Borders Railway - 10 years on

[Millisle]

I think perhaps I did not clarify what I meant, which was considering the Borders Railway as a project of public capital spending in general, not a railway project.

 

[zwk500]

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

Not to mention all their other interests, such as docks.

And how many 19th Century lines went bust?

 

[Kilopylae]

if we are asking everyone to pay for the railway, there should not be significant communities and areas completely lacking in rail connectivity.

I think this is critical. Improving regional connectivity with projects like the Borders Railway helps to maintain public consent to spend public money on rail.

Think how upset people were about Crossrail!

 

[Taunton]

The value that passenger railways generate is mostly turned into land values.

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.

That's true of society improvements in general. Local schools being "good". New motorway to the city. And so on.

But these have been paid for out of public tax funds which those there have contributed to, so looking to now collect further taxes on value increases is wanting people to pay twice for it. In fact those buying the properties there are most likely those who already contribute well over the average to public tax funds already.

 

[Oxfordblues]

Transport Scotland is spending £3.7 billion on widening 83 miles of the A9 between Perth and Inverness. No attempt will be made to recover any of that money by installing toll-booths or cameras to automatically charge users. That is tantamount to a huge hidden subsidy to hauliers and bus operators. If a new railway were built all the passengers and freight customers would be expected to pay for every trip. If no fares were charged every train would be busy and the project would be declared a huge success, at least in road terms.

 

[NCT]

I don't have sources to hand, but some posters have suggested that the Treasury gets a nice deal from vehicle excise and fuel duties being bigger than the annual road maintenance spend.

 

[NotATrainspott]

That's true of society improvements in general. Local schools being "good". New motorway to the city. And so on.

But these have been paid for out of public tax funds which those there have contributed to, so looking to now collect further taxes on value increases is wanting people to pay twice for it. In fact those buying the properties there are most likely those who already contribute well over the average to public tax funds already.

Yes, indeed, which is why there is a pretty solid case for using land value uplift to fund other public services as well. I'm bringing up railways because they, like other linear infrastructure, provide the clearest demonstration of the point. Education and health are a little bit less obviously related to the value of one specific plot of land. It's generally possible to deliver health and education without depending on a specific plot of land either. A school generally works just as well if it's 500m away. A railway needs to be in a linear corridor with pretty restrictive constraints on horizontal and vertical curve radii so you don't have the same flexibility.

Everyone might have helped to pay for an improvement with VAT and income tax and so on, but the benefit of the improvement is quite localised. The Borders Railway has a very specific benefit along its route but a much more diffuse one across the country as a whole. Two people, one in Galashiels and the other in Lerwick, might have contributed equal amounts of VAT and income tax and other general taxes towards the project - let's say £100. But the person in Galashiels ends up getting £10k worth of benefit, while it's not clear that the person in Shetland got more than £100 back at all. It's not unreasonable to collect £1000 from the person in Galashiels so that the person in Lerwick only has to contribute £90. The Galashiels person is still up by £9000 while the person in Lerwick is clearly up by £10. When this makes more funding available, it means more improvements get to be built, so we actually end up physically better off as a society than if we didn't tax or build.

Also, note that the £10k of benefit really only goes to the person in Galashiels who owns the land. It doesn't go to someone who rents, because landlords will just put up the rent if demand in the area goes up. We can mitigate that but only by developing more housing alongside the railway so that existing tenants don't lose out (even if they do end up moving home).

This £10k benefit is also independent of how much you individually have justified it. You could just own a burnt-out wreck of a home and it'd end up being worth £10k more. You could be in prison for murder but your home would still be worth £10k more. The benefit goes to existing landowners, not to the people who might now be interested in buying a house there because of the railway. Indeed, this means that your professional couple who do contribute a lot of tax money end up losing out because they didn't happen to be born early enough to buy the land near the railway.

So for the Borders Railway we should be considering how much extra housebuilding has happened as a result of it. It's not clear that housebuilding in Midlothian is that influenced by the railway. Shawfair might be a nice planned development around the station but the station only has a 2tph service, and is within the City Bypass. So, it's unlikely the railway is actually that important compared to the provision of local buses and possibly a future tram line. The housebuilding story would be much cleaner down in the deep Borders area around Galashiels but I'm not convinced we've seen that much. There has been some, yes, but is it really any more than would have happened without the railway?

The economic purpose of investing in something like a new railway line is that it solves a capacity bottleneck. E.g. that there's too many cars on the A7 and so there's good land for housing which is unable to be developed until the railway comes and unlocks it. We do see this elsewhere around rail investments. Are we seeing it on the Borders Railway? I'm not convinced. The specific problem, I think, is that in a rural area like Galashiels anyone who would benefit from the railway already will have a car, and could just take advantage of park and ride facilities nearer Edinburgh where the actual road bottleneck is. Spending the Borders Railway money on boosting the old Edinburgh Crossrail idea and getting a turn-up-and-go frequency to Newcraighall, or maybe continuing down to Gorebridge only, would maybe have done just as much. The fact that the legislation for the railway was written so that it had to be built all the way or not at all is I think a pretty clear sign that a shorter line would have been more viable.

If we do want to make the line we have be as worthwhile as possible, we should really open the taps on housing development around Galashiels and Tweedbank. There's plenty of open land within walking distance of Tweedbank. If we combined it with housing development, then maybe the line could have stretched that little bit further to Melrose or Newton St Boswells so that even more people could live within a short walking distance?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

It would be interesting to know the thoughts, especially those who use or live near the line, as to what difference reintroducing passenger rail services in Midlothian and the Scottish Borders has made to them and the areas it serves over the last decade or so.

It wasn't until moving to Galashiels in 1993 that I realised quite how cut off the Borders was from the rest of Scotland. Edinburgh is 35 miles away and at that time could be reached by car in an hour outwith peak times. The only alternative was the 95 bus, an hourly timetable, 100 mins and closer to two hours at peak times with the last bus home leaving Edinburgh at 9:00pm. Going to gigs, theatre, a fancy restaurant meant taking the car.

Between then and 2015 I could count on my fingers the number of times I took a train anywhere. I recall two train trips to London for job interviews, one from Berwick (40 miles by car) and one from Lockerbie (56 miles, return in a January blizzard). Latterly I sometimes had to attend conferences through work in Glasgow. Cheapest way to get there was a 50 mile drive to Carluke park and ride, before my employer insisted that staff had to travel via Newcraighall as that was somehow going to boost the case for the Borders railway. (This was still over 30 miles, took longer and cost more). The point I'm making here is that if you have to drive over 30 miles to reach your station you may as well keep driving, unless it's a very long distance or someone else is paying. It's no wonder that predicting demand was so difficult as none of the previous re-openings had ventured 30 miles into the middle of a railway desert.

Before the line opened I thought I might use it four or five times a year. It turned out to be closer to four or five times a month. Work trips, shopping trips, concerts, festival fringe, restaurants, visiting friends, going to the football. Trips to Aberdeen, Inverness, Thurso, Kyle of Lochalsh, Stranraer, Largs Dundee (often with club 50 cheap tickets). Visits to my mum in Perth. I became familiar with the 'modern' railway and its bizarre ticketing anomalies, to the point that my most common destinations were South Gyle and Kirkcaldy, though I've still never set foot on either of the platforms at these stations. In the early days overcrowding and the poor reliability of 158s were a bug, or perhaps a feature to try to contain the demand. Post covid the normal 3 car 170s are usually adequate.

The predicted surge in housebuilding hasn't happened yet in the Borders. Large amounts of land zoned for housing in the central borders belong to one farming / building company that rarely seem to build anything. Meanwhile in Midlothian houses are springing up near Eskbank and Shawfair stations.

Politically the protracted saga of the Waverly / Borders line led to the rise and fall of the Border liberals. David Steels opposition to the closure and continued campaigning started a slow growth in liberal representation to two MPs and two MSPs when the Scottish Parliament opened. At this point they dropped the ball. Local expectations were that with the liberals being in the ruling Scottish coalition the railway's return would be swift. Instead they spent 6 years debating it. The transport minister, a liberal democrat, overruled a public enquiry and gave the go-ahead for an extension to the M74 urban motorway but couldn't find any time or money for the Borders railway. And after the 2007 election of a minority SNP government the liberals voted for the Edinburgh trams to get the go ahead, leaving no money to fund the railway and ultimately ensuring it cost far more when it was built due to inflation.

 

[8ace]

Looking forward to my first trip on this line in July, out to Tweedbank then straight back, stopping of at Galashiels for lunch and a few cold ones (I see there's a spoons lol) and then back to Waverley.

 

[lrbvoyager]

Does anyone think it will get extended to Carlisle again?

 

[Bald Rick]

Does anyone think it will get extended to Carlisle again?

No chance. Would be a criminal waste of money.

 

[brad465]

You can take the view that the fact it was reopened means that it was a success, regardless of the hundreds of millions of cost to build or the subsidies necessary to sustain it, and that's fine, everyone can have an opinion

However, it IS a drain on resources, a net cost to the transport budget, so meets the White Elephant definition in my eyes

Does it bring economic benefits though that at the very least offset the net cost to running the line from the transport budget? If no, then yes it is a net drain of sorts, but if yes, then it is not a "White Elephant" as you put it, as business activity will have increased in the surrounding areas along the line that would not have done so had the railway not been reinstated.

Reston definitely though has the look of a white elephant project, unless there are plans to put a large new town on the land surrounding it, but that's another matter.

 

[JamieL]

No chance. Would be a criminal waste of money.

Presumably that is from a railway perspective vice the broader economic benefits to the region?

Official studies have shown that the Borders needs better links to the south to maximise its economic potential as well as to reverse years of decline in isolated communities such as Hawick. The extension of the Borders Railway to Hawick and Carlisle is the most effective proposal to adequately address these problems. It will provide a gateway to the region from the economic powerhouse of North West England and strengthen links to Edinburgh. And with climate action now urgent, regional rail expansion is vital to delivering a more sustainable future.

Source:

https://campaignforbordersrail.org/campaigns/onwards/

 

[zwk500]

Source:

https://campaignforbordersrail.org/campaigns/onwards/

Given this figure:

In their outline case, you'll forgive me for taking their conclusions with a pinch of salt. Look how much of their claimed catchment is not directly served by the railway. Look at the road travel times to the railhead.

 

[The exile]

Presumably that is from a railway perspective vice the broader economic benefits to the region?

The majority of that “region” (certainly beyond Hawick) is beautiful countryside, but virtually empty. There are far worthier recipients of money for rail restoration money than any completion of the Waverley route.

 

[The Planner]

Presumably that is from a railway perspective vice the broader economic benefits to the region?



Source:

https://campaignforbordersrail.org/campaigns/onwards/

Cost benefit though, I also can't see anything on those links that has tangible evidence or data to back it up. The fact that the first item in section 3 of the summary case is resilience doesn't help it. They quote £644million at 2012 prices, what would that be now? double?

 

[Sealink]

Transport Scotland is spending £3.7 billion on widening 83 miles of the A9 between Perth and Inverness. No attempt will be made to recover any of that money by installing toll-booths or cameras to automatically charge users. That is tantamount to a huge hidden subsidy to hauliers and bus operators. If a new railway were built all the passengers and freight customers would be expected to pay for every trip. If no fares were charged every train would be busy and the project would be declared a huge success, at least in road terms.

Funny how government money spent on roads is always "investment", but on railways it's "subsidy"

 

[Autspectorder]

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.



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.

Buses and trains should complement each other rather than compete.

 

[The exile]

Funny how government money spent on roads is always "investment", but on railways it's "subsidy"

That’s a bit unfair. Capital spending (doubling the A9 or reopening a railway) is investment. Subsidy is providing money to cover operating costs. Operating costs of roads are low; of railway services they are high. Supported bus services (or indeed the fare cap) count as subsidy.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jun 2026 ==

Buses and trains should complement each other rather than compete.

Wouldn’t say that this is really an example of them competing but rather that where there is a good bus service that not only goes past people’s front doors frequently but also goes close to a lot of popular destinations, people are going to choose it over a less frequent train service. In Edinburgh’s case, the bus might be slower but you can get off it in the middle of Princes St (probably) rather than facing the climb up the Waverley Steps (yes, I know there are alternatives) and arriving at one end of it. Even if the trains and buses were in an integrated ticketing system (ie cost the same) I doubt it would make much difference.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Wouldn’t say that this is really an example of them competing but rather that where there is a good bus service that not only goes past people’s front doors frequently but also goes close to a lot of popular destinations, people are going to choose it over a less frequent train service. In Edinburgh’s case, the bus might be slower but you can get off it in the middle of Princes St (probably) rather than facing the climb up the Waverley Steps (yes, I know there are alternatives) and arriving at one end of it. Even if the trains and buses were in an integrated ticketing system (ie cost the same) I doubt it would make much difference.

Worth remembering that even in Victorian times, heavy rail struggled to compete with tram services. Once the urban area grew and the high frequency tram network expanded along with it, it stopped making sense to wait for an infrequent train. Most of the Edinburgh suburban services were killed off well before Beeching because of this.

 

[The exile]

Worth remembering that even in Victorian times, heavy rail struggled to compete with tram services. Once the urban area grew and the high frequency tram network expanded along with it, it stopped making sense to wait for an infrequent train. Most of the Edinburgh suburban services were killed off well before Beeching because of this.

Yes - Edinburgh’s geography /geology doesn’t lend itself to inner suburban rail commuting - except along the East-West axis.

 

[Bald Rick]

Presumably that is from a railway perspective vice the broader economic benefits to the region?

It’s purely from a socio-economic perspective. Scotland would be far better off spend8ng that sort of money on other things than a railway that serves no purpose through empty countryside.

They quote £644million at 2012 prices, what would that be now? double?

easily 3-4 times.

Funny how government money spent on roads is always "investment", but on railways it's "subsidy"

Funny how that is said so often on these pages, when it is parently not true. Governements are very keen to stress that money spent on railway projects is investment.

 

[Sealink]

Increasing fares revenue contributes to reduction in government subsidy for the railways

The rise in fare revenue contributed to a reduction in funding from the UK and devolved governments towards the operation of the railway. This fell to £11.9 billion in the year, down £0.9 billion from the previous year.

“Taking stock of the national rail finances in our annual report, we welcome the continued recovery in fares income in the last year. But cost pressures and a lagged recovery in industry income compared to passenger journeys, explains why the reduction in government funding still leaves the overall subsidy substantially above pre-pandemic levels.”

The ORR refers to subsidy.

 

[GordonT]

Governments are very keen to stress that money spent on railway projects is investment.

I suppose they are trying to capture votes from folk who are rail orientated as well as from the greater population of those who are car orientated and will say (and do) what they feel is necessary to best serve their interests.

 

[Nottingham59]

Does anyone think it will get extended to Carlisle again?

It would be far far more productive to spend the money quadding increasing the capacity of parts of the line between Carlisle and Carstairs, and by increasing the capacity of the western approaches to Edinburgh.

 

[matchmaker]

Worth remembering that even in Victorian times, heavy rail struggled to compete with tram services. Once the urban area grew and the high frequency tram network expanded along with it, it stopped making sense to wait for an infrequent train. Most of the Edinburgh suburban services were killed off well before Beeching because of this.

Same in Aberdeen.

 

[cats_five]

It would be far far more productive to spend the money quadding increasing the capacity of parts of the line between Carlisle and Carstairs, and by increasing the capacity of the western approaches to Edinburgh.

What part of the Western approaches are you thinking of?

 

[och aye]

It wasn't until moving to Galashiels in 1993 that I realised quite how cut off the Borders was from the rest of Scotland. Edinburgh is 35 miles away and at that time could be reached by car in an hour outwith peak times. The only alternative was the 95 bus, an hourly timetable, 100 mins and closer to two hours at peak times with the last bus home leaving Edinburgh at 9:00pm. Going to gigs, theatre, a fancy restaurant meant taking the car.

Between then and 2015 I could count on my fingers the number of times I took a train anywhere. I recall two train trips to London for job interviews, one from Berwick (40 miles by car) and one from Lockerbie (56 miles, return in a January blizzard). Latterly I sometimes had to attend conferences through work in Glasgow. Cheapest way to get there was a 50 mile drive to Carluke park and ride, before my employer insisted that staff had to travel via Newcraighall as that was somehow going to boost the case for the Borders railway. (This was still over 30 miles, took longer and cost more). The point I'm making here is that if you have to drive over 30 miles to reach your station you may as well keep driving, unless it's a very long distance or someone else is paying. It's no wonder that predicting demand was so difficult as none of the previous re-openings had ventured 30 miles into the middle of a railway desert.

Before the line opened I thought I might use it four or five times a year. It turned out to be closer to four or five times a month. Work trips, shopping trips, concerts, festival fringe, restaurants, visiting friends, going to the football. Trips to Aberdeen, Inverness, Thurso, Kyle of Lochalsh, Stranraer, Largs Dundee (often with club 50 cheap tickets). Visits to my mum in Perth. I became familiar with the 'modern' railway and its bizarre ticketing anomalies, to the point that my most common destinations were South Gyle and Kirkcaldy, though I've still never set foot on either of the platforms at these stations. In the early days overcrowding and the poor reliability of 158s were a bug, or perhaps a feature to try to contain the demand. Post covid the normal 3 car 170s are usually adequate.

The predicted surge in housebuilding hasn't happened yet in the Borders. Large amounts of land zoned for housing in the central borders belong to one farming / building company that rarely seem to build anything. Meanwhile in Midlothian houses are springing up near Eskbank and Shawfair stations.

Politically the protracted saga of the Waverly / Borders line led to the rise and fall of the Border liberals. David Steels opposition to the closure and continued campaigning started a slow growth in liberal representation to two MPs and two MSPs when the Scottish Parliament opened. At this point they dropped the ball. Local expectations were that with the liberals being in the ruling Scottish coalition the railway's return would be swift. Instead they spent 6 years debating it. The transport minister, a liberal democrat, overruled a public enquiry and gave the go-ahead for an extension to the M74 urban motorway but couldn't find any time or money for the Borders railway. And after the 2007 election of a minority SNP government the liberals voted for the Edinburgh trams to get the go ahead, leaving no money to fund the railway and ultimately ensuring it cost far more when it was built due to inflation.

Thanks for your personal view from someone who lives in the region.

It's interesting to hear that the increase in house building hasn't happened in the Borders as much as in Midlothian.

It is rather ironic that the Lib Dems, who were the most vocal and really pushed for the line, as part of the initial agreement with Labour back in 1999 as part of their coalition agreement after the 1st Scottish Parliament election ended up in the political wilderness in that part of the World when the line was finally delivered! Without getting too political, I would also suggest that being part of the 2010 UK Parliament coalition, also added to the backlash against them in the Borders.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jun 2026 ==

Given this figure:
View attachment 205824
In their outline case, you'll forgive me for taking their conclusions with a pinch of salt. Look how much of their claimed catchment is not directly served by the railway. Look at the road travel times to the railhead.

There's probably a social mobility case for getting it to Hawick, but I'm of the understanding that a lot more (expensive) work would need to be done to get it there as a lot of the former alignment has been encroached by the A6091.

Given there isn't much money about, it's unlikely any extension will happen any time in the near future. Perhaps once the bulk of electrification and ScotRail fleet renewals are done towards the end of the 2030s, there might be a case for looking at it then? Although, there might be a better social mobility case for getting the rails back up to Peterhead and Fraserburgh over Hawick. Who knows though, nobody has a crystal ball.

 

[JKP]

Some interesting posts here. As a resident, I have not used the railway since I left work prior to Covid.

Bus services in the Borders have been reduced since the arrival of the railway. First Bus pulled out in 2016 saying that their revenue had been reduced by passengers on the X95 between Hawick, Galashiels and Edinburgh switching to rail. The frequency of the X95 at that time was every 30 minutes daytime, hourly evening and Sunday. Craig of Campbeltown t/a Borders Buses acquired the business and have reduced the frequency to hourly. The Jedburgh/Kelso to Edinburgh bus routes which provided an hourly service north of St Boswells have been withdrawn with the A68 settlements now only seeing a Galashiels, Newtown St Boswells, Edinburgh route every 90 minutes.

Most people from places east drive to Tweedbank where the car park had to be extended not long after the line opened. Whilst the Jedburgh and Kelso to Galashiels bus routes offer reasonable connections with the train, these cannot be relied on and buses finish mid evening out here. The last time I was at Tweedbank was to pick up a neighbour and was surprised how busy the train was at 9.30 in the evening.

I visit Edinburgh fortnightly to see family but always use the car as it can be done in half the time of driving to Tweedbank, train travel then walking at the Edinburgh end. If going to Edinburgh city centre, driving to Sheriffhall Park and Ride then 33 bus is preferred.

 

[The exile]

It's interesting to hear that the increase in house building hasn't happened in the Borders as much as in Midlothian.

Interesting, perhaps, but hardly surprising. The jobs are in Edinburgh, and the line then passes through land crying out for post-de-industrialisation redevelopment. Once you’re out of that, any proposal for significant development close to the line until you get out to Gala would not only be likely to attract a lot only opposition but also be expensive in terms of utilities provision.