Study to consider Borders Railway extension

[edwin_m]

https://www.thesouthernreporter.co....on-bid-blow-need-not-be-end-of-road-1-4699150

Feared Borders Railway extension bid blow need not be end of road

Does the UK government have any standing in this, other than the short section south of the border? Looks like another case of apparently supporting an improbable re-opening to distract attention from other aspects of their transport policy - in this case one they probably wouldn't even have to pay for...

 

[Altnabreac]

Does the UK government have any standing in this, other than the short section south of the border? Looks like another case of apparently supporting an improbable re-opening to distract attention from other aspects of their transport policy - in this case one they probably wouldn't even have to pay for...

Technically any cross border rail lines are outwith the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament so assuming a decision was made to reopen south of Hawick (very unlikely obviously) then at least the section south of the final station in Scotland would need to be promoted by UK ministers either via a TAW order or a hybrid bill.

I’ve never managed to get a straight answer from a constitutional lawyer about the status of a line promoted as part of a cross border scheme but which is wholly within Scotland - Hawick to Newcastleton or in the context of High Speed Rail Carstairs to Lockerbie. Would such a line come under Scottish or UK jurisdiction? I suspect it would need both a UK bill and a Sewel motion (LCM) at Holyrood.

Then the issue of funding is obviously a separate but related issue. At present this is all about political noise rather than transport reality anyway but there are some interesting constitutional questions in there too.

 

[snowball]

Checking the map I see that, owing to the shape of the border, the section in England would not be particularly short - about 13 or 14 miles from Mossband Junction with the WCML (a couple of miles south of Gretna Junction) to the border crossing at Kershopefoot.

 

[oldman]

What Leadsom said was:

... I can say to him that the UK Government are committed to working with the Scottish Government to drive forward the cross-border borderlands deal, and we hope to agree a deal later this year which will see significant investment to transform the local economies in the borderlands area. Funding for a study into reopening the line he mentions is being sought as part of this proposition.

So we have the Scottish government's study looking at it from the Borders point of view and then both governments perhaps going to look at it from a borderlands point of view. I suppose it provides some straws for folk to clutch at. Perhaps they could run a borderlands metro from Carlisle to Langholm.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The railway from Edinburgh was justified because the congested road network in Edinburgh and Midlothian was a barrier to people commuting in from the Borders. As far as I can tell, that's not true the other way for Carlisle. Upgrading the roads south of Galashiels would probably have a much better business case and benefit a lot more people than any railway scheme ever could.

 

[tomatwark]

If it was to be rebuilt to at least Hawick.

Would it be opened in stages, or in one go?

 

[muddythefish]

The railway from Edinburgh was justified because the congested road network in Edinburgh and Midlothian was a barrier to people commuting in from the Borders. As far as I can tell, that's not true the other way for Carlisle. Upgrading the roads south of Galashiels would probably have a much better business case and benefit a lot more people than any railway scheme ever could.

You sometimes wonder if the Highways Agency posts on this messageboard

 

[Altnabreac]

You sometimes wonder if the Highways Agency posts on this messageboard

Well given that the A7 is managed by Transport Scotland north of the border and Cumbria County Council south of it I'm not sure the Highways Agency will be worried either way.

 

[najaB]

You sometimes wonder if the Highways Agency posts on this messageboard

Being pro-rail doesn't mean you are anti-road.

 

[Bald Rick]

The railway from Edinburgh was justified because the congested road network in Edinburgh and Midlothian was a barrier to people commuting in from the Borders. As far as I can tell, that's not true the other way for Carlisle. Upgrading the roads south of Galashiels would probably have a much better business case and benefit a lot more people than any railway scheme ever could.

Not so. It was justified by the Scottish Government to demonstrate that it had independence from Westminster on such matters. Sure, decongestion was a benefit*, as were lots of other factors, but the business case was a basket of the highest order.

*I'd be interested to hear how much effect the Borders line has had in reducing congestion on the southern approaches to Edinburgh.

 

[clc]

Does anyone know when Transport Scotland will announce/confirm CP6 projects?

I thought it was going to be a steady drip of projects rather than the announcements per CP?

Transport Scotland is to publish it’s Rail Enhancements and Capital Investment Strategy in the coming weeks.

 

[muddythefish]

Being pro-rail doesn't mean you are anti-road.

Some folk though adopt the default DfT position on investment - that road is always "better value" than rail. I'm not anti-road but I would like the pro-road investment imbalance of the past 60 years to be corrected. The billions spent on the A9 compared to the Highland mainline is a case in point.

 

[najaB]

The billions spent on the A9 compared to the Highland mainline is a case in point.

The money spent on the A9 is, generally speaking, a good value investment. That doesn't negate the fact that the HML needs investment as well.

 

[InOban]

No it isn't. The justification - the accident rate - was eliminated by the installation of average speed cameras. It needed improvements to the key junctions, that's all.

 

[Highland37]

I don't think you will find much support for that view. The A9 needs dualed, as does the Highland Main Line .

 

[snowball]

The money spent on the A9 is, generally speaking, a good value investment.

They had to fiddle the figures to make it appear justified.

 

[Altnabreac]

Not so. It was justified by the Scottish Government to demonstrate that it had independence from Westminster on such matters. Sure, decongestion was a benefit*, as were lots of other factors, but the business case was a basket of the highest order.

*I'd be interested to hear how much effect the Borders line has had in reducing congestion on the southern approaches to Edinburgh.

It was slightly more complicated than that. It was part of the Labour - Lib Dem coalition deal to form an Administration in 2003 that a Bill would be taken forward to develop a Borders Rail line. At the time both Labour and Conservatives were lukewarm on the idea (many local Tories hostile to it). SNP didn’t have much presence in the Borders and didn’t seem to feel strongly either way.

The Bill process took most of the four years of that administration and the finalised scheme was thus inherited by the minority SNP Executive in 2007. Along the way the local SNP MSP Christine Grahame had become an enthusiastic advocate of the scheme.

While the SNP Executive were quick to drop EARL and GARL they recognised that Borders Rail was politically popular, relatively low cost and difficult to abandon, especially in light of trying to get Green and/or Lib Dem votes for budget bills. So the scheme dragged on through the various funding model changes but it was always kept alive because it had strong political backers in various parties rather than as a strong transport case.

If extension to Hawick happens it will again be as a political priority rather than a pure transport case. Interestingly the Tories are now enthusiastic supporters as well.

 

[Highland37]

Which is pretty much the right reason to proceed with it. Railways lose/cost astronomical amounts of money. The economic benefits are from the activity the railway supports and allows to take place.

 

[Altnabreac]

Which is pretty much the right reason to proceed with it. Railways lose/cost astronomical amounts of money. The economic benefits are from the activity the railway supports and allows to take place.

I'd broadly agree. Where I begin to take issue with some romantic enthusiasts of the "Reopen Hawick to Carlisle" type is when you begin proposing schemes that have very little economic benefit for purely nostalgic / political point scoring reasons.

in that situation the sort of money it would cost could be spent much better on alternative rail schemes in other parts of Scotland if looking at it from a rail point of view or alternative local road schemes if looking at it from a purely local political point of view. At no point will Hawick - Carlisle ever be a sensible use of anyone's money.

 

[PaulLothian]

Does the UK government have any standing in this, other than the short section south of the border? Looks like another case of apparently supporting an improbable re-opening to distract attention from other aspects of their transport policy - in this case one they probably wouldn't even have to pay for...

And supporting in the meantime a cause dear to the hearts of Conservative voters in the Scottish borders, even if Westminster had no real intention of doing anything, is electorally cunning!

 

[EIKN]

If it goes to Hawick then that in theory is an incentive for a future extension.
Also i would hope that they build a ' proper station in hawick '.
One staffed and with facilities .
In theory the use of the cascaded HST Could be justified too . how about a twice daily London and Manchester Direct ( more passing loops and electrification is a must ).
Ultimatley it will be well used .
And in time will probably reach Carlisle if only for for Freight with stations at Langholm and Longtown.

 

[JohnR]

If it goes to Hawick then that in theory is an incentive for a future extension.
Also i would hope that they build a ' proper station in hawick '.
One staffed and with facilities .
In theory the use of the cascaded HST Could be justified too . how about a twice daily London and Manchester Direct ( more passing loops and electrification is a must ).
Ultimatley it will be well used .
And in time will probably reach Carlisle if only for for Freight with stations at Langholm and Longtown.

Hawick is a borderline case (!) - which rests mainly on connectivity to the town. I agree that a "proper" station should be built, with freight facilities as well. I'm not sure who you think will use the line south of Hawick, most of the settlements are small, even by Scottish standards, and stations here will serve just a few hundred people each. From Gala north it will be quicker to get to London via Edinburgh than via Carlisle.

And the freight - mostly timber - in the borders which rail could serve doesnt need a through line via Hawick and Gala - but a long siding from Carlisle would suffice.

 

[Altnabreac]

If it goes to Hawick then that in theory is an incentive for a future extension.
Also i would hope that they build a ' proper station in hawick '.
One staffed and with facilities .
In theory the use of the cascaded HST Could be justified too . how about a twice daily London and Manchester Direct ( more passing loops and electrification is a must ).
Ultimatley it will be well used .
And in time will probably reach Carlisle if only for for Freight with stations at Langholm and Longtown.

• If any station is going to justify staffing it won't be Hawick.
• Timescales are such that it is extremely unlikely any extension to Hawick would be open much before 2030 which is likely to be when HSTs are coming to the end of their extended life.
• Extended services to London / Manchester are a non starter that would decrease reliability and be financial basket cases. Never going to happen.
• What is the mystical freight at Langholm that would be justifying a £800m new line? (Don't say timber, all the trees in Kielder won't justify the new line).
• How would an extension to Carlisle go via Langholm when the old line didn't? Presumably you are proposing a diversion on new alignment would be even more expensive and this would generate a business case because Langholm (population 2500) would have a huge demand for travel to Carlisle and Hawick?

 

[Highland37]

Fully agree with Altnabreac on this one.

 

[JohnR]

Bear in mind a fair chunk of money will have to be spent on the existing line to allow it to accommodate any extra trains with reliability.

Essentially there are three discrete projects here:

A) Enhancements to the existing line - extending dynamic loops, work at Portobello Junction etc. (Difficult to estimate, but say £100m-£200m)
B) Extension to Hawick - fairly straightforward, but may need aspects of A) above to be completed. (Estimate £170m-£270m)
C) Extension from Hawick to Carlisle. Will need A) to be fully completed along with B). (Estimate £450m-£720m)

So for the full line, we could be talking of a bill of £1.2billion - with most of that cost falling on the section from Hawick - Carlisle. I think thats unsustainable - especially when you consider the other public transport projects that would benefit many more people in the borders, eg Penicuik (£60m-£100m), Four tracking at Drem to provide regular services to Berwick (£200m).

 

[railjock]

Bear in mind a fair chunk of money will have to be spent on the existing line to allow it to accommodate any extra trains with reliability.

Essentially there are three discrete projects here:

A) Enhancements to the existing line - extending dynamic loops, work at Portobello Junction etc. (Difficult to estimate, but say £100m-£200m)
B) Extension to Hawick - fairly straightforward, but may need aspects of A) above to be completed. (Estimate £170m-£270m)
C) Extension from Hawick to Carlisle. Will need A) to be fully completed along with B). (Estimate £450m-£720m)

So for the full line, we could be talking of a bill of £1.2billion - with most of that cost falling on the section from Hawick - Carlisle. I think thats unsustainable - especially when you consider the other public transport projects that would benefit many more people in the borders, eg Penicuik (£60m-£100m), Four tracking at Drem to provide regular services to Berwick (£200m).

I don’t think any work would be required on the existing line if you stuck with the current half hourly service?

 

[snowball]

Essentially there are three discrete projects here:

B) Extension to Hawick - fairly straightforward, but may need aspects of A) above to be completed. (Estimate £170m-£270m)

B involves quite a lot of work as this old post by Altnabreac shows:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-railway-extension.145163/page-4#post-2968524

How old is that estimate of £170M-£270M?

 

[muddythefish]

I don't think you will find much support for that view. The A9 needs dualed, as does the Highland Main Line .

The difference is the Highland mainline won't get the investment it needs - so road by default wins again.

 

[Altnabreac]

I don’t think any work would be required on the existing line if you stuck with the current half hourly service?

Yes and No.

You can obviously extend the existing half hourly service but assuming the Hawick extension would not be fully double track, adding a further opportunity for single track clashes, 3-5 stations and the current political pressure on skip stopping and part cancellations you'd probably want to increase reliability on the existing line if you were extending it further.

To be honest I'm not sure that extending the dynamic loops will be that helpful, I'd certainly concentrate any spend on the eastern approaches at Waverley, redoubling Calton North Tunnel, 4 tracks through Abbeyhill, double lead at Portobello junction and a full double track alignment from Portobello to Shawfair with new platforms at Brunstane and Newcraighall.

Then you might want to speed up the Borders services to improve Hawick - Edinburgh journey times. A 2tph stopping service to a new 3 platform station at Redheugh would be my preferred way of achieving this.

You'd then have a 2tph semi fast calling at:
Hawick, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose East / BGH, Tweedbank, Galashiels, Stow, Gorebridge, Eskbank, Newcraighall
and a 2tph stopper calling at:
Redheugh, Newtongrange, Eskbank, Shawfair, Newcraighall, Brunstane, Abbeyhill

That gives you a 4tph service at the two most prominent stations Eskbank and Newcraighall while also improving reliability and journey times.

 

[fegguk]

Yes and No.

You can obviously extend the existing half hourly service but assuming the Hawick extension would not be fully double track, adding a further opportunity for single track clashes, 3-5 stations and the current political pressure on skip stopping and part cancellations you'd probably want to increase reliability on the existing line if you were extending it further.

To be honest I'm not sure that extending the dynamic loops will be that helpful, I'd certainly concentrate any spend on the eastern approaches at Waverley, redoubling Calton North Tunnel, 4 tracks through Abbeyhill, double lead at Portobello junction and a full double track alignment from Portobello to Shawfair with new platforms at Brunstane and Newcraighall.

Then you might want to speed up the Borders services to improve Hawick - Edinburgh journey times. A 2tph stopping service to a new 3 platform station at Redheugh would be my preferred way of achieving this.

You'd then have a 2tph semi fast calling at:
Hawick, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose East / BGH, Tweedbank, Galashiels, Stow, Gorebridge, Eskbank, Newcraighall
and a 2tph stopper calling at:
Redheugh, Newtongrange, Eskbank, Shawfair, Newcraighall, Brunstane, Abbeyhill

That gives you a 4tph service at the two most prominent stations Eskbank and Newcraighall while also improving reliability and journey times.

Electrification to give faster acceleration might be an alternative to adding the extra infrastructure for separate inner and outer service. It will all depend on the relative costs and how the time saved by each alternative is valued compared to the option of simply extending the existing service with all stations stopping trains.

One of engineers involved in the construction suggested electrification as abetter alternative to longer loops. You don't get that much more additional passing time by adding proportionately a mile or do to each loop when they are covering that distance in a minute. I am not sure if short non dynamic loops in between the existing ones would be of much value in dealing with delays.