Study to consider Borders Railway extension

[Altnabreac]

Why woudn't the turnback happen at Gorebridge?

Because of short sighted single tracking in the station

In all seriousness it could be Gorebridge but its single track there so you wouldn't want to reverse in the platform. South of the station you get straight into the climb to Falahill and it would be hard to find the flat section needed for a reversing siding.

Redheugh by contrast is a flat area, plenty room for a 3 platform station and a desired location for a new station to serve proposed housing development anyway.

 

[HSTEd]

£400m would be a large fraction of a tram network for a city without one

 

[Railsigns]

In all seriousness it could be Gorebridge but its single track there so you wouldn't want to reverse in the platform.

There is currently a signal at Gorebridge that was provided specifically to allow trains to turn back towards Edinburgh from the station platform on the single line.

 

[Altnabreac]

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.

Big bold solutions that bite the bullet make sense if they serve a useful social purpose.

But how many people live in Scottish Borders and work in Carlisle? Usefully the 2011 census asks this question and the answer is: 133. But maybe the trains will be busy attracting modal shift from the 31 people who commute the other way.

Applying a very optimistic 20% modal to rail and we are talking £500m to create a railway with 30 daily users. That way madness lies.

For comparison the equivalent census TTWA figure Scottish Borders to Edinburgh is 4,111 and another 1,090 Scottish Borders to Midlothian.

 

[Altnabreac]

There is currently a signal at Gorebridge that was provided specifically to allow trains to turn back towards Edinburgh from the station platform on the single line.

Yes but I wouldn't fancy running a reliable 4tph service reversing 2tph out of the platform there.

 

[Altnabreac]

Are you a railway engineer ?

No. But I have been professionally involved in several Scottish rail schemes on the business case side of things so have some understanding of how they work.

Borders is not one I have had any professional involvement in so I am not defending any of my decisions. It just annoys me when people make sweeping statements about things like this without actually thinking through the implications of some of their dafter suggestions.

 

[Pinza-C55]

No. But I have been professionally involved in several Scottish rail schemes on the business case side of things so have some understanding of how they work.

Borders is not one I have had any professional involvement in so I am not defending any of my decisions. It just annoys me when people make sweeping statements about things like this without actually thinking through the implications of some of their dafter suggestions.

I haven't made any daft suggestions as far as I am aware. I have said that if they do a study into an extension of the line and find there is a case for it, I hope they look to the future and don't repeat the mistake of including single track structures on a double track formation since I regard this as a false economy.
I don't regard a list of missing structures or farm buildings on the disused formation as a serious impediment to possible reopening.
I recognise that I am not a railway engineer, simply a guy on the internet with an opinion.
I know that sometimes railway engineers have to do things decided by politicians or local authorities which aren't sensible.
Most importantly I try to think of ways in which things can be achieved rather than problems.

 

[HSTEd]

With modern, relatively high performance, multiple units - is a single track railway with dynamic or other loops really that much worse than a double track?

Certainly it becomes feasible to maintain multiple trains per hour over a single track line.

 

[Chester1]

With modern, relatively high performance, multiple units - is a single track railway with dynamic or other loops really that much worse than a double track?

Certainly it becomes feasible to maintain multiple trains per hour over a single track line.

I think your talking too much sense! It was once double track so it should be again!

It probably needs an extra couple of miles of double track but thats it. Am I correct in thinking the platforms can fit 6x23m units and space was left to extend to 9x23m? I can't see Tweedbank ever needing more than 2tph especially with longer trains.

 

[The Ham]

With modern, relatively high performance, multiple units - is a single track railway with dynamic or other loops really that much worse than a double track?

Certainly it becomes feasible to maintain multiple trains per hour over a single track line.

Following on from this, it could well be that not all the bridges would need to have passive provision to allow double track to be provided (which keeps most of the cost savings of building it as she track) if these bridges were at strategic locations it could provide a reasonable length of double track to be provided at a later date to allow trains to be a few minutes late and bit impact (or at least not significantly) trains heading in the other direction.

Of course it could well be that this has already been considered and the is no or limited benefit of providing passive provision under bridges.

There are a lot of single track railways which connect with very busy mainlines (WofE line and the line to Alton as few examples) which potentially carry more people where there could be a good case for more redoubling but for the vast majority of the time the trains run on time and so they stay as they are.

 

[DarloRich]

No. But I have been professionally involved in several Scottish rail schemes on the business case side of things so have some understanding of how they work.

Borders is not one I have had any professional involvement in so I am not defending any of my decisions. It just annoys me when people make sweeping statements about things like this without actually thinking through the implications of some of their dafter suggestions.

welcome to my world!

I haven't made any daft suggestions as far as I am aware. I have said that if they do a study into an extension of the line and find there is a case for it, I hope they look to the future and don't repeat the mistake of including single track structures on a double track formation since I regard this as a false economy.

it may well be - however it is often not possible to secure funding for everything. Sometimes the business case will only work by cutting to the minimum. What happens if you are in the position of 1 track or no track?

I don't regard a list of missing structures or farm buildings on the disused formation as a serious impediment to possible reopening.

And they shouldn't be but replacing them costs money and needs more design work. it all goes into the against column. The missing bridges are more of a problem than farm buildings but everything costs. If the against column becomes to long the investment can not be justified.

I recognise that I am not a railway engineer, simply a guy on the internet with an opinion.
I know that sometimes railway engineers have to do things decided by politicians or local authorities which aren't sensible.
Most importantly I try to think of ways in which things can be achieved rather than problems.

And without wishing to be rude that is the difference between those involved in trying to get these things funded and those on the outside living in a perfect, rather than realistic, world.

 

[Altnabreac]

I think your talking too much sense! It was once double track so it should be again!

It probably needs an extra couple of miles of double track but thats it. Am I correct in thinking the platforms can fit 6x23m units and space was left to extend to 9x23m? I can't see Tweedbank ever needing more than 2tph especially with longer trains.

All stations take 6 x 23m. Tweedbank and Gala take 9 x 23m

A bit more double track at Stow would be good for flexibility. But even with Hawick extension there will never be a need for more than 2tph south of Gorebridge.

 

[ItsGrimUpNorth]

Just a personal opinion, but surely an extension would be better served taking a route which serves the main populations instead of the old route?

Tweedbank-Selkirk-Hawick-Carlisle is surely more people served than going to Melrose? I'm not familiar with how the land lies in terms of suitability for those possible route, but surely Selkirk with a population of nearly 6k would be better served than Melrose with under 2k?

 

[Photohunter71]

The whole thing should have been double track from the start, and used for freight as well. I know I keep going on about putting freight on rail, but I am a firm believer in it.

 

[DarloRich]

The whole thing should have been double track from the start, and used for freight as well. I know I keep going on about putting freight on rail, but I am a firm believer in it.

and could you point me in the direction of the magic money tree that I can harvest to pay for all of this......................


PS - what freight?

 

[Pinza-C55]

and could you point me in the direction of the magic money tree that I can harvest to pay for all of this......................


PS - what freight?

It's called the British taxpayer. The same ones who are almost certainly going to end up footing the bill for HS2.

 

[MarkyT]

Just a personal opinion, but surely an extension would be better served taking a route which serves the main populations instead of the old route?

Tweedbank-Selkirk-Hawick-Carlisle is surely more people served than going to Melrose? I'm not familiar with how the land lies in terms of suitability for those possible route, but surely Selkirk with a population of nearly 6k would be better served than Melrose with under 2k?

There was a Selkirk branch from Galashiels. The terminus was in the valley bottom, an industrial area, while the town centre and most housing is on the hill above. Much of the old branch alignment has been blocked by road development and terrain for a new route climbing out of the valley from Selkirk and following the A7 to Hawick would be very difficult for rail. For Selkirk a short bus connection to Galashiels or parking at Tweedbank is much more practical.

 

[DarloRich]

It's called the British taxpayer. The same ones who are almost certainly going to end up footing the bill for HS2.

therefore may I point you in the direction of the "The Green Book" and the "5 case model"? I am sure you have read them.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-governent

 

[Altnabreac]

Just a personal opinion, but surely an extension would be better served taking a route which serves the main populations instead of the old route?

Tweedbank-Selkirk-Hawick-Carlisle is surely more people served than going to Melrose? I'm not familiar with how the land lies in terms of suitability for those possible route, but surely Selkirk with a population of nearly 6k would be better served than Melrose with under 2k?

Apart from the practical difficulties of a route from Selkirk to Hawick (steep hills, new alignment, demolition and tunnelling required), a reopening on the previous alignment can serve the local hospital (BGH near Melrose) and the Council headquarters (Newtown St Boswells). These are decent trip generators for both commuting and visitors.

Overall a Selkirk - Hawick route is definitely not viable, whereas a Melrose - Hawick route may be (though likely a weak business case).

 

[A0wen]

The whole thing should have been double track from the start, and used for freight as well. I know I keep going on about putting freight on rail, but I am a firm believer in it.

The thing is though, the only economically viable freight on the railways is bulk freight - being shipped from one hub to another.

At present the Borders railway has no access to either - even if it were extended to Carlisle it still wouldn't because such flows are DIRFT (Daventry) to Mossend. The only *possible* freight the Borders railway could pick up would be the timber / logging which is currently on the road network up there, but I very much doubt that has anything like the volume to make it worthwhile.

 

[tbtc]

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

Some people on this Forum just cannot handle any compromise - thanks for the sober/realistic look at the infrastructure improvements.

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

Railways are a serious transport medium in densely populated areas where significant flows exist between certain "nodes".

Sadly, that often means building relatively boring lines to connect less glamorous places, far away from tourist routes - e.g. Renfrew, Methil, Abronhill - rather than the fascination that many on this Forum have with scenic rural routes through the empty countryside of the Highlands/ Borders/ Galloway/ Cumbria/ Peak District/ South Downs/ Devon/ Cornwall etc.

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

Even you can accept that the population scattered through villages doesn't have the kind of density suitable for heavy rail? Especially when there are some much larger conurbations that lack any heavy rail (before we start to worry about places with only a couple of thousand people).

And we really don't have the luxury of being able to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on "just in case" lines that might be handy on a couple of weekends a year for engineering diversions.

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)

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

So HS2 (serving most of the biggest conurbations in the country) is a "white elephant" (and doesn't help construction industries?), but you are a blue sky visionary who wants to build lines through quieter areas regardless of any value for money?

Why is HS2 a "white elephant", but building a line because it'd be handy a couple of weekends is thinking out of the box?

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.

Best post on the thread.

Big bold solutions that bite the bullet make sense if they serve a useful social purpose.

But how many people live in Scottish Borders and work in Carlisle? Usefully the 2011 census asks this question and the answer is: 133. But maybe the trains will be busy attracting modal shift from the 31 people who commute the other way.

Applying a very optimistic 20% modal to rail and we are talking £500m to create a railway with 30 daily users. That way madness lies.

For comparison the equivalent census TTWA figure Scottish Borders to Edinburgh is 4,111 and another 1,090 Scottish Borders to Midlothian.

Most importantly I try to think of ways in which things can be achieved rather than problems

I've said this before but we should really have a sub-forum where people can get their crayons out and suggest wishlists without having to worry about some of the practicalities that those with Industry experience have to deal with.

The whole thing should have been double track from the start, and used for freight as well. I know I keep going on about putting freight on rail, but I am a firm believer in it.

Freight?

What freight? (assuming that you aren't just talking about diverting existing Beattock services away from the WCML and squeezing them through Edinburgh's tightly packed lines)

 

[47271]

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=59833

Just about every argument in favour of extending beyond Hawick was done to death 20 times over in the thread above.

Or for those who want a change of scenery, read all of the same unrealistic arguments made in favour of the restoration of the Dumfries-Stranraer route.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=133304

Enjoy, and save yourself the bother of posting again, it's all been said before [emoji38]

 

[Pinza-C55]

therefore may I point you in the direction of the "The Green Book" and the "5 case model"? I am sure you have read them.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-governent

Do you disagree that the British taxpayer is the source of money and that we effectively can't say no ?

 

[Bald Rick]

Do you disagree that the British taxpayer is the source of money and that we effectively can't say no ?

The government represents the British Taxpayer in these matters, can very definitely say no, and regularly does.

 

[DarloRich]

Do you disagree that the British taxpayer is the source of money and that we effectively can't say no ?

The government represents the British Taxpayer in these matters, can very definitely say no, and regularly does.

Exactly!

We as individuals cant say no to any government spending. The government, furnished with our tax money, can (and will) say no if the investment is not the best use of public money.

Some further reading: http://www.civilservant.org.uk/library/2015_Managing_Public_Money.pdf

 

[Photohunter71]

We are extremely rich, we do fund a lot of projects on this planet, so a doubling up of the Borders rail line should be a mere drop in the ocean.

 

[DarloRich]

We are extremely rich, we do fund a lot of projects on this planet, so a doubling up of the Borders rail line should be a mere drop in the ocean.

that kind of statement shows absolutely no understanding of how capital projects are justified and funded. The ideal world and the real world rarely conjoin.

 

[Photohunter71]

May not exactly have a firm grasp of planning side, but it's simply put either a lack of will or ability as are most things in this country.

 

[quantinghome]

May not exactly have a firm grasp of planning side, but it's simply put either a lack of will or ability as are most things in this country.

Clearly projects require some political will for them to happen. HS1 and Crossrail wouldn't have happened without it.

You don't seem to understand the concept of limited resources. The problem is it's not just your pet project that would go ahead if we were to approve projects by your reckoning. Pretty much every project thought of in the country would be given the go ahead: Plymouth-Okehampton-Exeter, Aberystwyth-Carmarthen, Harrogate-Ripon, etc etc etc. You would end up deciding to build 1000s of miles of railway to serve relative minor flows. Whilst an individual project may not be that expensive, the total sum of all the rail projects in the country that enthusiasts are talking about would be truly vast. They would completely swamp the technical resources we have available to deliver them, and would have to be prioritised somehow. The only rational way of doing so would be some sort of value for money exercise, in which case you end up right where we started.

 

[DarloRich]

May not exactly have a firm grasp of planning side, but it's simply put either a lack of will or ability as are most things in this country.

that simply isnt true.