Study to consider Borders Railway extension

[alangla]

This may not get you the capacity you think because of the need to have a junction with the sub.

I understand it’s a short stretch & the requirement to connect with the sub, but progress off the ECML and on through Brunstane is just glacial, unless it’s been speeded up recently. I’m thinking primarily of dealing with timetable perturbation, where it would give you the option to hold units off the ECML to await something late coming from the borders, reduce time spent with a route set across Portobello junction, allow more paths between Millerhill EMU depot and Waverley (some of these appear at a glance to be occupying the path of the missing train each hour at the moment) and shave a couple of minutes off the journey time.

 

[A0]

I agree that extending from Tweedbank to Hawick makes sense.

But does it?

Extending to Hawick would extend the line by about 20 miles. Assuming an average speed of 60 mph that's another 20 mins on the journey (and that's ambitious depending on the number of intermediate stations). The turnaround at Tweedbank is currently <10 minutes, so to handle Hawick would mean at least one more unit and one more crew per shift.

Assuming it followed the old formation you'd only be adding Melrose (popn 2,500), Newtown St Boswells (popn 1,300) and Hawick (popn 14,000) to the network, the former would almost certainly cannibalise the use of Tweedbank.

Add in a wet-finger-in-air guesstimate of £40m / mile and the costs of going to Hawick will be at least £800m. That's £44,000 per person in those places. I'm not sure it even comes close to a viable business case. At best an express 'rail link' bus between Hawick and Tweedbank *might* just work, but the reinstatement makes no sense for anything other than political reasons.

 

[WesternBiker]

Add in a wet-finger-in-air guesstimate of £40m / mile and the costs of going to Hawick will be at least £800m. That's £44,000 per person in those places. I'm not sure it even comes close to a viable business case. At best an express 'rail link' bus between Hawick and Tweedbank *might* just work, but the reinstatement makes no sense for anything other than political reasons.

Spot on. There must be lots of other (much larger) communities wishing this much political effort was being spent on restoring their passenger rail links - Ashby and Coalville come to mind.

Out of interest, does anyone know what the economics of the existing line look like?

 

[BrianW]

A rudimentary 'textual analysis' of the 'prospectus' document; wordcounts-
Vision x 15; option x17; opportunity x 13; levelling up x 13, conclusion x 0; recommendation x 0
'£10M to allow the project to move forward (P36) IN ADDITION TO WORK TO ESTABLISH A SHARED UNDERSTANDING OF THE BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF OPTIONS TO EXTEND THE EDINBURGH- TWEEDBANK BORDERS RAILWAY TO CARLISLE (sorry pressed Caps Lock, tho' not inappropriate!)
ie Thank you Suckers for paying us for this 'report'- more money needed for us to say 'forget it'. Shared understanding?

A75 linking Carlisle(England) to Cairnryan (for Northern Ireland) a much better bet for UK ( and Scottish?!?) Government support (With HGV truckstop/ Irish Sea border control of course- a true Borders Project). This road also part of the E18 Belfast- Newcastle A case for a green Port Road railway?

 

[92002]

This may not get you the capacity you think because of the need to have a junction with the sub.

The BBC report today that Borderlands did not win their bid for funding.

So guess its all over again till the next time.

 

[zwk500]

Spot on. There must be lots of other (much larger) communities wishing this much political effort was being spent on restoring their passenger rail links - Ashby and Coalville come to mind.

Out of interest, does anyone know what the economics of the existing line look like?

This is the 1-year review https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/39388/borders-railway-1-year-evaluation.pdf Overall answer seems to be 'solid', but that was when it was all shiny and new and exciting, so I'd be interested to see if anybody has a 3-year (I don't think the 5-year will be out yet).

 

[najaB]

But does it?

Extending to Hawick would extend the line by about 20 miles. Assuming an average speed of 60 mph that's another 20 mins on the journey (and that's ambitious depending on the number of intermediate stations). The turnaround at Tweedbank is currently <10 minutes, so to handle Hawick would mean at least one more unit and one more crew per shift.

Assuming it followed the old formation you'd only be adding Melrose (popn 2,500), Newtown St Boswells (popn 1,300) and Hawick (popn 14,000) to the network, the former would almost certainly cannibalise the use of Tweedbank.

Add in a wet-finger-in-air guesstimate of £40m / mile and the costs of going to Hawick will be at least £800m. That's £44,000 per person in those places. I'm not sure it even comes close to a viable business case. At best an express 'rail link' bus between Hawick and Tweedbank *might* just work, but the reinstatement makes no sense for anything other than political reasons.

I read it as "If you're committed to extending the line, then Hawick makes sense, but going further does not". As you pointed out, extending as far as Hawick gets you the better part of 20,000 additional people for under a billion pounds. From there heading south there are many, many more miles to go before you get to Carlisle but not many people. Tweedbank to Hawick is c. £45K per person, continuing to Newcastleton will shoot that up to close to £100K and so on.

 

[WesternBiker]

This is the 1-year review https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/39388/borders-railway-1-year-evaluation.pdf Overall answer seems to be 'solid', but that was when it was all shiny and new and exciting, so I'd be interested to see if anybody has a 3-year (I don't think the 5-year will be out yet).

Thanks - all very interesting but no economic assessment: the question "was this value for money?" not being asked. There's a modest increase in overnight stays / tourist spend but it doesn't quantify the overall value.

The other message - relevant to the thread - is the fact Tweedbank seems to be acting as a railhead for a much larger area than expected. This implies extending it may not result in that many additional journeys, rather some modal shift of those currently driving to Tweedbank. Put another way, the additional benefit of a short extension (e.g. to Hawick) is likely to be limited compared with the cost.

 

[zwk500]

Thanks - all very interesting but no economic assessment: the question "was this value for money?" not being asked.

This is often the most revealing side of reviews - the questions they don't want answering!

If you compare the actual numbers to the projected, you could then consult the pre-build economic studies using those projected numbers and extrapolate the answer. However needing a subsidy does not automatically mean a line is not value for money.

 

[najaB]

The other message - relevant to the thread - is the fact Tweedbank seems to be acting as a railhead for a much larger area than expected.

Given the size of the carpark at Tweedbank, I think it was expected - or hoped for at the very least.

 

[A0]

The BBC report today that Borderlands did not win their bid for funding.

So guess its all over again till the next time.

Link ? Because I can't see anything online.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Oct 2021 ==

Given the size of the carpark at Tweedbank, I think it was expected - or hoped for at the very least.

Well of course it was - it was designed as a 'parkway' station. It wasn't the site of an old station and has good access from both the A7 and A68. There is absolutely no doubt about its purpose.

 

[Starmill]

I’m confused about the whole thing! Some very gymnastic use of evidence, some might even say dubious.

I note that Transport Scotland's Strategic Transport Projects Review 2 is currently work in progress. I have a funny feeling that this route won't escape further appraisal.

 

[WesternBiker]

Given the size of the carpark at Tweedbank, I think it was expected - or hoped for at the very least.

The report gives some quite startling figures, though - accepting it is only on the first year:

"...Passenger numbers are therefore much higher than forecast at all of the Scottish Borders stations, and much lower than forecast at all of the Midlothian stations. Passenger numbers originating from Tweedbank and Galashiels are seven and four times the forecast respectively."

Sevenfold implies that they were expecting the that such traffic would take much longer to build (unless they were expecting an empty car park). Surprisingly, the report doesn't make much comment on why they think this is the case, or how this compares with aspirations beyond year one - it's mostly a survey of users in the first year.

 

[najaB]

Well of course it was - it was designed as a 'parkway' station. It wasn't the site of an old station and has good access from both the A7 and A68. There is absolutely no doubt about its purpose.

Yes, I know it was intended to be a parkway station, the point I was making is that the car park is very large - over 200 spaces - which indicates that they always expected it to be a railhead for a large area.

 

[zwk500]

Yes, I know it was intended to be a parkway station, the point I was making is that the car park is very large - over 200 spaces - which indicates that they always expected it to be a railhead for a large area.

Although presumably the car park was sized for a much longer-term projection than the first year's numbers.

 

[A0]

Sevenfold implies that they were expecting the that such traffic would take much longer to build (unless they were expecting an empty car park). Surprisingly, the report doesn't make much comment on why they think this is the case, or how this compares with aspirations beyond year one - it's mostly a survey of users in the first year.

Sevenfold suggests their forecasting was completely and utterly crap.

Tweedbank is averaging about 450,000 / yr between 2016-2018 - 1/7th of that is 65,000.

The cynic in me wonders if the forecasts were kept artificially low so as to claim the line was an astounding success.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Oct 2021 ==

Yes, I know it was intended to be a parkway station, the point I was making is that the car park is very large - over 200 spaces - which indicates that they always expected it to be a railhead for a large area.

Completely agree. And it's why when people cite Borders rail as a reason for a myriad of other rural re-openings I point out that prior to that Galashiels was 30-40 miles from its nearest stations, which is far further than any of the oft peddled rural reopenings.

For Hawick even the reopening to Tweedbank it's reduced that to 15 miles from 45 miles (Carlisle or Berwick) and about 50 miles (Edinburgh).

That area was far more detached from the national rail network than pretty much anywhere else in the UK.

 

[najaB]

The cynic in me wonders if the forecasts were kept artificially low so as to claim the line was an astounding success.

More likely that they were hedging their bets.

 

[A0]

More likely that they were hedging their bets.

There's hedging your bets and taking the piss, this one falls firmly in the latter.

 

[Starmill]

There's hedging your bets and taking the piss, this one falls firmly in the latter.

I don't think that this really makes sense because you don't really want lower numbers in your full business case, it just lowers your BCR. The final BCR was 0.5. Normally anything less than 2 would be laughed out.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Although presumably the car park was sized for a much longer-term projection than the first year's numbers.

If so they failed utterly with those projections as the car park was overflowing from the start and had to be extended after only two years.

One of the reasons for the popularity of Tweedbank is it's the start of the line so the chances of getting a seat are better. I've only once had to stand all the way from Tweedbank to Waverley but have had to do this several times from Gala, so like many others I'll drive to Tweedbank rather than walk in to Gala to get the train.

Pre covid the overcrowding was finally easing with more 170s including some 6 car in the peaks and more 4 car 158s at other times. Anecdotally it was easy to see the increase in Midlothian passengers as a result.
I've only been on one trip this year. The return was a 2 car 158 from Waverley, crush loaded, no revenue collection. Unfortunately I'd bought a ticket online. Back to the bad old days.

 

[Starmill]

I'm pretty sure that the parking at Tweedbank (and Stow) is free and uncontrolled too, without even a nominal £2 / day fee or 'free ticket with your train ticket' style arrangement as used to be common in Scotland. So demand being high for parking space is not a massive shock.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

On the topic of lower than expected usage of Midlothian stations, looking at Google maps, I'm a bit puzzled by some of their locations, which don't seem particularly designed to attract people.

Newcraighall and Eskbank both appear to have been built in the middle of fields, despite in both cases the line passing through more populated areas a short distance further North. And Shawfair seems to be in a pointless location with nothing anywhere nearby.

I realise that I'm going entirely by Google maps, with no local knowledge, plus Google maps may be out-of-date, so I could easily be not seeing something - but I'd be interested to know if anyone with local knowledge could comment.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Newcraighall predates the Borders railway, it was opened in 2002 in a scheme known as Edinburgh Crossrail. It was built as a park and ride but also serves a nearby retail park.
The old Eskbank Station is now a private house and had no room for a car park. The new Eskbank is also closer to housing estates at Bonnyrigg.

Shawfair was built in advance of planned housing developments which have still barely started.

 

[Bald Rick]

The projections for the build up of traffic on Borders to the modelled expectation were rather conservative - IIRC they expected it to take 3 years before the ‘normal’ level of traffic would be achieved. In practice it was less than 3 months, no doubt helped by about 50,000 track bashers with highlighter pens. Growth since that first year has broadly followed similar railways elsewhere.

 

[Class 170101]

But that’s irrelevant. When you have the three largest centres of population in the country on the route, and plenty more served by the route, there will be plenty of traffic.

Meanwhile we know what the traffic between Carlisle and Edinburgh is, and it’s next to nothing.

And considering that the Waverley route is going to be slower Carlisle to Edinburgh than the WCML you're only going to be getting a fraction of that next to nothing.

So Tweedbank don't want to Carlisle and Ricardon (Spelling?) don't want to go to Edinburgh then? If there is nothing between Carlisle and Tweedbank / Hawick just build a 'fast' railway without stations then!

 

[A0]

So Tweedbank don't want to Carlisle and Ricardon (Spelling?) don't want to go to Edinburgh then? If there is nothing between Carlisle and Tweedbank / Hawick just build a 'fast' railway without stations then!

Well it's a pretty reasonable assumption that if demand from Edinburgh (popn 500,000) to Carlisle is minimal, then demand from Tweedbank / Galashiels area (popn ~50,000) will be less than that. And the track bashers alluded to by Bald Rick will only travel on it once.

 

[Bald Rick]

So Tweedbank don't want to Carlisle

No, they don’t. At most, a few dozen a day.

 

[swt_passenger]

So Tweedbank don't want to Carlisle and Ricardon (Spelling?) don't want to go to Edinburgh then? If there is nothing between Carlisle and Tweedbank / Hawick just build a 'fast' railway without stations then!

There is no settlement, (not even any roads), at the site of the former Riccarton Junction. As a historic place name it’s almost completely irrelevant to any reopening.

 

[Clayton]

I have no great knowledge of this area but some people are judging the proposal purely on things as they are, whereas this line would presumably trigger housing developments and new patterns of behaviour. Mind you, if there are really hardly any people in this bit of the borders even a new line might not attract significant numbers of people to the area

 

[Bald Rick]

I have no great knowledge of this area but some people are judging the proposal purely on things as they are, whereas this line would presumably trigger housing developments and new patterns of behaviour.

There are no plans for any significant housing developments on the route, and if there were you could expect outrage. In other news there’s will be outrage (locally) when it is realised what building a new railway in the area will entail.