder I despair of today's generation of crayon wielders!

What about the needs of the good residents of Buckhaven, Methil and Leven to be in contact with the rest of Fife? If Hawick to Carlisle goes ahead there will be barely any money left for the many other reopening schemes around the country which will provide greater benefits to locals.

 

[najaB]

They count for something. But...

Any cost-benefit analysis will show...

What about the needs of ...

I could be wrong, but I think that @TBirdFrank's post:

No wonder I despair of today's generation of crayon wielders!

Has a hint that it wasn't supposed to be taken seriously.

 

[Altnabreac]

I

I could be wrong, but I think that @TBirdFrank's post:

Has a hint that it wasn't supposed to be taken seriously.

I thought he was complaining about a lack of mad crayon wielding?

 

[najaB]

I thought he was complaining about a lack of mad crayon wielding?

Hmm... maybe so. In which case, flame on!

 

[Ginaro]

Poe's law strikes again!

 

[JohnR]

So the needs of the good residents of Melrose, Galashiels and Hawick to be in contact with the rest of Britain to the south still count for nothing in the minds of the we don't want it set! With the bonus of a diversionary route if it did happen.

No wonder I despair of today's generation of crayon wielders!

It would be quicker for them to travel to Edinburgh.

 

[ian1944]

I pointed out that it was only 1 hr 26 from Carlisle - Edinburgh via Carstairs ... as the route via Carstairs has high linespeeds.

It would be even less if the slow grind round the east of Carstairs somehow was removed. Apart from the actual time taken (5 mins ?) it just feels so tediously slow.

 

[Altfish]

What would be the time difference for (say) Carlisle to Hawick or Galashiels, surely that is a more likely scenario as if you are going to Edinburgh you would use the WCML...unless of course it is a lot cheaper and you are not in a rush.
Currently Carlisle to Galashiels it is just over 2hr 30min; what are we looking at if the Waverley route was completed, 90-minutes?

 

[och aye]

What would be the time difference for (say) Carlisle to Hawick or Galashiels, surely that is a more likely scenario as if you are going to Edinburgh you would use the WCML...unless of course it is a lot cheaper and you are not in a rush.
Currently Carlisle to Galashiels it is just over 2hr 30min; what are we looking at if the Waverley route was completed, 90-minutes?

Do we know how many people currently travel between those two towns at the moment?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Other than as a diversionary route it wouldn't be about people travelling from Carlisle to Edinburgh or vice versa any more than Carlisle to Glasgow via the coastal route is about people travelling between Carlisle and Glasgow, or the Cumbrian Coast is about Lancaster to Carlisle. It's about intermediate journeys.

 

[Altfish]

Do we know how many people currently travel between those two towns at the moment?

Not a clue, but I do - hardly justifies a case to build it, I know
It is a pity that the original line didn't go through Langholm and Selkirk, I suspect it'd be a lot easier to make the case for reopening. As has been said there is not a lot between Hawick and Longtown.

 

[BigCj34]

Not a clue, but I do - hardly justifies a case to build it, I know
It is a pity that the original line didn't go through Langholm and Selkirk, I suspect it'd be a lot easier to make the case for reopening. As has been said there is not a lot between Hawick and Longtown.

It may not even have closed at all if that was the case!

 

[D1009]

I generally find Nigel Harris to be fairly clued up and sensible, despite what some here might say. So I thought his views were out of character!

If he had expressed the views expressed on here in the magazine, it would probably have killed any subsequent debate in the magazine. As it is, it will probably fill the letters page with pro and anti views, making the magazine more interesting and therefore popular. The job of an editor extends beyond expressing one's own views.