Borders Railway - 10 years on

[YorkshireBear]

So the totality of your post reads like - the Scottish rail network is a drain on resources that could be better spent elsewhere. Basically jog on!

It does not say that.

We the public, and the government, can argue that it is a good use of resources due to all the other benefits it brings. But we can't escape the fact that the borders railway has reduced the profitability of Scotland's railways in cold hard railway OPEX numbers.

 

[HighlandStorm]

It does not say that.

We the public, and the government, can argue that it is a good use of resources due to all the other benefits it brings. But we can't escape the fact that the borders railway has reduced the profitability of Scotland's railways in cold hard railway OPEX numbers.

Be interested to know what re-trunking and upgrading the A7 north of Hawick to a decent modern road would have cost instead? One of the strong arguments for reopening was just how poor a road the A7 is north of where the trunk road route heads over the A68 vs the generally much higher quality route south of Hawick.

 

[NCT]

I think on balance Borders Railway has been a good investment. That passenger revenue fails to cover opex is more of a Scotland-wide debate than route / project specific.

Borders does provide a strong counterexample to the oft repeated 'people won't take the bus but will take the train' talking point.

It's really not surprising stations Gorebridge and inside aren't doing well. Why would you get the train at half-hourly frequency from an awkwardly sited location (Gorebridge is at the wrong end of the town, Esbank, Shawfair and Newcraighall are awkward to walk to) when you can walk to a turn-up-and-go bus service at competitive fares and journey times?

 

[zwk500]

AIUI, the concept of a "White Elephant" comes from the Indian subcontinent, where giving someone a white elephant was seen as a generous gift that couldn't be refused, however the necessary upkeep it was a drain on resources.

You couldn't say no to it, that would be disrespectful. You couldn't dispose of it, since that would be an insult to whoever bestowed it upon you.

But every month it was a drain on your resources, meaning you had to sacrifice other spending to maintain this expensive Pachyderm

Specifically, a White Elephant is something you couldn't use, because they were sacred and associated with royalty. It was contrasted with normal elephants, which of course can be used for a wide variety of extremely helpful tasks given their strength and intelligence.

So, since (AFAICS) the Tweedbank line isn't profitable (?), the subsidy to maintain it must come from Scotland's rail budget, money that could have be spent elsewhere

By that definition it is a White Elephant

If we consider the ability to put it to practical use as the mark of a White Elephant, the utility to the >1m passengers a year would suggest that it isn't a white elephant, even if you might consider it to be not worth the subsidy.

 

[WillC]

A rather big political point is being thrashed out here: what are railways for, and is it only a financial consideration? Investing in quality public transport cf upgrading a trunk road should be seen in its wider environmental and social context.

As someone noted, the difference between bus and rail travel is also significant.

And re. Mountain biking, there any sort of shuttle bus from Galashiels up to Innerleithen? I seem to recall it wasn’t a long ride from there to Glentress. Presume also limit of 2 bikes on a 158?

All this can be improved if there’s a will.

(Full disclosure - I like trains.)

 

[Rail Ranger]

Re charter trains, it was said when the line opened that paths would only be available on Sundays. On other days running a charter train would entail cancelling a service train each way. Also the lack of a run round facility at Tweedbank is significant. It means that steam can only haul the train in one direction and all charters have to be topped and tailed.

 

[Inverasdale]

And re. Mountain biking, there any sort of shuttle bus from Galashiels up to Innerleithen? I seem to recall it wasn’t a long ride from there to Glentress. Presume also limit of 2 bikes on a 158?

All this can be improved if there’s a will.

The Borders Buses service from Edinburgh to Gala via Peebles carries bikes. Tbh I don't think most of the MTB fraternity are particularly up for public transport.

 

[zwk500]

Also the lack of a run round facility at Tweedbank is significant. It means that steam can only haul the train in one direction and all charters have to be topped and tailed.

This is, in the scheme of things, a particularly tiny problem. To the extent that it wasn't worth putting in a ground frame and siding for the run round to take place.

The overwhelming majority of charters operate with top/tail locos, being dragged back to Edinburgh is hardly the end of the world. Not to mention the lack of turning facility at tweedbank so the steam loco would be hauling it back north tender-first anyway, so wouldn't be going 75mph even if it had runround. If memory serves when running tender-first Steam is limited to 45mph.

 

[The exile]

Borders does provide a strong counterexample to the oft repeated 'people won't take the bus but will take the train' talking point.

If we’re talking about the lower patronage from the Midlothian stations, I should say it shows that the point needs to be qualified.
I think the “talking point “ was originally that a train service will get people out of their cars whereas a bus service in general won’t in anything like the same volume - even as enviable a bus service as that provided by Lothian Buses.

 

[enginedin]

no Scotrail services run through Waverley in that they all start or terminate there

almost all: as I was reminded about recently there is a daily Haymarket to North Berwick return (e.g. https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:W84131/2026-06-10/detailed#allox_id=0)

 

[Rail Ranger]

This is, in the scheme of things, a particularly tiny problem. To the extent that it wasn't worth putting in a ground frame and siding for the run round to take place.

The overwhelming majority of charters operate with top/tail locos, being dragged back to Edinburgh is hardly the end of the world. Not to mention the lack of turning facility at tweedbank so the steam loco would be hauling it back north tender-first anyway, so wouldn't be going 75mph even if it had runround. If memory serves when running tender-first Steam is limited to 45mph.

The Jacobite operates tender first from Mallaig back to Fort William.

 

[zwk500]

The Jacobite operates tender first from Mallaig back to Fort William.

Indeed it does. However, the Mallaig Extension only exceeds 45mph for loco-hauled train for less than a mile at Fort William, and the Jacobite is quite a short run with no need of a diesel for positioning or support.

It's a non-preferred option, rather than being restricted.

 

[Rail Ranger]

If steam could operate both ways to and from Tweedbank you could perhaps envisage a summer Sunday steam operation between Edinburgh and Tweedbank (say two trips each way) with connecting road coaches to Abbotsford and/or Melrose Abbey.

 

[GordonT]

If steam could operate both ways to and from Tweedbank you could perhaps envisage a summer Sunday steam operation between Edinburgh and Tweedbank (say two trips each way) with connecting road coaches to Abbotsford and/or Melrose Abbey.

Sounds an attractive proposition but one likely to founder on the rock of no entity being likely to nail its colours to the masts of time, effort and financial risk.

 

[scosutsut]

The Borders Buses service from Edinburgh to Gala via Peebles carries bikes. Tbh I don't think most of the MTB fraternity are particularly up for public transport.

In my experience the sort of people spending four or even five figures on a serious mountain bike, who do not live beside a suitably large enough hill to throw themselves down will have their own "to destination" travel sorted.

The car park is generally full of very expensive cars with all manner of expensive bike carrying solutions attached to them.

Pivoting myself back to the Borders Railway, I've used it a few times and enjoyed it. Very glad it was built and well done to all involved. Hopefully in coming years it can get extended and be allocated BEMU stock with greater capacity to give it room to grow further and the Scottish Gov / ScotRail remain ambitious.

(Just don't get into the rolling stock mess we're in for the next few years again please!)

 

[The exile]

Sounds an attractive proposition but one likely to founder on the rock of no entity being likely to nail its colours to the masts of time, effort and financial risk.

Properly marketed as a Sunday excursion (two special runs - one am and one early evening - using the Sub Loop so it’s steam out in the morning and back in the evening) Ticket being either “out by steam; return by any service train “ or vice versa with an excursion fare for a day out in Edinburgh from the borders on the diesel legs it might well work especially around the festival season.

 

[InOban]

In cash terms all Scotland's railways lose money. In the wonderful world of cost/benefit analysis, however many make a contribution to society and the economy which justifies their continued existence. But you're right to point out that money can only be spent once.

 

[zwk500]

If steam could operate both ways to and from Tweedbank you could perhaps envisage a summer Sunday steam operation between Edinburgh and Tweedbank (say two trips each way) with connecting road coaches to Abbotsford and/or Melrose Abbey.

If this was viable, somebody would have tried with steam out, diesel back. As long as the loco is on the blocks for a selfie at some point nobody paying tourist prices would care that it only worked half the journey.

 

[Brush 4]

The SRPS ran steam out diesel back trains in the first few years. I was on one and it was full or nearly full. Perhaps they didn't make money or the cost of running 2 locos was too much. Only a turntable would solve that one.

If purely financial criteria dominated, no lines would reopen I suspect. Most of the network would have to close as well. Railways have to be valued in non financial terms as well.

A purely accountants perspective would result in no NHS at all. No emergency services, state schools, social care.
It would all be contracted out, with profits the only priority. Our water companies are a great example of that......

 

[waverley47]

Re charter trains, it was said when the line opened that paths would only be available on Sundays. On other days running a charter train would entail cancelling a service train each way. Also the lack of a run round facility at Tweedbank is significant. It means that steam can only haul the train in one direction and all charters have to be topped and tailed.

This is, in the scheme of things, a particularly tiny problem. To the extent that it wasn't worth putting in a ground frame and siding for the run round to take place.

The overwhelming majority of charters operate with top/tail locos, being dragged back to Edinburgh is hardly the end of the world. Not to mention the lack of turning facility at tweedbank so the steam loco would be hauling it back north tender-first anyway, so wouldn't be going 75mph even if it had runround. If memory serves when running tender-first Steam is limited to 45mph.

There was never going to be a turning facility at Tweedbank. Running double headed would also incur severe (<10mph) speed penalities down the Gala valley. It is also correct that it was specified with 2tph in each direction, and running a charter midweek would mean cancelling a service train.

My frustration is that indeed, capacity exists all day on Sundays, all year. Nobody is taking advantage of that. Tweedbank was specified to be able to hold four sets of 6x23m units. There are three diagrams starting at Tweedbank a day, each one formed of a maximum of six cars, although in practice, never more than 9x23m coaches stay there overnight.

That gives you two twelve coach platforms, each 285m long, and each easily enough for a decent length charter. I appreciate that there were charters for the first while, but it's a line that is almost as perfect as you could get for a daily charter to and from Edinburgh, and no-one has decided to capitalise on that. Think of all the tourists in summer who'd pay buckets to ride a weekly steam train down to the house of Walter Scott. You'd make a killing.

Hopefully in coming years it can get extended

Never in a million years.

 

[Taunton]

There are many lines and stations that have not met expectations such as the Sinfin Branch (opened in 1976 and closed in 1998), East Midlands Parkway (2009), Coleshill Parkway (2007), Ebbsfleet International (2007) all failed to live up to expectations.

But that's just true of investments in general, some work out, some don't. What unfortunately happens with rail is that even the most substantial successes in terms of usage (it has to be Crossrail) still require subsidy. It's not just compared to other rail projects, but to the world in general, why is it that rail projects are just so incapable of generating a financial return on their own at the farebox. They used to in the 19th Century.

 

[thejuggler]

I don't live in the area but work with people that do who have nothing but positive things to say about the Borders railway. Let's hope the mooted extension gets approved and built.

I've spent some time over the last couple of years in Peebles. Speaking to a hotel manager he said the railway has pushed up house prices as Edinburgh is now a much easier commute. A problem for a business which needs to employ lots of people in lower salary roles in an area with a low population density.

 

[Farigiraf]

why is it that rail projects are just so incapable of generating a financial return on their own at the farebox. They used to in the 19th Century.

The railway is no less of a network of transportation routes than the road network, yet roads haven't ever made a profit...
E.g. governments are throwing £billions at the Lower Thames Crossing or A9 dualling, yet these projects will never make a profit in their life, even if they were toll roads.

Transportation (or at least managing the infrastructure) is a public service (even if public transport isn't treated that way), so it makes back its money in a variety of different ways that may not reflect in the farebox but, certainly reflect in the wider economy, through making the movement of people and goods easier. Spain has been going down the road of cutting any public transport routes that aren't profitable, and as a result it's depopulated rural areas and contributed in killing off regional economies.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Doesn't time fly!
10 Years ago I planned to take a ride on this when it opens and I still haven't got around to doing it.

Me too! I will though in the next 6months as I am retired now.

Seem to remember lots of naysayers posting here saying it would be a white elephant

Yes - I remember. I don't recall me being one though.

 

[Bald Rick]

Reopening of old lines or new stations on existing lines?

Yes!


Re Borders. It has unquestionably been a good thing for people in the Borders area within striking distance of the line, and especially home owners.

I doubt whether it has been a good thing for Scotland overall, compared to the alternatives. But we are where we are.

 

[The exile]

It's not just compared to other rail projects, but to the world in general, why is it that rail projects are just so incapable of generating a financial return on their own at the farebox. They used to in the 19th Century.

Most of them didn’t (not from the fare box at least - if they made a profit it came out of the goods yard).

 

[thenorthern]

But that's just true of investments in general, some work out, some don't. What unfortunately happens with rail is that even the most substantial successes in terms of usage (it has to be Crossrail) still require subsidy. It's not just compared to other rail projects, but to the world in general, why is it that rail projects are just so incapable of generating a financial return on their own at the farebox. They used to in the 19th Century.

Any service or line that is going to make a profit it would already exist by now.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I've spent some time over the last couple of years in Peebles. Speaking to a hotel manager he said the railway has pushed up house prices as Edinburgh is now a much easier commute. A problem for a business which needs to employ lots of people in lower salary roles in an area with a low population density.

Any service or line that is going to make a profit it would already exist by now.

The value that passenger railways generate is mostly turned into land values. The only way to make a passenger railway profitable is if the railway company can benefit from these increases in land values. Various successful suburban commuter railways worked because the railway company developed the land for housing and therefore created the demand for season ticket holders who would guarantee future revenue as well.

It's fine for the railway itself to not make money if we've got tax systems that mean the increase in land values get collected appropriately. We don't. The benefits of the railway largely go to the people who own land (including existing housing) because their land is more desirable and therefore worth more. In a working system, we would therefore tax them more. Yes, this includes even people like pensioners who just happen to own a house and who don't actually use the railway. If your house goes up in value by £50k because of the railway, then it is madness that the state can't get back something like £10k in taxes as a result.

The only property value based tax we have is LBTT but that excludes lower-valued properties (thereby excluding all of the cases where a £100k house ends up worth £130k) and is only collected once when a property is sold, which may be decades away. Our council tax system means valuations are compressed into bands, and the lack of revaluation since 1991 means no one would have to pay more either. The Borders Railway did not exist in 1991 therefore you do not have to pay based on it in 2026. The only exception might be if you have a new house with a valuation post-railway reopening, but this is still compressed by the band system.

Given that the UK appears to be in an economic death spiral with collapsing public investment, I don't think it's credible for us to go on like this. If we don't sort out the connection between infrastructure investment and property taxes, then we just won't have any infrastructure investment. Even the private sector isn't going to be interested. It's also not credible to keep plans for infrastructure investment separate to development and redevelopment. If an area wants a shiny new railway or metro line, then it is going to need to build a lot more housing. If house prices are going up then it's normally a sign that there's just not enough housing in an area. If you've got a railway that needs more passengers, you don't have a reason to say no to more housing along it.

 

[Millisle]

Yes!


Re Borders. It has unquestionably been a good thing for people in the Borders area within striking distance of the line, and especially home owners.

I doubt whether it has been a good thing for Scotland overall, compared to the alternatives. But we are where we are.

I think it is true that it is not a benefit to Scotland overall, but from the inception it never occurred to me that it would be, or should be. For the price it is difficult to imagine a project that could be of more than local or regional significance. By way of comparison, the apparent £3.97 Bn cost of dualling the A9 (a project I support) is not going to impact in any perceptible way either on the vast majority of citizens. The political priorities of spending require gradual equity between regions, which, we hope, results in cumulative national benefit.

 

[HighlandStorm]

I think it is true that it is not a benefit to Scotland overall, but from the inception it never occurred to me that it would be, or should be. For the price it is difficult to imagine a project that could be of more than local or regional significance. By way of comparison, the apparent £3.97 Bn cost of dualling the A9 (a project I support) is not going to impact in any perceptible way either on the vast majority of citizens. The political priorities of spending require gradual equity between regions, which, we hope, results in cumulative national benefit.

It has brought significant benefit to the Borders, an area the railway was basically missing from after the original closure, IMO thus it has benefited Scotland. OK, so it may have increased the overall cost of the railway operation, but if we are asking everyone to pay for the railway, there should not be significant communities and areas completely lacking in rail connectivity.

I'm slightly uncomfortable with the argument that it's not been beneficial for Scotland as a whole, despite the fact I'll use the Highland Main Line, Far North Line, West Highland Line, Inverness to Aberdeen line more in a year than I've used the Borders Railway in total! Because if you start looking at the network with that mindset, not only might these lines I use be getting assessed for the chop, you ultimately would end up with a Scottish Rail Network consisting off the WCML, the ECML and the E&G!