And my understanding is also they're higher further out and lower further in as overcrowding has been a problem at the stations at the Edinburgh end.
Bald Rick is right, but this is also right. Pax numbers from Brunstane were never that high to begin with, number from Eskbank and Newtongrange are a bit lower than predicted, mainly due to competition with the ever expanding empire of Lothian Buses, and numbers from Stow and further out are higher than predicted, mainly due to strengthening economic ties with the economic growth of Edinburgh, and more reasons for people to make the journey.
Numbers from Newcraighall, Shawfair and Gorebridge are pretty much bang on a decade down the line.
Uptake on the line was definitely faster than
could reasonably be shown to be likely, but not faster than predicted. The difference between what is known, and what is provable, is sometimes difficult to square. We assumed the uptake would be faster than accounted for in the documentation, but because we couldn't reasonably show it to be likely, it couldn't be counted.
Honestly, most of these projects run on accounting periods of several decades, and whether passenger growth plateaus after three years, or after ten, is a rounding error in the grand scheme of things.
If that’s the case, putting it alongside the Ashington reopening exceeding NR’s expectations makes me wonder - do they deliberately underestimate to increase their chances of having a good news story to tell, or are they just a bit rubbish at estimating?
We didn't ever under or over estimate the number of passengers we thought would use the line. The estimates we made were best guesses, for this line and many others. Deliberately skewing the estimates of passengers makes our work look less reliable, and makes the overall likelihood of any future projects succeeding to go down.
There are difficulties in best guesses though. For example, passenger numbers, especially from the inner end of the line, are quite fluid. If Lothian increases the frequency on a bus, or changes a route, which they can do because buses aren't bound by the laws of physics in quite the same way trains are, then passenger numbers can jump or crash overnight.
If the line did well, then surely Lothian would want to compete by introducing competitive bus routes, which would attract people away from the line. Therefore while you're using passenger numbers as a marker of overall success, you're also predicting the unexpected.
We did however, with very good reasons to, undervalue the economic importance of the journeys made. We weren't trying to prove that the line would bring economic regeneration, we already knew that, instead we had to prove that the line would wash it's face even if no economic growth materialised. The line had to be an economic benefit from the moment it was built; there was no land value capture tax to fund it based on increasing house prices in Galashiels a decade down the line.
We had to prove or disprove that the line, as built, was a worthwhile use of public funds.
Now, on to some personal reflections.
I'm disappointed by the lack of uptake from charter traffic down the line. A lot of work went into the design of Tweedbank station to allow for that, and although there were ultimately other reasons for every decision made, and the main focus was only ever service trains, it is a shame that some of the tour companies haven't made more of an effort to show off the line.
I appreciate that this has more to do with a general downturn in the charter market and the general economic woes and high costs of such operations, but alas.
I'm disappointed that more effort hasn't been made by Edinburgh and the borders to use the line to link the city more with it's surroundings. Think of the very close links between Edinburgh and North Berwick, with Fringe by the Sea and other such events attracting tens If thousands of people a year. If the council in the borders were so inclined, they could use the line as a jumping board to capitalise on some of the success of Edinburgh, and bring in outside visitors.
I'm disappointed by the lack of advertising of places like Abbotsford House and Melrose Abbey, both of which are within walking distance of the line, and both of which I have visited by train, to attract day trippers. The same goes for some of the mountain biking areas near the line.
Overall though, I'm glad the line was built, and I think it's a beautiful journey in the summer, up there with parts of the lines through the Highlands. It's always busy and popular, and it has proven itself.
I'm glad from a professional standpoint, but also that it stand as an example to other campaigns. Honestly, I'm sometimes frustrated by people on here and elsewhere trying to justify any project with the logic that the Borders line was a success, so powers that be may as well take a chance on their line. Nonetheless, I'm immensely proud to have been part of the line, and to have played my part in getting it open. I'm proud that it serves as inspiration, and I'm proud that it will be there forever as a project that shows how important investment in infrastructure can be.
www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk
