Study to consider Borders Railway extension

[Bletchleyite]

MK and Oxford are both on the small side for being viable as the destination of services but because there is demand at both ends it helps the business case (as with Airdrie - Bathgate).

Did you know that more people commute into MK than out of it?

(Slough is similar)

 

[Altnabreac]

Did you know that more people commute into MK than out of it?

(Slough is similar)

Indeed its a pattern seen in quite a few new towns. Livingston in West Lothian is similar as another new town, although it is more balanced at maybe 60/40 out/in with a fair level of out commuting to Edinburgh but the in commuting from both Edinburgh and North Lanarkshire have helped numbers on Airdrie - Bathgate.

A re-opening where there is commuting traffic both ways really helps your viability.

 

[backontrack]

Perhaps.

HS2, if it reaches Scotland, might end up being what results in the full re-opening of the Borders route.

Upgrading the operational West Coast mainline was horrendously expensive and time consuming.

The accountant in me wonders if the cost of:-

Re-opening of Hawick-to-Carlisle
+
Closure, then total rebuild of Carlisle-Carstairs to HS2 standards

Would take less time and considerably less money than by upgrading and improving the WCML between Carlisle & Carstairs on a bitty basis.

What would you do with Lockerbie, Beattock, Symington & the junction at Gretna?

 

[Altnabreac]

Are you able to do a similar post for Tweedbank to Hawick?

Tweedbank Station access road / Tweedbank Park access road - new bridge required. One for both?
B6395 - new bridge required
Broomilees Road - house on previous alignment, diversion possible, new bridge required or road diversion.
Darnick - 4/5 houses on previous alignment. Diversion of A6091 or house demolition required.
Chiefswood Road - new bridge required
Former Melrose Station - demolition?
Dingleton Road - new bridge required
Melrose - Newstead - new alignment or diversion of A6091 or housing demolition (combination required?).
New crossing of A6091
New crossing of A68
Monksford House Golf Course (Private Course) - accommodation works required?
New crossing of A68
Newtown St Boswells - Co-op demolition required, some other changes to Mart / industrial buildings etc, diversion of B6399 and new bridge
A699 - new bridge to replace level crossing
Longnewton Farm - cutting partially infilled
Belses Mill Farm - new bridge required
Belses old station site - new bridge required and houses on trackbed (new alignment?)
Old Belses - new bridge required
Standhill - farm buildings on alignment
Burnfoot Road - new bridge required
New alignment needed behind industrial units on Hamilton Road
Teviotdale Leisure Centre - car park needed for station site?

As you can see, some of the reasons why the first Phase did not extend beyond Tweedbank begin to become clear. Even a short extension from Tweedbank to Melrose is very tricky which is why it was not considered viable initially (despite David Spaven's protestations that this was not considered).

 

[fegguk]

Some videos of the route Between Hawick and Tweedbank as it is today. There is a bit missing around Belses.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkWsLKnw6ersSdnSSLyNA0c3iz41lE8k0

 

[Andyjs247]

No - EWR. To take Altnabreac's tests:

1 - Population of 10,000+

Yes - but already rail served.

2 - 60 minutes (75 at a push) journey time to a major employment centre (City of 300,000+ population).

Yes - but since the places en-route have established routes into London doesn't really count.

3 - Extant or mainly unobstructed trackbed

Partly - not Bedford - Cambridge

4 - Ability to extend an existing service so more terminal capacity is not required.

No.

5 - Regeneration potential in area served or potential to generate Wider Economic Benefits through improving local economic outcomes.

Not really as all are growing economic areas regardless - the wider economic benefits are already coming through in the Oxford - Cambridge corridor.

I think you're missing the fact that Milton Keynes itself has a population of 250,000+, is a major employment centre in its own right and is set to grow further. By the time EWR opens its population will be pushing 300k anyway - it fits Altnabreac's criteria well. EWR is about East-West links, which are currently poor, not about radial routes that serve London.

Ironically just as the new city of MK was being established, the rail links to Oxford and Cambridge were closed.

And every year of delay to EWR has been said to cost the economy £200M in lost economic benefits. That is the reason the chancellor gave the £110M in the last budget to get things moving.

 

[Pinza-C55]

Tweedbank Station access road / Tweedbank Park access road - new bridge required. One for both?
B6395 - new bridge required
Broomilees Road - house on previous alignment, diversion possible, new bridge required or road diversion.
Darnick - 4/5 houses on previous alignment. Diversion of A6091 or house demolition required.
Chiefswood Road - new bridge required
Former Melrose Station - demolition?
Dingleton Road - new bridge required
Melrose - Newstead - new alignment or diversion of A6091 or housing demolition (combination required?).
New crossing of A6091
New crossing of A68
Monksford House Golf Course (Private Course) - accommodation works required?
New crossing of A68
Newtown St Boswells - Co-op demolition required, some other changes to Mart / industrial buildings etc, diversion of B6399 and new bridge
A699 - new bridge to replace level crossing
Longnewton Farm - cutting partially infilled
Belses Mill Farm - new bridge required
Belses old station site - new bridge required and houses on trackbed (new alignment?)
Old Belses - new bridge required
Standhill - farm buildings on alignment
Burnfoot Road - new bridge required
New alignment needed behind industrial units on Hamilton Road
Teviotdale Leisure Centre - car park needed for station site?

As you can see, some of the reasons why the first Phase did not extend beyond Tweedbank begin to become clear. Even a short extension from Tweedbank to Melrose is very tricky which is why it was not considered viable initially (despite David Spaven's protestations that this was not considered).

That's all interesting stuff but it doesn't alter the fact that if reopening a railway is felt to be of national or local importance then "farm buildings on alignment" isn't really an obstacle. Bulldoze them quickly and get on with the job.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think you're missing the fact that Milton Keynes itself has a population of 250,000+, is a major employment centre in its own right and is set to grow further. By the time EWR opens its population will be pushing 300k anyway - it fits Altnabreac's criteria well. EWR is about East-West links, which are currently poor, not about radial routes that serve London.

Is Milton Keynes more car-dependant than most cities of its size though? If so could that impact things? After all, the real criteria for getting sufficient commuters on the train is likely to be something like, how many jobs are there that are easily accessible to someone arriving at the main station by train - and I'm guessing the 300K population rule is really just an approximate proxy for that criterion. Would that be harder for Milton Keynes than for other cities of comparable size?

 

[Altnabreac]

That's all interesting stuff but it doesn't alter the fact that if reopening a railway is felt to be of national or local importance then "farm buildings on alignment" isn't really an obstacle. Bulldoze them quickly and get on with the job.

I don't know if you've ever had any involvement in building new railway lines before but it works like this.

How much does it cost to build?

How many benefits does it create?

Are the benefits bigger than the costs?

So if more work needs doing, more bridges need building, more land needs purchasing, more buildings need relocating, more new alignments need designing etc then the cost side of the equation goes up.

As you say if the benefits side if the equation is high then a project can go ahead despite lots of costs. If the benefits are smaller then a project may struggle because of the costs associated.

So in this example I think it is very clear why a 2 mile extension to Melrose from Tweedbank was not viable and would not be viable now. It needs a road diversion and around 4 new road bridges and then there is no parking at the station site or room for a second platform.

However an extension to Hawick might be viable despite the costs being higher than Melrose because the benefits might be higher.

South of Hawick there are negligible benefits so costs are virtually irrelevant but high enough to show it is completely non viable.

 

[Pinza-C55]

I don't know if you've ever had any involvement in building new railway lines before but it works like this.
How much does it cost to build?
How many benefits does it create?
Are the benefits bigger than the costs?
So if more work needs doing, more bridges need building, more land needs purchasing, more buildings need relocating, more new alignments need designing etc then the cost side of the equation goes up.
As you say if the benefits side if the equation is high then a project can go ahead despite lots of costs. If the benefits are smaller then a project may struggle because of the costs associated.
So in this example I think it is very clear why a 2 mile extension to Melrose from Tweedbank was not viable and would not be viable now. It needs a road diversion and around 4 new road bridges and then there is no parking at the station site or room for a second platform.
However an extension to Hawick might be viable despite the costs being higher than Melrose because the benefits might be higher.
South of Hawick there are negligible benefits so costs are virtually irrelevant but high enough to show it is completely non viable.

Your first point "I don't know if you've ever had any involvement in building new railway lines" is similar to that of people who, when a movie is criticised, say "Ah well let's see you direct a better movie!"
All but a tiny number of people, even on this site , have no experience of planning or building new railways, but we are entitled to our opinions. I have had practical experience of hands on volunteering for 3 railway restoration projects and many years working for British Rail and a private franchise though not in an engineering capacity so I have a reasonable idea of what I am talking about.
But even if I didn't, my point was that if they decide that opening the rest of the Waverley is viable then the technical considerations such as building new bridges and removing farm buildings are irrelevant. I would just hope they learn from the stupid mistakes made on the current Borders Railway and build all structures to a double track loading gauge even if they might not be needed.

 

[Altnabreac]

Your first point "I don't know if you've ever had any involvement in building new railway lines" is similar to that of people who, when a movie is criticised, say "Ah well let's see you direct a better movie!"
All but a tiny number of people, even on this site , have no experience of planning or building new railways, but we are entitled to our opinions. I have had practical experience of hands on volunteering for 3 railway restoration projects and many years working for British Rail and a private franchise though not in an engineering capacity so I have a reasonable idea of what I am talking about.
But even if I didn't, my point was that if they decide that opening the rest of the Waverley is viable then the technical considerations such as building new bridges and removing farm buildings are irrelevant. I would just hope they learn from the stupid mistakes made on the current Borders Railway and build all structures to a double track loading gauge even if they might not be needed.

The stupid mistakes that kept costs down, the business case positive and ensured that the reopening happened.

Yep, those idiot engineers really screwed up when they made the reopening affordable within the budget and the BCR.

 

[Pinza-C55]

The stupid mistakes that kept costs down, the business case positive and ensured that the reopening happened.

Yep, those idiot engineers really screwed up when they made the reopening affordable within the budget and the BCR.

The stupid mistakes which kept costs down in the short term present but simply stored costs up for the future when the single track bridges will have to be addressed.
Your argument is utterly bizarre.
Nearly everyone who reads this thread and has followed the reopening of the line has observed the short sighted implementation of the single track bridges and knows exactly what I mean.

 

[snowball]

The stupid mistakes which kept costs down in the short term present but simply stored costs up for the future when the single track bridges will have to be addressed.

For projects as for people, you only get the opportunity to survive tomorrow if you first survive today.

 

[47271]

The stupid mistakes which kept costs down in the short term present but simply stored costs up for the future when the single track bridges will have to be addressed.
Your argument is utterly bizarre.
Nearly everyone who reads this thread and has followed the reopening of the line has observed the short sighted implementation of the single track bridges and knows exactly what I mean.

Fair enough on what this thread says. Meanwhile in the real world, it didn't take me long to find this when I put 'Borders Railway costs' into Google. Remember that this is the political climate that the railway was built in - the piece is less than four years old.

On the flip side it's interesting how wrong some of the critics have been. Brian Monteith for example confirms his position as being one of the most intemperate and out of step individuals in Scottish politics, an accolade he's deserved for the past 15 years at least.

Oh, and of course John Carson, that daily Evening News commentator on the Edinburgh Trams...

The Borders Railway: a £350m ticket to nowhere?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/13125993.The_Borders_Railway__a___350m_ticket_to_nowhere_/

6 Oct 2013 / Colin Donald, Business Editor, Sunday Herald

When previous generations embarked on visionary transport projects, private companies clubbed together to raise money from their shareholders, and made them happen.

The Forth Bridge for example, completed in 1890 at a cost of £3 million (£1.3 billion in today's money), was built by four rail companies without parliamentary committees, political footballing, consultants, media campaigns or social impact assessments.

Nostalgia for Victorian values in construction has its limits; 63 workers died building the Forth Bridge. Nevertheless, as is clear from the delay surrounding major UK projects, from High Speed 2 (HS2), to the third Heathrow runway, to the Edinburgh trams to the Borders Railway, advances in the delivery of infrastructure are less obvious than progress in health and safety.

When it comes to big transport projects, political priorities are impeding the UK's ability to compete internationally and to shore up the country's shaky finances.

Consider HS2, the projected fast north-south rail link intended to "bring the UK's 19th-century railway infrastructure dramatically into the 21st century", and already a political football in what looks set to be a long, exhausting match.

At a cost of £50bn and with a timeframe of more than 20 years, a project of this scale requires cross-party support, and had it until last month, when shadow chancellor Ed Balls, realising that support for HS2 was receding, pricked the consensus by hinting that Labour might not back it.

And so a painstakingly constructed cross-party case for HS2's contribution to regional equity was swept aside by a politician with an eye on the headlines.

In Scotland, "exhibit A" in the case for taking the politics out of what should be economic decisions is the Borders Railway, where politics have trumped economics since conception. First proposed 10 years ago, construction of the Borders Railway started six months ago, and is proceeding successfully, according to Network Rail's project website. It has strong support in Midlothian and the Borders, which have missed out on big transport projects in the past.

But to critics like economist Tony Mackay it is "the next Scottish transport fiasco after the trams" and one that shames the civil servants he believes reverse-engineered the economic case to please the scheme's political sponsors.

To the former Tory MSP Brian Monteith, the Borders Railway is "Holyrood's greatest folly to date" and its carriages, at least in the southern, more rural portion of the 30-mile track, will be largely empty.

The pattern of the last 10 years has made it easy for critics to present a single-track, diesel railway serving a low-population area as a potential white elephant. Initially presented as a means of stimulating construction en route, the line has been repackaged around the political priorities of "accessibility and social inclusion".

Costs have spiralled from an initial £73m to £350m and years have been wasted in an attempt to find a new way of financing the route to lessen its impact on a Scottish budget already stretched by other ministerial promises. The completion date has receded from 2011 to 2015. Despite rumours to the contrary, this is a date that builder Network Rail is confident of meeting.

The underlying criticism of the Borders Railway is that it is a politically inspired construction of the previous Scottish Executive, reversing a notorious Beeching cut in a Liberal Democrat-voting territory.

Whatever the politics, the final business case (FBC) makes clear, implicitly and explicitly, this project has bust the boundaries of the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG), the technocratic methodology devised to prioritise transport schemes. Written by accountants and consultants Ernst & Young (E&Y), the business case document was completed last November but withheld for more than three months, a delay explained by the need "to ensure any information contained within a publicly available FBC does not prejudice substantially the commercial interests of Scottish ministers in a live contract environment".

The reasons for such lengthy consideration are not obvious. When Transport Scotland did publish, it simply redacted the entire commercial and financial case for the railway. The most significant claim in what is publicly available of the report is the admission that the benefit cost ratio (BCR) - the measurement of bang for the buck - had "significantly worsened" from the free-spending days. In economic terms, the project has a negative BCR of 0.5, which means every pound spent yields only 50p in return. The net present value of the project is negative £63.3m, which can be adjusted to negative £37.5m if "wider economic benefits are included".

According to Tony Mackay, E&Y's report contains "no explanation as to why Transport Scotland wish to proceed with a project with a negative net present value (NPV)".

It is unusual to proceed with a project that has a negative NPV and BCR. E&Y show that by including "accessibility and social inclusion benefits" it is possible to present the BCR as 1.3.

The careful language deployed to explain the use of these and other "wider economic benefits" to reach a positive figure suggests a degree of professional circumspection on the part E&Y.

"The economic benefits ... have been calculated through the use of a bespoke [specially constructed] model, which is based on standard rail industry modelling techniques and is in line with [Scottish guidelines]. The methodology for calculating these additional impacts is an emerging area of transport economics, and is generally accepted as being less certain than the calculation of standard benefits."

Professor Tom Rye, formerly of Napier University and now director of the Swedish National Public Transport Research Centre K2 in Lund, Sweden, coments: "You don't have to be a genius to see the business case for a line that goes to a place where not many people live doesn't stack up, and that the people who commissioned the E&Y report and still decided to invest in this project are being more than disingenuous. The responsibility rests squarely with the civil servants at Transport Scotland, not with E&Y.''

Transport Scotland's statements about the railway suggest the decision to build it was a political one back-filled with hope, assertion and downplayed risks.

The search for a justification for the Borders project has also entered the more exotic realms of what are called "option and non-use values", essentially the value of knowing the railway is there, even if you don't intend to travel on it yourself. This figure is valued at £130m. The agency has called in the aid of a calculation by the Department for Transport of "wider economic benefits", based on mind- bending equations of effective density, GDP per worker, and employment.

Says Transport Scotland: "These benefits are dominated by the monetised valuation of journey time benefits for existing and new journeys, but also comprise decongestion benefits through modal shift to rail. Environmental and safety benefits have also been estimated at an additional £2m and £5.8m respectively."

"Bull***t," claims John Carson, a former director of maintenance for Network Rail. He says: "Any 'modal shift' is included in the projected 647,000 passengers who won't be driving their cars, included in the dire original BCR, so you can't add an extra category that counts them again. Running diesel trains even Transport Scotland predicts will be virtually empty south of Gorebridge cannot be counted as positive in environmental terms."

It seems unlikely anyone will ever be held accountable for the politically helpful claim the Borders Railway can be weaned off public subsidy.

Among those who think projects like HS2 and the Borders Railway are a poor use of public funds are those who believe the only way to prevent the politically expedient over-optimism of transport projects is to threaten legal sanctions in the case of claims that turn out to be erroneous.

Such a harsh approach might seem more in line with the 19th century than the 21st century.

Nevertheless, the public might have confidence that big projects such as the Borders Railway or HS2 were going ahead because, like the Forth Bridge, they had satisfied rigorous business as well as social benefit criteria, independent of political whim, and could therefore go ahead as quickly and cost-effectively as possible.

 

[Altnabreac]

The stupid mistakes which kept costs down in the short term present but simply stored costs up for the future when the single track bridges will have to be addressed.
Your argument is utterly bizarre.
Nearly everyone who reads this thread and has followed the reopening of the line has observed the short sighted implementation of the single track bridges and knows exactly what I mean.

Wrong again. Many commenters have observed this single track and complained about it. This much is true.

However the single track section in Midlothian is actually a very sensible solution to a combination of the capital cost of new structures and Lothianbridge Viaduct not being easy to reinstate as double track. I'm certain that this section will remain single track.

Future investment in reliability and journey times on the line will hopefully happen. But this section is irrelevant. The improvements will likely be some combination of:

• Doubling the single lead junction at Portobello East
• Double track from Portobello to Newcraighall
• Resignalling of Newcraighall - Portobello section
• Second platform at Brunstane
• Second platform at Newcraighall
• Replacing 158s with 170s
• Doubling Calton North Tunnel
• Remodelling Waverley east approaches
• New station with central turnback siding for local services at Redheugh (between Newtongrange and Gorebridge)
• Service recast for 2tph Redheugh - Waverley and 2tph semi fast from Tweedbank calling, Galashiels, Stow, Gorebridge, Eskbank only
• Lengthening of the dynamic loop at Stow
• Electrification
• Extension of Brunstane, Newcraighall, Shawfair, Eskbank, Newtongrange, Gorebridge and Stow station platforms to 200m to take 8 x 23m trains.
• Extension to Hawick with new stations at "Melrose for BGH" (actually between Melrose and Darnick), Newtown St Boswells and Hawick (new site north of the Teviot).

That's your next 30 years of investment in Borders Rail with several step changes in quality, speed, reliability, capacity, service provision and ridership. None of them go anywhere near changing the single track section in Midlothian that so upsets you. But at the end of that programme of investment you'll have a fantastic line with 4tph electric service into Waverley and everyone will say "What a good job it was that they managed to keep the costs down on the original Borders Rail so that it was able to happen and prove how valuable a service it could be for the community".

 

[Pinza-C55]

Wrong again. Many commenters have observed this single track and complained about it. This much is true.

However the single track section in Midlothian is actually a very sensible solution to a combination of the capital cost of new structures and Lothianbridge Viaduct not being easy to reinstate as double track. I'm certain that this section will remain single track.

Future investment in reliability and journey times on the line will hopefully happen. But this section is irrelevant. The improvements will likely be some combination of:

• Doubling the single lead junction at Portobello East
• Double track from Portobello to Newcraighall
• Resignalling of Newcraighall - Portobello section
• Second platform at Brunstane
• Second platform at Newcraighall
• Replacing 158s with 170s
• Doubling Calton North Tunnel
• Remodelling Waverley east approaches
• New station with central turnback siding for local services at Redheugh (between Newtongrange and Gorebridge)
• Service recast for 2tph Redheugh - Waverley and 2tph semi fast from Tweedbank calling, Galashiels, Stow, Gorebridge, Eskbank only
• Lengthening of the dynamic loop at Stow
• Electrification
• Extension of Brunstane, Newcraighall, Shawfair, Eskbank, Newtongrange, Gorebridge and Stow station platforms to 200m to take 8 x 23m trains.
• Extension to Hawick with new stations at "Melrose for BGH" (actually between Melrose and Darnick), Newtown St Boswells and Hawick (new site north of the Teviot).

That's your next 30 years of investment in Borders Rail with several step changes in quality, speed, reliability, capacity, service provision and ridership. None of them go anywhere near changing the single track section in Midlothian that so upsets you. But at the end of that programme of investment you'll have a fantastic line with 4tph electric service into Waverley and everyone will say "What a good job it was that they managed to keep the costs down on the original Borders Rail so that it was able to happen and prove how valuable a service it could be for the community".

I didn't say the single track section "upsets me", I said that the single track bridges were short sighted which they very obviously are. You've extrapolated that to an entire article about possible future investment in the line which may or may not happen.
This is nothing to do with the subject of the thread which concerns a possible extension to the existing line.
In my opinion as a "non railway designer" they will do a study into the viability of reopening the rest of the line. If there is a case, including feasibility of replacing missing structures then they will see if they can get funding and if they can then it "may" be rebuilt.
I love railways and I also regard them as a serious transport medium and I really hope they do make a case for reopening the line.
I also hope the farmer is well compensated for loss of his buildings

 

[XDM]

Farmers are always very well compensated for land compulsorily purchased. The NFU, the farmers' "union" is a very powerful lobby group, but have you ever heard of them or any farmer complain in the media about all the acres taken for road building since the fifties or the small amount taken for rail? No, they are brilliantly compensated & a good omen for any Borders extension.

 

[Altnabreac]

I didn't say the single track section "upsets me", I said that the single track bridges were short sighted which they very obviously are. You've extrapolated that to an entire article about possible future investment in the line which may or may not happen.
This is nothing to do with the subject of the thread which concerns a possible extension to the existing line.
In my opinion as a "non railway designer" they will do a study into the viability of reopening the rest of the line. If there is a case, including feasibility of replacing missing structures then they will see if they can get funding and if they can then it "may" be rebuilt.
I love railways and I also regard them as a serious transport medium and I really hope they do make a case for reopening the line.
I also hope the farmer is well compensated for loss of his buildings

The point I am making is that it is only short sighted if there is any future requirement to double track the bridges. I have just demonstrated how you would upgrade and extend the line without the need to double the single track bridges. Ergo it was not short sighted.

 

[clc]

Does anyone know how many miles of additional double track could feasibly be added without having to replace any of the new bridges?

 

[BigCj34]

It seems that there would be a far better business case in terms of population served reopening the langholm to Carlisle route, and that is probably not going to be considered as part of the study.

The case for freight transport and diversionary routes from Hawick and Carlisle seems to be rather weak. Maybe if Scotrail ran the buses between Hawick and Carlisle (so the services appear on NR timetables), and used an intercity coach rather than a city bus, it could help put the place on the map than build an additional route that duplicates the A7 road.

 

[Pinza-C55]

The point I am making is that it is only short sighted if there is any future requirement to double track the bridges. I have just demonstrated how you would upgrade and extend the line without the need to double the single track bridges. Ergo it was not short sighted.

Are you a railway engineer ?

 

[HarleyDavidson]

No. And like many who say lines which have a low BCR or negligible business case, they object to any forward thinking or planning which may provide a valuable route for diversionary use when engineering work or mishap occurs.

Never mind the side issues of providing those who live in the towns & villages scattered along the route a valuable means of transport to/from either Edinburgh or Carlisle for either employment or leisure.

Anyone who listens to those myopic individuals would think that the money was coming out of their own personal bank account.

Reopening the whole line offers employment, leisure opportunities to everyone along the line and not everyone wants to go to Edinburgh and the lack of a rail route south stifles any chance of anyone going to Carlisle for any reason unless they want to get on the A7. It also means that transport is available to people who want to travel when the weather is poor and they don't have to go on the A7, they can travel in safety on a nice warm train.

 

[reddragon]

The point I am making is that it is only short sighted if there is any future requirement to double track the bridges. I have just demonstrated how you would upgrade and extend the line without the need to double the single track bridges. Ergo it was not short sighted.

It was very short sighted and double standards.

I can understand an expensive structure such as Harden Green being single track, but not all those other little bridges where the marginal extra cost of a longer span would have been worthwhile long term, the foundation costs are the same.

Double standards, because the A7 bridges were built to accommodate a motorway standard dual carriageway on what is a twisty single track road, just in case it becomes the A7M

 

[NotATrainspott]

No. And like many who say lines which have a low BCR or negligible business case, they object to any forward thinking or planning which may provide a valuable route for diversionary use when engineering work or mishap occurs.

Never mind the side issues of providing those who live in the towns & villages scattered along the route a valuable means of transport to/from either Edinburgh or Carlisle for either employment or leisure.

Anyone who listens to those myopic individuals would think that the money was coming out of their own personal bank account.

Reopening the whole line offers employment, leisure opportunities to everyone along the line and not everyone wants to go to Edinburgh and the lack of a rail route south stifles any chance of anyone going to Carlisle for any reason unless they want to get on the A7. It also means that transport is available to people who want to travel when the weather is poor and they don't have to go on the A7, they can travel in safety on a nice warm train.

With an infinite money pot, then sure. However, we don't have that infinite money supply. We have to carefully choose where we allocate our limited resources. The resources that could be used to reopen Hawick to Carlisle, or even Tweedbank to Hawick, could be used elsewhere and provide more of a benefit to the economy and mankind. What Transport Scotland are currently doing is working out what the best thing would be for transport in the Borders region, whether that be rail, road or other public transport improvements. The way that the announcement is worded suggests that the full reopening will never be suggested as the next step forward. Instead, they can focus on improvements which do actually benefit more people. Extending the dual carriageway down the A1 from Dunbar or making major improvements to the A68 (such as a Lauder bypass) seem like perfectly rational options. Alternatively, the money could be spent elsewhere in the country. Improvements aren't a zero-sum game where one place gains at the expense of others. Improving the A9 and A96 means enhancing the Scottish economy, which then in turn improves areas unaffected by the road improvements.

 

[Altfish]

It seems that there would be a far better business case in terms of population served reopening the langholm to Carlisle route, and that is probably not going to be considered as part of the study.

I thought there was talk of looking at the costs of diverting the old line to go through Langholm, instead of it being on a branch.

 

[snowball]

the A7 bridges were built to accommodate a motorway standard dual carriageway on what is a twisty single track road, just in case it becomes the A7M

Do you have any evidence for this assertion?

At Falahill they nearly put in a double kink in the A7 and two new roundabouts, so they could build a cheaper square bridge instead of a skew one.

The A7 is no longer even a trunk road north of Gala. The trunk route from Edinburgh into the borders is the A68.

Edit: you may be thinking of the bridge under the A720 Edinburgh City Bypass which allows for a flyover and slip roads to be built at the notorious Sheriffhall Roundabout - as is now going to happen.

https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/6394/public-exhibition-drawing-opt-b-media.pdf

https://www.transport.gov.scot/projects/a720-sheriffhall-roundabout/a720-sheriffhall-roundabout/

 

[BigCj34]

I thought there was talk of looking at the costs of diverting the old line to go through Langholm, instead of it being on a branch.

As far as I know it would be extremely forbidding in terms of cost to build a brand new line which cold involve boring new tunnels to add a town of over 2,000 on the line. Using existing trackbed is expensive enough for building a railway line, let alone a new route through hilly terrain.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

With an infinite money pot, then sure. However, we don't have that infinite money supply. We have to carefully choose where we allocate our limited resources. The resources that could be used to reopen Hawick to Carlisle, or even Tweedbank to Hawick, could be used elsewhere and provide more of a benefit to the economy and mankind. What Transport Scotland are currently doing is working out what the best thing would be for transport in the Borders region, whether that be rail, road or other public transport improvements. The way that the announcement is worded suggests that the full reopening will never be suggested as the next step forward. Instead, they can focus on improvements which do actually benefit more people. Extending the dual carriageway down the A1 from Dunbar or making major improvements to the A68 (such as a Lauder bypass) seem like perfectly rational options. Alternatively, the money could be spent elsewhere in the country. Improvements aren't a zero-sum game where one place gains at the expense of others. Improving the A9 and A96 means enhancing the Scottish economy, which then in turn improves areas unaffected by the road improvements.

So are you suggesting that rather than "bite the bullet" and get on with it we do things piecemeal?

That TBQH is ridiculous and extremely short termist, which doesn't surprise me in the slightest as this country never plans anything for the long term, especially if it doesn't involved London, Birmingham, Manchester or Sheffield (route of the big white elephant called HS2). Doing thing's piecemeal only does one thing and that's increases the overall cost exponentially.

It's time to start thinking more out of the box and more for the long term and for the future, not just for the short or medium term. We should be thinking ahead for when the fossil fuels start to run out and it leaves not my generation, but the next generation's with the thorny issue of finding alternatives to fossil fuels that currently power cars, coaches & lorries.

Opening this is a start in thinking out of the box, whilst it may not represent VFM in the current line of thinking, it most certainly will help the construction industries for a good few years, as it will the maintenance & signalling gangs too. As I've said it also opens the door for the younger generations to be less carcentric and be more public transport orientated to travel to/from work which maybe in either Edinburgh or Carlisle or any town in between and if it helps keep the next generations within their own towns & villages it can only be a good thing.

 

[railjock]

Wrong again. Many commenters have observed this single track and complained about it. This much is true.

However the single track section in Midlothian is actually a very sensible solution to a combination of the capital cost of new structures and Lothianbridge Viaduct not being easy to reinstate as double track. I'm certain that this section will remain single track.

Future investment in reliability and journey times on the line will hopefully happen. But this section is irrelevant. The improvements will likely be some combination of:

• Doubling the single lead junction at Portobello East
• Double track from Portobello to Newcraighall
• Resignalling of Newcraighall - Portobello section
• Second platform at Brunstane
• Second platform at Newcraighall
• Replacing 158s with 170s
• Doubling Calton North Tunnel
• Remodelling Waverley east approaches
• New station with central turnback siding for local services at Redheugh (between Newtongrange and Gorebridge)
• Service recast for 2tph Redheugh - Waverley and 2tph semi fast from Tweedbank calling, Galashiels, Stow, Gorebridge, Eskbank only
• Lengthening of the dynamic loop at Stow
• Electrification
• Extension of Brunstane, Newcraighall, Shawfair, Eskbank, Newtongrange, Gorebridge and Stow station platforms to 200m to take 8 x 23m trains.
• Extension to Hawick with new stations at "Melrose for BGH" (actually between Melrose and Darnick), Newtown St Boswells and Hawick (new site north of the Teviot).

That's your next 30 years of investment in Borders Rail with several step changes in quality, speed, reliability, capacity, service provision and ridership. None of them go anywhere near changing the single track section in Midlothian that so upsets you. But at the end of that programme of investment you'll have a fantastic line with 4tph electric service into Waverley and everyone will say "What a good job it was that they managed to keep the costs down on the original Borders Rail so that it was able to happen and prove how valuable a service it could be for the community".

Why woudn't the turnback happen at Gorebridge?

 

[Bald Rick]

I think we need a dose of realism.

As I understand it, the project was a whisker away from not happening when the final estimates were compiled, as it was much more expensive than anticipated. As someone who has (and still does) build railways, the extra cost of a wider bridge is more often than not another couple of hundred tonnes of concrete. Often it means more land, additional highway and utility works, additional environmental mitigation. Had the railway been built with double track bridges etc. it would easily have added tens of millions, perhaps a hundred million, to the cost. That would definitely have killed it.

Further reality, which maybe uncomfortable for some readers. If easily offended by economic reality, please look at another thread.

The line had an appalling business case before it was built, and still does since it has been built. It will not pass any post implementation evaluation of benefits realisation. Scotland as a whole (and by extension the UK) is worse off than it could have been without the Borders Railway as a result. This is because the £400m+ could have been better spent elsewhere to realise greater benefits.

There are literally hundreds of railway projects across the country, many in Scotland, that have better (much better) business cases when assessed using the same methodology as Borders, but are not happening because there is no money. That sort of money could have transformed the entire West Yorkshire rail network for a couple of million people, or Bristol and Avon's, or a number of other places. And that's before we come to non-railway projects, or non transport projects. That sort of cash could build a new super-hospital that would transform the healthcare provision for an entire region, whilst significantly reducing the cost of that provision.

Clearly the Borders railway has been good for the communities along the line of route. The same could be said for almost any community that gets new infrastructure. However that doesn't make it right, if the decision to proceed prevented other, better projects from happening.