£300M for the Borders Railway? Value for money or better spent elsewhere?

[Haydn1971]

Let's just clarify something here, it's not the £300m that is important, it's what benefits to the local economy that £300m brings.

 

[Starmill]

I was actually taking a more holistic view of the UK's railways, rather than focussing on the fact that the money for this project came basically all from Scotland itself.

This project going ahead is a sad reflection of the fact that the Scotland prioritises rail access at a level well above the UK as (Horden/Peterlee, anyone?).

Unfortunately the funding structure does not allocate it to the most sensible areas.

 

[Altnabreac]

I was actually taking a more holistic view of the UK's railways, rather than focussing on the fact that the money for this project came basically all from Scotland itself.

This project going ahead is a sad reflection of the fact that the Scotland prioritises rail access at a level well above the UK as (Horden/Peterlee, anyone?).

Unfortunately the funding structure does not allocate it to the most sensible areas.

On one level that is a fair point but on another it's entirely pointless as neither Westminster nor Holyrood has a fixed budget for rail.

So the only relevant comparison is what else could the Scottish Government have chosen to spend this on (rail or otherwise).

Any money not spent on Borders Rail could never become available for rail spending south of the Border so not building it would not free up any money for rail elsewhere.

Differing levels of priority to rail investment by different governments mean you cannot compare schemes across jurisdictions.

 

[route:oxford]

If I had £300M to spend.

I'd be building a line out to Witney, Carterton and beyond and rolling in the fares as people avoid the hell that is the A40 and the current 2+ hour journey from Witney to Oxford by car.

 

[Aldaniti]

It's peanuts in comparison to the money we waste. At least people will get some value and pleasure from this rail line, and it might well just bring wider economic benefits that nobody is aware of yet. I wholeheartedly support the spending of every penny.

 

[yorksrob]

I suppose you could argue that new extensions to the network are value for money but the counter would be there is no resources available to fund such extensions when we are having to throw a huge amount at the existing network simply to keep pace with the growing demand.

It would be like having a garden you don't have the time to care for already and deciding to rent an allotment patch as well, you could never reap the full benefit of the patch and the garden is going to suffer even more.

Realistically though, a lot of the money being spent on the existing railway is for capacity enhancement. Were it not to be spent, you would still have a working railway, albeit less optimal than it would be if it were.

I would argue that the step-change in benefit for these areas which, let's face it, usually have decent provision to start off with, will be much less than for an area which has suffered a much greater relative decline due to being left behind with completely inadequate transport links.

It's also testament to Scotland's dynamic political scene which is able to respond to the public's concerns, rather than the staid political situation in England.

 

[Starmill]

Differing levels of priority to rail investment by different governments mean you cannot compare schemes across jurisdictions.

With respect; I can - and I just did. There was an implicit criticism of the differences between the jurisdictions.

People in Scotland don't need rail more than in England - but they're more likely to get it. That's the only relevant comparison.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I thought a Nuneaton bypass line might be a good idea, whatever it would cost, then Virgin and LM could both reduce their service at Nuneaton...

lol, I didn't think Virgin had much of a service there to reduce!

How many new DMU's would £300M buy? Maybe it could (amongst other things) actually provide enough trains for Bermuda Park and Ricoh arena (as well as various other places)

 

[Altnabreac]

With respect; I can - and I just did. There was an implicit criticism of the differences between the jurisdictions.

People in Scotland don't need rail more than in England - but they're more likely to get it. That's the only relevant comparison.

You can but it's pointless doing so is my point. You wouldn't complain that money spent on the Gotthard Base Tunnel would be better invested in a new Woodhead route to link Manchester and Leeds.

It's the same with Borders vs Peterlee. Different budgets.

 

[70014IronDuke]

With Worcestershire Parkway opeing, how about four tracking that part of the Bristol - Brum line, allowing non-stops to pass stoppers?

I have no idea how much it's needed, but are there not some long sections of single track on lines like Chippeham - Thingly Jcn?

How would a loop somewhere between Yeovill Pen Mill and Castle Cary go down? Or a new loop south of Pen Mill?

Or back in Scotland, someone suggested double tracking Inverness - Dingwall would be nice.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

With Worcestershire Parkway opeing, how about four tracking that part of the Bristol - Brum line, allowing non-stops to pass stoppers?

Better yet, you could - ummm - not open Worcestershire Parkway and instead spend that money on something useful (like more double-tracking along the Cotswolds line)

 

[HSTEd]

How about between 50 and 65 new 3-car Cl172s, owned outright by the state and thus without enormous capital repayment charges from the leasing companies.

 

[backontrack]

The route goes too far east to be a rapid line to Carlisle - it only gets back as far west as Carlisle around Longtown and for much of its route, it's closer to the ECML than the WCML.

Splitting hairs I know, but Edinburgh is actually further west than Carlisle.

 

[Bald Rick]

Splitting hairs further, but it's actually much closer to £400m than £300m.

 

[backontrack]

Or back in Scotland, someone suggested double tracking Inverness - Dingwall would be nice.

It needs to happen, along with DORLAG if at all possible. But redoubling from Clachnaharry-Clunes is the first priority, with a station at Evanton, and more redoubling up until Tain. A new passing loop needs to be located somewhere between Helmsdale and Forsinard, with a chord built just before Georgemas Junction to serve the Thurso branch without a rehearsal (again, not as important as redoubling).

 

[Cliveblackpool]

The economic boost that will snowball in the region far outweighs any business case scenarios!
Overall I'm sure the line will return a profit, and hopefully more sections are completed in the near future.

Successive shortsighted governments have spent far too little on rail. Demand is being suppressed by lack of rolling stock, overcrowding, poor services, and fare hikes.
Eg The passing loop on the Falmouth branch, now 2 tph has resulted in a large increase in passengers.

 

[clc]

I'd spend it on a revised version of GARL (instead of currently planned tram-trains) which goes to Central via Renfrew rather than via Paisley Gilmour St. This would give the largest town in Scotland with no railway station a 4tph service without requiring any additional paths into Central beyond what would be needed anyway for tram-trains. Also future proofs for long distance services to the airport unlike tram-trains.

 

[HH]

The original question is pointless, as this was bought by the Scottish Government, with "their" money - it wasn't available to spend in Nuneaton or Manchester.

Their decision to build the Borders Railway was a political one, as has already been noted. However, as has also been noted, business cases have consistently undercooked the benefits of delivering a step change in rail services, and this surely has to count as a step change.

We should all wish the project every success, because maybe funding for other projects will become available if it is.

 

[47802]

My judgement of success is that it should at least meet its operating costs within 5 years and not add to the subsidy burden.

 

[Andrew1395]

pretty good value compared to anything ever suggested in England. In London that would be spent on feasibility studies alone.

Yes, great value

They spent less on revamping London Overground, which carries more passengers than the whole of Scotrail.

 

[Bald Rick]

My judgement of success is that it should at least meet its operating costs within 5 years and not add to the subsidy burden.

Whilst I never say never, the chances of that are remote to say the least.

 

[Bodiddly]

They spent less on revamping London Overground, which carries more passengers than the whole of Scotrail.

£15 Billion for Crossrail, £25 Billion (estimated) for Crossrail 2, do you really want to bring London into a discussion about money spent on rail projects?

 

[Pinza-C55]

Borders railway - £300m for about 30 miles of new railway connecting a number of small towns to Edinburgh. Good value? If you had £300M to spend on any other railway project which would it be, why that one and why would it better value for money than the borders railway? Don't answer for projects that would would probably cost more.

I would spend it on reopening York - Market Weighton - Beverley and have quite a bit left over.

 

[meridian2]

The original question is pointless, as this was bought by the Scottish Government, with "their" money - it wasn't available to spend in Nuneaton or Manchester.

Their decision to build the Borders Railway was a political one, as has already been noted. However, as has also been noted, business cases have consistently undercooked the benefits of delivering a step change in rail services, and this surely has to count as a step change.

We should all wish the project every success, because maybe funding for other projects will become available if it is.

Forgive me for being silly but the Scots did vote to remain with the rest of the Union last year didn't they, so it's UK money, not 'Scottish' money.

 

[Altnabreac]

Forgive me for being silly but the Scots did vote to remain with the rest of the Union last year didn't they, so it's UK money, not 'Scottish' money.

No. Westminster sets a budget for Holyrood based on various agreements and formulas and then The Scottish Government decides what to spend that money on.

If the Scottish Government spends less on Rail capital investment (i.e. Borders Rail) then that money can only be spent on other projects in Scotland - roads schemes, other rail schemes, or something else entirely like more schools or hospitals.

There is no UK rail budget. Instead there are 3.5 rail budgets with a Scottish one, a Northern Irish one, an England & Wales one and a semi separate Welsh Government budget for some rail elements but not others.

Then you have to take into account local authority funding. A lot of the initial development work on Borders Rail was carried out by Scottish Borders Council. They chose to spend their money on developing a rail scheme whereas some of the other areas mentioned on this thread have not prioritised developing rail schemes in the same way.

So the money for Borders Rail was not even necessarily available to spend elsewhere in Scotland.

 

[Clip]

£15 Billion for Crossrail, £25 Billion (estimated) for Crossrail 2, do you really want to bring London into a discussion about money spent on rail projects?

To be fair though they mentioned London Overground and not the whole of London in relation to £300 million spent on the borders.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I think the thing which tends to confuse people about Borders Rail is that it is essentially 2 different railways.

There has always been an excellent Business Case for opening an Edinburgh commuter line to Midlothian. This has very similar characteristics to many Scottish reopenings of the last 30 years from Bathgate and Paisley Canal in the 80s, to Alloa and Larkhall in more recent years.

A service connecting Glasgow / Edinburgh to currently non rail served commuter belt towns on their outskirts has been shown to work time and again.

However where Borders Rail went beyond this tried and tested pattern was to extend a little further beyond the existing commuter belt to reconnect a more distant area to a new labour market. This kind of reopening is not captured well by existing business case methodology
....

I don't know if this point has been made previously, but I thought this was a very well-considered post.

Incidentally, from memory, only one or two Waverley route trains start or terminate beyond Edinburgh Waverley.

Would it not make sense to extend the service on an hourly or even half-hourly basis as the norm? I admit i don't know where to - not being well acquainted with the diagrams (Bathgate? Fife Circle? Glasgow even by one of the many routes?)

Or would the likely impact on robustness of what is currently a largely stand-alone service not be worth the improved direct destinations?

 

[meridian2]

No. Westminster sets a budget for Holyrood based on various agreements and formulas and then The Scottish Government decides what to spend that money on.

If the Scottish Government spends less on Rail capital investment (i.e. Borders Rail) then that money can only be spent on other projects in Scotland - roads schemes, other rail schemes, or something else entirely like more schools or hospitals.

There is no UK rail budget. Instead there are 3.5 rail budgets with a Scottish one, a Northern Irish one, an England & Wales one and a semi separate Welsh Government budget for some rail elements but not others.

Then you have to take into account local authority funding. A lot of the initial development work on Borders Rail was carried out by Scottish Borders Council. They chose to spend their money on developing a rail scheme whereas some of the other areas mentioned on this thread have not prioritised developing rail schemes in the same way.

So the money for Borders Rail was not even necessarily available to spend elsewhere in Scotland.

Which kind of shackles the answer to the question: 'value for money or better spent elsewhere'?

Where else in Scotland could they have spent that sort of money then? A very narrow-minded decision by Westminster or were they trying to keep Holyrood sweet in the run up to the referendum?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Incidentally, from memory, only one or two Waverley route trains start or terminate beyond Edinburgh Waverley.

Would it not make sense to extend the service on an hourly or even half-hourly basis as the norm? I admit i don't know where to - not being well acquainted with the diagrams (Bathgate? Fife Circle? Glasgow even by one of the many routes?)

Or would the likely impact on robustness of what is currently a largely stand-alone service not be worth the improved direct destinations?

I think robustness is exactly the reason why extending it wouldn't really work. The long single-track sections in the new borders line would make it very vulnerable to any delays that trains pick up elsewhere. And if trains run through Edinburgh to other destinations, that hugely increases the risk of trains getting delayed (because they will be impacted by any delays on other routes - something that's much less likely to happen if the route is self-contained). Running through to other destinations would be more viable if the Borders railway was double-track throughout, and therefore better able to cope with delays to individual services.

 

[paul1609]

I think robustness is exactly the reason why extending it wouldn't really work. The long single-track sections in the new borders line would make it very vulnerable to any delays that trains pick up elsewhere. And if trains run through Edinburgh to other destinations, that hugely increases the risk of trains getting delayed (because they will be impacted by any delays on other routes - something that's much less likely to happen if the route is self-contained). Running through to other destinations would be more viable if the Borders railway was double-track throughout, and therefore better able to cope with delays to individual services.

I think it is only sensible to start the borders line off as self contained service but once experienced is gained I cant really see why the services couldnt be extended beyond Edinburgh. Id suggest there are far more challenging integrations on single lines in South east England (Thameslink- until recently, Hastings Line, Portsmouth via fareham, West of England Line), even in Scotland the West Highland Line serving Glasgow Queen St rather than terminating at Dumbarton.