New rail lines in Scotland

[daodao]

£10 million seems a helluva lot for this.

I'm also perplexed that government funding of £10 million has been allocated to explore the case for extending the Borders line from Tweedbank to Carlisle, particularly beyond Hawick. Passenger demand south of Hawick is likely to be minimal, given that there are only 6 buses per day on Mon-Sat (just 3 on Sundays) on Borders Buses route X95 between Hawick and Carlisle. The only significant intermediate town is Langholm, which is served by this bus route, unlike the former Waverley main line, so a reinstated railway couldn't replace the bus route fully.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I'm also perplexed that government funding of £10 million has been allocated to explore the case for extending the Borders line from Tweedbank to Carlisle, particularly beyond Hawick. Passenger demand south of Hawick is likely to be minimal, given that there are only 6 buses per day on Mon-Sat (just 3 on Sundays) on Borders Buses route X95 between Hawick and Carlisle. The only significant intermediate town is Langholm, which is served by this bus route, unlike the former Waverley main line, so a reinstated railway couldn't replace the bus route fully.

It's about through services too.

Providing more capacity Carlisle to Edinburgh (and implicitly for Carlisle to Glasgow passenger and freight services) without upgrading the WCML north of Carlisle (which has reached the point where the cheap interventions have mostly been done and more capacity improvements will cost a lot) is a decent goal.

This does mean that the line from Tweedbank to Carlisle would have to be built to >100mph mainline standards at least, and probably some upgrading on the existing Tweedbank to Edinburgh section would be needed, but you can then combine the increased capacity with better local connectivity for the people of the Borders and increased tourist potential.

 

[snookertam]

If we were to have any feasibility studies, I’d suggest they were put into the likely impact of improved rail services around Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness, with infrastructure improvements explored to ensure there were robust local services in place rather than the unreliable schedules that operate over lines that barely have capacity for them.

 

[stevieinselby]

I'm also perplexed that government funding of £10 million has been allocated to explore the case for extending the Borders line from Tweedbank to Carlisle, particularly beyond Hawick. Passenger demand south of Hawick is likely to be minimal, given that there are only 6 buses per day on Mon-Sat (just 3 on Sundays) on Borders Buses route X95 between Hawick and Carlisle. The only significant intermediate town is Langholm, which is served by this bus route, unlike the former Waverley main line, so a reinstated railway couldn't replace the bus route fully.

The railway line would be for long-distance passengers more than local services, and the railways really aren't bothered about whether the X95 continues to be needed or not. The main use cases would be:

1. Connecting the borders region to Carlisle for southward connections, opening up the region to further business and tourism by providing better links to England.
2. Providing an alternative to the WCML to give additional capacity to Edinburgh. While this could be used to keep freight off the main line and allow fast passenger services to make better use of the capacity there, I'm not sure how helpful that would be given that the vast majority of freight is heading to Glasgow and its environs or further north, and so a line taking it to Edinburgh might not be so useful.

A new railway line wouldn't necessarily follow the same route as the previous line. There is a lot to be said for running it along the A7 corridor instead, which would (a) allow it to serve Langholm, and (ii) be a shorter and faster route than the sinuous alignment used before. And while a short section of tunnel might be needed past Glenrief Rig (although with electric traction there is less penalty in having gradients), on the old route Whitrope Tunnel has suffered a major collapse and so would need significant work before it could be re-used (and looks like it might need reboreing for an electrified line anyway as clearances look tight).

Now whether those two use cases, plus connecting Hawick and Langholm to the rail network, do stack up given the likely high cost of building the new line is a question I can't answer. It does feel like there may be better uses of the money elsewhere, but if it unlocks significant capacity on the WCML then it may be worth considering.

 

[Bill57p9]

IMHO a far easier (and cheaper) way to unlock WCML capacity would be to make more use of the Glasgow & South Western route via Dumfries and Kilmarnock.

 

[stevieinselby]

IMHO a far easier (and cheaper) way to unlock WCML capacity would be to make more use of the Glasgow & South Western route via Dumfries and Kilmarnock.

Potentially, although the disadvantage to that plan is that the Waverley route to Edinburgh is a couple of miles shorter than the WCML route (maybe 4 or 5 miles if taking the A7 line rather than the original route through Riccarton Junction) and so, while it probably won't be quite such a fast route, it will still be competitive on time, and as a new build it could be specified for a good speed throughout ... but the G&SW is 14 miles longer than the WCML route to Glasgow and a lot slower, with a line speed of no more than 70mph all the way from Dumfries to Glasgow, making it a less attractive route. While it could potentially take more freight off the WCML than it does, I don't see it having much value beyond that.

 

[Dennyboy]

A new line between Glasgow and Edinburgh, stopping at Edinburgh airport, could free up vast space on the overcrowded line that currently connects the two cities and open up myriad different routes.

It would have all the benefits of HS2, but because it is far shorter and runs through, bluntly, not the most attractive part of Scotland, it would be much cheaper.

These ideas are just nonsense. There are some journeys for which bus is more suitable.

Add to that Edinburgh-Glasgow Line a NNE-SSW spur connecting with East Kilbride's (currently) disused eastern solum. 'Plenty of undeveloped land between Nerston, Newton and Uddingston to route this 2-3 mile link which would also bisect the Motherwell, Hamilton & Larkhall route.

 

[Uncle Buck]

IMHO a far easier (and cheaper) way to unlock WCML capacity would be to make more use of the Glasgow & South Western route via Dumfries and Kilmarnock.

How would this work? For what journeys would the GSWR route be superior to the WCML? The only thing I can think of is that it could be used for daytime freight runnings- but how many of those are there, and in what circumstances would any freight operator accept such a roundabout route?

 

[The exile]

Potentially, although the disadvantage to that plan is that the Waverley route to Edinburgh is a couple of miles shorter than the WCML route (maybe 4 or 5 miles if taking the A7 line rather than the original route through Riccarton Junction) and so, while it probably won't be quite such a fast route, it will still be competitive on time, and as a new build it could be specified for a good speed throughout .

And move trains from the congested western approaches to Waverley (where there is almost no opportunity for capacity enhancement) to the east (where there is). Still doesn’t stack up though.

 

[Dennyboy]

Citation Needed.

Garve to Ullapool needs 1 or 2 buses a day to meet with ferries.

Inverness to Fort William. The two places exist as very separate places. You wouldnt speed up travel to Inverness if you went via Fort William and vice versa and the travel demand is so seasonal that you would spend over half the year carting fresh air about.

Tweedbank to Carlisle: No one lives there other than Hawick and they are not travelling to Carlisle. Its a lot of money to spend on a route no one is there to travel on and is slower than existing routes.

Port Road: No real passenger potential, time critical freight wouldnt use train shipment as they generally want there drivers to take the load on the other side. Non time critical can go the long way round if needed but at that point, just go via Liverpool.

St Andrews, bus it.

IF you think people would be upset about HS2, imagine spending Billions on Garve to Ullapool (and it would be billions)

Predicted Usage aside, look at the prev' non-existent employment opportunities that the Waverley Line's part reinstatement has since generated. Yes, new routes are still a gamble I appreciate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jun 2025 ==

The Herald have recently done a series of articles about Scotland's Railways and published an article by rail engineer and YouTuber Gareth Dennis with his view on where new rail lines in Scotland could/should be in the future.

View attachment 174304

Reimagining Scotland’s railways from the Highlands to the Scottish Borders

Rail expert Gareth Dennis reimagines the future of Scottish railways. Here is how it could look from the Highlands to the Scottish Borders.

www.heraldscotland.com

He also did a video going into more detail on these proposals:

Certainly they are ambitious proposals, however I'd be surprised to see any of them built (certainly in the next 25 years) with perhaps the exceptions of possibly a line out to Fraserburgh and an extension of the Borders Railway to Hawick.

For the sake of 2.5mile/4.023km of linking track mostly across farmland, East Kilbride's (although currently disused) eastern alignment could be connected to the Newton-Uddingston 'trunk' track. This swathe lies imm' west of where the Edinburgh/Shotts route and WCML branch eastwards. The Hamilton/Larkhall link would be abridged imm' south, all greatly improving EK's poor rail connectivity.

 

[waverley47]

Predicted Usage aside, look at the prev' non-existent employment opportunities that the Waverley Line's part reinstatement has since generated. Yes, new routes are still a gamble I appreciate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jun 2025 ==

Yes, but remember that Edinburgh alone has a population similar to that of the entire Highlands and Islands region. Ullapool has a population of 1.5k, and if you added the populations of everywhere twenty miles from the route of the new line, you'd come to less than 20k. It's such a basket case that the Victorians didn't even get around to building it.

The Port Road, pretty much the same. It's slightly better, but you're talking percentages of percentages for the BCRs for either of these two routes.

For the sake of 2.5mile/4.023km of linking track mostly across farmland, East Kilbride's (although currently disused) eastern alignment could be connected to the Newton-Uddingston 'trunk' track. This swathe lies imm' west of where the Edinburgh/Shotts route and WCML branch eastwards. The Hamilton/Larkhall link would be abridged imm' south, all greatly improving EK's poor rail connectivity.

Unfortunately, East Kilbride is forever destined to be at the end of a branch line. If you contacted it to Hamilton, you're demolishing a lot of buildings in Blantyre. If you connect it to the main line at Uddingston, then yes, I guess you could run direct EK - Edinburgh trains, but I'm not sure the good people of the Shotts line would be happy for an extra forty minutes added to their trains into Glasgow every day.

Either way, you're building a lot of new line, buying and demolishing a lot of buildings in EK, and the simple answer is why would you? EK doesn't really have a bad deal, it's got dedicated, direct, frequent and soon to be electric trains to Glasgow Central, that take about half an hour. Sure, you could run a train that takes twenty minutes to Motherwell, or an hour and a half to Edinburgh, but that's not where most people want to go.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The Port Road, pretty much the same. It's slightly better, but you're talking percentages of percentages for the BCRs for either of these two routes.

Although the Port Road has probably closer to 40k in catchment, and a fairly large and crucial strategic port at one end, unlike Ullapool

 

[Falcon1200]

and a fairly large and crucial strategic port at one end

Not any more! And even if the ferries did still sail from Stranraer, the number of passengers who would use the Port Road to connect to them would not justify the cost of, in effect, building a new railway, and subsidising its operation for evermore.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Not any more! And even if the ferries did still sail from Stranraer, the number of passengers who would use the Port Road to connect to them would not justify the cost of, in effect, building a new railway, and subsidising its operation for evermore.

Cairnryan is close enough!
I agree you'd have to build a short rail spur to Cairnryan for both passengers and goods.

 

[stevieinselby]

Not any more! And even if the ferries did still sail from Stranraer, the number of passengers who would use the Port Road to connect to them would not justify the cost of, in effect, building a new railway, and subsidising its operation for evermore.

I can't see a whole lot of passenger traffic for the ferries coming by train – Glasgow is far and away the most likely source for it – but there could potentially be a decent amount of freight if the infrastructure could be put in place ... although that needs a lot more construction to get it all in place than a passenger connection would as that could use road transport for the connection.

 

[Killingworth]

I can't see a whole lot of passenger traffic for the ferries coming by train – Glasgow is far and away the most likely source for it – but there could potentially be a decent amount of freight if the infrastructure could be put in place ... although that needs a lot more construction to get it all in place than a passenger connection would as that could use road transport for the connection.

The world has changed since the railways came to life 200 years ago. By 1861 the ports of Stranraer and Portpatrick were connected to the world beyond and Portpatrick was soon squeezed out. More recently Stanraer has been squeezed out by Cairnryan.

If you've driven to Cairnryan from Carlisle and Dumfries or from the Clyde coast and east towards Glasgow and Edinburgh you'll know it's quite a long journey. Over the last 100 years the roads have improved immensely. From Dumfries that has been significantly thanks to use of vacated old railway track bed.

Rebuilding that old rail route would be an economic and nostalgic nonsense.

It's original markets have long gone. The current line is a financial basket case, freight long gone and most passengers too.

 

[Falcon1200]

but there could potentially be a decent amount of freight if the infrastructure could be put in place

I can't see that being viable either, sadly; The lorries using the A75 to and from Stranraer originate from and go to multiple different places, not the kind of flow that rail is suited to.

 

[Indigo Soup]

I can't see a whole lot of passenger traffic for the ferries coming by train

Any attempt to get passenger traffic onto ferries has to face up to the fact that anyone who's not bothered about taking a car with them will almost certainly be flying instead - it's both quicker and cheaper.

There are very few ferry routes which don't require a car at one end or the other, and don't have parallel air service.

 

[A S Leib]

There are very few ferry routes which don't require a car at one end or the other, and don't have parallel air service.

Some of those which do fall into that category have been made less convenient for public transport users in the last few years, due to the removal of through ScotRail and CalMac tickets.

 

[Dennyboy]

Yes, but remember that Edinburgh alone has a population similar to that of the entire Highlands and Islands region. Ullapool has a population of 1.5k, and if you added the populations of everywhere twenty miles from the route of the new line, you'd come to less than 20k. It's such a basket case that the Victorians didn't even get around to building it.

The Port Road, pretty much the same. It's slightly better, but you're talking percentages of percentages for the BCRs for either of these two routes.



Unfortunately, East Kilbride is forever destined to be at the end of a branch line. If you contacted it to Hamilton, you're demolishing a lot of buildings in Blantyre. If you connect it to the main line at Uddingston, then yes, I guess you could run direct EK - Edinburgh trains, but I'm not sure the good people of the Shotts line would be happy for an extra forty minutes added to their trains into Glasgow every day.

Either way, you're building a lot of new line, buying and demolishing a lot of buildings in EK, and the simple answer is why would you? EK doesn't really have a bad deal, it's got dedicated, direct, frequent and soon to be electric trains to Glasgow Central, that take about half an hour. Sure, you could run a train that takes twenty minutes to Motherwell, or an hour and a half to Edinburgh, but that's not where most people want to go.

Yeah, Waverly47! Direct Glasgow Central (as opposed to Queen St) to Waverley commuters would rarely opt to voluntarily detour via EK, E Renf' & Glasgow's southside. Intermediate locations (eg Busby-Carfin, Giffnock-Haymarket) would be the winners. Yet a potential diversionary route for during emergencies or track-maintainance, however less lucrative than more direct counterparts, are priceless 'strings to the bow' of an operator's reliability record

 

[D6130]

Yeah, Waverly47! Direct Glasgow Central (as opposed to Queen St) to Waverley commuters would rarely opt to voluntarily detour via EK, E Renf' & Glasgow's southside. Intermediate locations (eg Busby-Carfin, Giffnock-Haymarket) would be the winners. Yet a potential diversionary route for during emergencies or track-maintainance, however less lucrative than more direct counterparts, are priceless 'strings to the bow' of an operator's reliability record

Priceless? On the contrary....it would be extremely pricey! Totally unviable in fact, given the amount of compulsory purchase and demolition of properties that would be involved....even before you start building the railway. Nice to have....but never going to happen!

 

[snookertam]

This will probably go down like a lead balloon, but I don’t think there is anywhere in Scotland where a completely new route (or reopening of a former route) would be in any way viable. And that’s not even expecting the railway itself to break even, but through overall contribution to the local economy.

The only major projects worth pursuing that spring to mind would be main line electrification northwards from the Central belt, and on a more localised level, redoubling of the Balloch branch even as far as Alexandria to enable greater resilience during events at Loch Lomond or over the summer. Equally the doubling of the borders line would take great strides in improving that route’s reliability although that’s a harder case to make for the bean counters.

The Scottish Government wanted ScotRail to break even, which is impossible unless the rail network was cut back to the very bare bones (Edinburgh to Queen Street plus commuter routes and Aberdeen) That’s quite obviously not politically palatable (and would have a detrimental impact on the wider economy) so it will have to accept that what is there will always be loss making, but this severely restricts the options for extending the network any further. Even the hugely successful Borders line in terms of passenger numbers only earns half of what it costs. A very, very strong business case would need to be made for any other routes to open.

 

[AlastairFraser]

This will probably go down like a lead balloon, but I don’t think there is anywhere in Scotland where a completely new route (or reopening of a former route) would be in any way viable. And that’s not even expecting the railway itself to break even, but through overall contribution to the local economy.

The only major projects worth pursuing that spring to mind would be main line electrification northwards from the Central belt, and on a more localised level, redoubling of the Balloch branch even as far as Alexandria to enable greater resilience during events at Loch Lomond or over the summer. Equally the doubling of the borders line would take great strides in improving that route’s reliability although that’s a harder case to make for the bean counters.

The Scottish Government wanted ScotRail to break even, which is impossible unless the rail network was cut back to the very bare bones (Edinburgh to Queen Street plus commuter routes and Aberdeen) That’s quite obviously not politically palatable (and would have a detrimental impact on the wider economy) so it will have to accept that what is there will always be loss making, but this severely restricts the options for extending the network any further. Even the hugely successful Borders line in terms of passenger numbers only earns half of what it costs. A very, very strong business case would need to be made for any other routes to open.

Are Workplace Parking Levies (WPLs) possible under Scottish law?
WPLs introduced initially in Glasgow/Edinburgh/Dundee/Aberdeen could cross-subsidise further rail operations.

 

[snookertam]

Are Workplace Parking Levies (WPLs) possible under Scottish law?
WPLs introduced initially in Glasgow/Edinburgh/Dundee/Aberdeen could cross-subsidise further rail operations.

I don’t think they are. There was maybe an attempt to introduce them but the political fall out risked being too great.

 

[JamesT]

I don’t think they are. There was maybe an attempt to introduce them but the political fall out risked being too great.

They are possible, legislation to allow them was passed in 2019. But the councillors in Edinburgh weren't brave enough to implement it:

Edinburgh scraps plans for workplace parking charge

The local authority said it was "not appropriate" to introduce the scheme, which could have seen some motorists charged up to £650 a year.

www.bbc.co.uk

Plans to charge drivers for parking outside their place of work in Edinburgh have been shelved.

The city council said it was "not appropriate" to introduce the workplace parking levy (WPL) scheme, which could have seen some motorists charged up to £650 a year.

It had been hoped the charge would raise up to £12m a year, while also cutting the number of car journeys in the city centre and reducing air pollution.

But councillors opted against paying £100,000 to develop a final proposal for the project following a public consultation.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I don’t think they are. There was maybe an attempt to introduce them but the political fall out risked being too great.

I think they will be an inevitability at some point (especially with the chronic traffic issues in places like Edinburgh), and, of course, it doesn't just mean extra rail funding, but potential metro/light rail and bus rapid transit schemes as well.

They are possible, legislation to allow them was passed in 2019. But the councillors in Edinburgh weren't brave enough to implement it:

Edinburgh scraps plans for workplace parking charge

The local authority said it was "not appropriate" to introduce the scheme, which could have seen some motorists charged up to £650 a year.

www.bbc.co.uk

It's good that there is legislation in place to enable it. Local authorities will have to wake up to the issue at some point, peak traffic in the bigger Scottish cities, especially Edinburgh, is atrocious and will only get worse.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Are Workplace Parking Levies (WPLs) possible under Scottish law?
WPLs introduced initially in Glasgow/Edinburgh/Dundee/Aberdeen could cross-subsidise further rail operations.

There is a requirement that the proceeds of a WPL scheme must be used to achieve transport objectives, which doesn't rule out rail. It would likely be more politically tenable - and probably easier - to use any revenue raised by workplace parking levies to fund local bus services. The ability for local authorities to run their own bus operations was brought in in the same act that provided for WPLs.

Curiously, the legislation exempts healthcare workers at NHS premises and parking places at hospices - but not other emergency services or other critical workers.

 

[Technologist]

My understanding is that it isn't a reinstatement it is (mainly) a new route to deal with freight to Cairnryan. It would be instead of spending billions on dualling the A75.

If we are to decarbonise transport then we do have to get long distance freight onto rail (and electrify it). And if we keep investing in roads then freight operators are going to use them - just as passenger transport does

Long distance trucks which can cover the two 4 hour stints that a driver is legally allowed to drive in a day exist already and trucks can be fully recharged in the legally mandated break that they have every 4 hours.

Full implementation of electrification for road freight will likely outpace electrification of rail and need much less government coordination or funding.

There is also a good argument to re-assess freight vs passenger use on the railway, one freight train gets 20-34 lorries of the road, vs a passenger train which might get 400 cars off the road. The cars take up a lot more road capacity, ergo rail freight should pretty much never take a path of a passenger train that will be operating a more than a fraction of its seating capacity.

 

[AlastairFraser]

There is a requirement that the proceeds of a WPL scheme must be used to achieve transport objectives, which doesn't rule out rail. It would likely be more politically tenable - and probably easier - to use any revenue raised by workplace parking levies to fund local bus services. The ability for local authorities to run their own bus operations was brought in in the same act that provided for WPLs.

Curiously, the legislation exempts healthcare workers at NHS premises and parking places at hospices - but not other emergency services or other critical workers.

Although e.g. more suburban rail with more P&R spaces in the Aberdeen area definitely would provide significant mitigation to the introduction of a WPL for suburban and rural commuters into the Granite City.

 

[waverley47]

Yeah, Waverly47! Direct Glasgow Central (as opposed to Queen St) to Waverley commuters would rarely opt to voluntarily detour via EK, E Renf' & Glasgow's southside. Intermediate locations (eg Busby-Carfin, Giffnock-Haymarket) would be the winners. Yet a potential diversionary route for during emergencies or track-maintainance, however less lucrative than more direct counterparts, are priceless 'strings to the bow' of an operator's reliability record

There's nowhere that has enough of an inward draw, anywhere along the Shotts or EK lines, for this to be financially viable, with the possible exceptions of Livingston and EK itself.

There are already four lines between Edinburgh and Glasgow, you don't need a fifth that takes at a minimum, two hours.

If the EK or Shotts lines are closed, they just get RRBs instead, there's not any desire for a duplicate route to EK on the off chance that there's engineering works.

And finally, I genuinely think it might be quicker to take the EK line into Central, walk to Queen Street, and take a fast to Edinburgh, than taking a magical mystery tour of Lanarkshire and West Lothian.