Borders Railway extension - Gareth Dennis proposal

[och aye]

Gareth Dennis recently did an episode with his proposal of extending the Borders Railway to Carlisle. What are peoples thoughts on his proposals, especially a new route going directly through Langholm instead of Newcastleton?

3,178 views Streamed live on 8 May 2024 #Railnatter
This one has been in the pipeline a while... Should we reopen the full Waverley Route from Tweedbank south to Carlisle? No! We shouldn't!

I'll explain precisely how we shouldn't, using maps, showing the route that any new Borders Main Line should take, and explaining how and why you'd choose between the two available options. I might even tell you how much it would cost!

 

[Buzby]

As a tourist route, it would be wonderful, but the catchment area for regular passengers is insignificant. I doubt anyone would have the money available to even pay for a viable study!

 

[The exile]

Even if there was the money available, there are far more "worthy causes" than going all the way to Carlisle - unless mass timber traffic can be guaranteed for decades to come. The Buchan schemes come immediately to mind, and if we're in crayonista's dreamland there are sever shorter branches / extensions in the central belt that I'd put first. Let's start with Grangemouth, Penicuik, Kirkintilloch, Kilmacolm and Strathaven - the last if for no other reason than to hear people attempt to pronounce it (make it the terminus for trains from Milngavie for the jackpot!)

 

[swt_passenger]

There are a number of previous threads about this, they nearly all discuss what a hopeless case it is. No real population catchment for a start.

 

[Trainbike46]

Gareth Dennis recently did an episode with his proposal of extending the Borders Railway to Carlisle. What are peoples thoughts on his proposals, especially a new route going directly through Langholm instead of Newcastleton?

Based on what the video says, going via Langholm rather than Newcastleton makes sense due to the larger population

He has done several videos where he maps population centres over certain sizes, to try and identify railways that could be viable. It's definitely interesting to see what pops up!

Regarding this route, I think up to Hawick shows up, but beyond there does not

 

[HSTEd]

I must say, I find this not very convincing as far as arguments go.

The construction of ~85km of railway on the basis of vague freight capacity requirements seems foolhardy at best!
Once you've built this railway you will have spent an awful lot of money.

You'd be better off putting it towards a modern Edinburgh-Newcastle via Cottonhopeburnfoot route instead. At least that way you'd be going where the people are.

 

[waverley47]

If you really wanted to, and you had a good £500m to spend, you could extend the line to either or both of Kelso and Jedburgh. That's as far as it will ever go. There's no money in timber traffic. There are no towns that are worthy of the cost a brand new railway between Jedburgh and Carlisle.

It's a line that would have been nice if it hadn't have closed. But IT DID CLOSE. The only reason people like suggesting it is because it looks nice on a map and there used to be a railway line there. But rebuilding a line is about as expensive as building a new one. And it's not worth the close.

Any line that is ever suggested on the basis of "it would be a useful diversionary route" and "it should never have closed" is fundamentally not enough. It needs to stand on its own merits. This one doesn't, and unless a new town of 100,000 people is built in the Liddel Valley, it won't ever

Even if there was the money available, there are far more "worthy causes" than going all the way to Carlisle - unless mass timber traffic can be guaranteed for decades to come. The Buchan schemes come immediately to mind, and if we're in crayonista's dreamland there are sever shorter branches / extensions in the central belt that I'd put first. Let's start with Grangemouth, Penicuik, Kirkintilloch, Kilmacolm and Strathaven - the last if for no other reason than to hear people attempt to pronounce it (make it the terminus for trains from Milngavie for the jackpot!)

As to the others:

Penicuik isn't ever going to happen, the frequency could never compete with busses.

Grangemouth is unlikely, the connection faces the wrong waya and the station would be in an awkward place without some heavy work, although it definitely wouldn't be the most difficult.

Kilmalcolm and Bridge of Weir maybe, but unlikely. Neither of those places are really big enough for anything more than 2tph. It seems like a poor use of capacity into Central.

Kirkintilloch already has Lenzie station, and unless you build another station at Waterside, that's all it will ever have.

Strathaven isn't ever going to happen, the old bridge at Stonehouse is gone, and the one at Larkhall is falling to pieces, and any new line would need some seriously expensive viaducts.

Buchan I can see happening, but after the wires reach Aberdeen, as that's where the money is being spent for the foreseeable future.

 

[fgwrich]

Based on what the video says, going via Langholm rather than Newcastleton makes sense due to the larger population

He has done several videos where he maps population centres over certain sizes, to try and identify railways that could be viable. It's definitely interesting to see what pops up!

Regarding this route, I think up to Hawick shows up, but beyond there does not

Indeed, to Hawick absolutely. South of there, No. I still feel it should have gone as far as Melrose and Hawick from the start but financial constraints put paid to that.

 

[Buzby]

I was suspicious at it ending at Tweedbank - was there input/contribution from private housebuilders? Melrose/Hawick males eminent sense but certainly no further. When you further consider the dual line route was singled to save money, if shows how every penny was a prisoner in putting the plan forward!

 

[waverley47]

I was suspicious at it ending at Tweedbank - was there input/contribution from private housebuilders? Melrose/Hawick males eminent sense but certainly no further. When you further consider the dual line route was singled to save money, if shows how every penny was a prisoner in putting the plan forward!

The route through Melrose is underneath a main road. It was the logical place to end it because they built it on the cheap.

Any further suddenly requires a massive amount of funding which is not proportional to the number of people served. Tweedbank is a nice, convenient parkway site that serves the busses and private transport from across the borders.

 

[deltic08]

If you really wanted to, and you had a good £500m to spend, you could extend the line to either or both of Kelso and Jedburgh. That's as far as it will ever go. There's no money in timber traffic. There are no towns that are worthy of the cost a brand new railway between Jedburgh and Carlisle.

It's a line that would have been nice if it hadn't have closed. But IT DID CLOSE. The only reason people like suggesting it is because it looks nice on a map and there used to be a railway line there. But rebuilding a line is about as expensive as building a new one. And it's not worth the close.
Keilder Forest

Hawick is nearer to Carlisle than Edinburgh. Residents of Hawick use Carlisle as a railhead travelling south.
I don't think Gareth Dennis actually said Carlisle-Hawick would be a reason to build it as a diversion route. It could be used as a diversion route if it was built.
Why does the Carlisle yard to Chirk log train run daily if there is no money in timber traffic? Doesn't all the timber on this train come from Keilder Forest by road to Carlisle and then transferred to rail? The expense of double handling could be eliminated by a freight railhead in the forest then routed by a reinstated line from there to Carlisle.
There is only one train a day because more cannot be loaded in Keider and transported to Carlisle by forty lorry movements, unloaded, then reloaded into twenty rail wagons in a working day because of this double handling.
Over a million tons of timber is felled every year in Keilder and because it is a rotation crop of planting trees and felling twenty five years later we will never run out of timber to remove.
New handling ways were looked into about twenty years ago. It was proposed to load cut timber into stackable containers at the felling site and moved to the railhead in Keilder. Here the containers were transferred to container flats using a lift designed to be fitted to the lorry trailer with the lorry returning to the cutting site for reloading with full containers. This required only half a dozen lorries to do the shuttling and no ground handling facilities only a concrete pad. Chipped wood could also use this type of handling at the felling site using containers similar to those used in long haul refuse trains.
These containers could also be unloaded quicker at destination with a quicker turnround here. The idea was put on hold until the Hawick-Carlisle line was reinstated.

 

[Trainbike46]

I was suspicious at it ending at Tweedbank - was there input/contribution from private housebuilders? Melrose/Hawick males eminent sense but certainly no further. When you further consider the dual line route was singled to save money, if shows how every penny was a prisoner in putting the plan forward!

I'm okay with that though - a new line got built, which is the most important thing.

 

[Falcon1200]

It could be used as a diversion route if it was built.

To be of any real use as a diversionary route the entire line would need to be electrified, and double track, the latter requiring the rebuilding of much of the existing Borders Railway.

 

[HSTEd]

Why does the Carlisle yard to Chirk log train run daily if there is no money in timber traffic? Doesn't all the timber on this train come from Keilder Forest by road to Carlisle and then transferred to rail? The expense of double handling could be eliminated by a freight railhead in the forest then routed by a reinstated line from there to Carlisle.

It runs because freight operators pay essentially nothing for their paths.
This is acceptable to the wider railway industry when the freight operators merely want to use existing infrastrucutre, but it's not going to wash for a business case for half a billion pounds (or more!) of railway!

Over a million tons of timber is felled every year in Keilder and because it is a rotation crop of planting trees and felling twenty five years later we will never run out of timber to remove.

A million tonnes a year is not really that much in freight train terms. That's about ~2800 tonnes per day.
Assuming I've found the correct train (Carlisle Yard Colas Rail - Chirk Kronospan Colas Rail as "General merchandise"), that train has a trailing load of ~1400 tonnes.
So we are looking at between two or three trainloads total of potential market share.

A net gain of one to two freight trains per day won't even move the least significant digit on a BCR calculation.

 

[Bald Rick]

Doesn't all the timber on this train come from Keilder Forest by road to Carlisle and then transferred to rail? The expense of double handling could be eliminated by a freight railhead in the forest then routed by a reinstated line from there to Carlisle.

Umm, how would the timber get from where it is felled to the railhead - are the trees going to fall neatly onto the wagons?

 

[waverley47]

Hawick is nearer to Carlisle than Edinburgh. Residents of Hawick use Carlisle as a railhead travelling south.
I don't think Gareth Dennis actually said Carlisle-Hawick would be a reason to build it as a diversion route. It could be used as a diversion route if it was built.
Why does the Carlisle yard to Chirk log train run daily if there is no money in timber traffic? Doesn't all the timber on this train come from Keilder Forest by road to Carlisle and then transferred to rail? The expense of double handling could be eliminated by a freight railhead in the forest then routed by a reinstated line from there to Carlisle.
There is only one train a day because more cannot be loaded in Keider and transported to Carlisle by forty lorry movements, unloaded, then reloaded into twenty rail wagons in a working day because of this double handling.
Over a million tons of timber is felled every year in Keilder and because it is a rotation crop of planting trees and felling twenty five years later we will never run out of timber to remove.
New handling ways were looked into about twenty years ago. It was proposed to load cut timber into stackable containers at the felling site and moved to the railhead in Keilder. Here the containers were transferred to container flats using a lift designed to be fitted to the lorry trailer with the lorry returning to the cutting site for reloading with full containers. This required only half a dozen lorries to do the shuttling and no ground handling facilities only a concrete pad. Chipped wood could also use this type of handling at the felling site using containers similar to those used in long haul refuse trains.
These containers could also be unloaded quicker at destination with a quicker turnround here. The idea was put on hold until the Hawick-Carlisle line was reinstated.

The problem with this particular line, is that we get in a loop that goes something like this:

"The plan for freight services was put on hold until the line was reinstated. The plans shows that there is demand, so we should reopen it."

If the the plan is waiting until the line is reinstated, that means it's not lucrative enough to pay for reinstatement on its own.

Which means that it needs some other business case to pay for it first.

HSTEd's post number 14 outlines the likely potential demand for this specific case.

Which means that you need to find a business case that doesn't involve "but there is massive demand for the line from the timber traffic that hasn't materialised because there isn't a line there to run along"

Which means you're expecting the potential passenger demand to pay for the line.

How many passenger services do you expect will run along the line, because nothing with a frequency of less that 2tph in each direction isn't going to be approved?

There is absolutely no way that anyone would ever run that frequency of service across a 62 mile route, serving a population of 20,000 people on a good day, with a journey time of at least an hour and a bit (plus the extra hour to Edinburgh) and needing at least six diagrams to run with any reliability.

Any frequency of less than 2tph in each direction is just never going to actually raise enough money in passenger fees, for anyone to ever sign off on funding it.

Realistically, the business cases for the Meldon line and the Derby - Buxton line follow the same logic.

 

[Millisle]

A number of journeys recently on the X95 between Carlisle and Hawick and vv suggested to me that passenger traffic on a reopened railway would be pitiful.

 

[mrgreen]

Based on what the video says, going via Langholm rather than Newcastleton makes sense due to the larger population

According to Wikipedia:
Langholm population: 1740
Newcastleton: 768

i.e. if 10% of the population of Langholm decided to go to Carlisle, just one 3-car service would be ample. And even that's not going to happen day after day throughout the year.

 

[Ben427]

I do like some of Gareth's stuff but some of his other work (like this) is ridiculous. I'd prefer if he showed his opinion on something that may happen and has a variety of options (e.g. outcome of the MYNE study, even certain sections e.g. Leeds-Sheffield) - although his proposal to double deck Leeds station to facilitate high speed trains running E-W was frankly mental.

 

[wilbers]

I do like some of Gareth's stuff but some of his other work (like this) is ridiculous.

Why not, its does say at the top of the description for the video "Should we reopen the full Waverley Route from Tweedbank south to Carlisle? No! We shouldn't! ". With then the very full explanation of why it shouldn't be reopened if you watch it.

 

[Nottingham59]

Far better spending the money on adding passing loops between Carlisle and Carstairs. When HS2 opens to Handsacre, I think the fastest route from London to Edinburgh is likely to be via the WCML, and certainly if/when Phase 2a is resurrected.

 

[Mr. SW]

I have a relative who lives in the area, so I have a little knowledge.

There are extensive proposed and actual residential developments dotted in and around Newtown St Boswells. (For instance)

Here is some blurb:

https://www.scotborders.gov.uk/downloads/file/889/newtown_st_boswells

Community website. I'm not sure when this was last updated. It looks a little old.

Newtown St Boswells & Eildon

newtowneildon

newtowneildon.weebly.com

This is a bit old (2012). Shows the route of the line through the village being blocked.

https://www.scotborders.gov.uk/downloads/file/1898/newtown_st_boswells_development_framework

There is a council office there too, but it doesn't seem to be very large, but then again, nothing is particularly large in the Borders.

Also had a look at Google Earth/Maps etc. The route, particularly south of Hawick, really hugs the contours and the earthworks are kept to the bare minimum unless there was no choice in constructing viaducts and tunnels.

Anything beyond Hawick is dead. Deader than a very dead thing that's been dead a long time. I don't really think the North British Railway really cared about the line either, nor it's successors.

Improve Carstairs.

 

[MisterSheeps]

Another problem with this idea is whilst a direct route from Hawick to Langholm does capture the larger settlements, there is nothing in between, and doing so is even further from Kielder. To really be useful the Border Counties Railway would have to be reopened from Kielder to Riccarton, so you might as well send the passenger services that way ... or not

 

[The Planner]

Improve Carstairs.

NR did last year, massively.

 

[Transilien]

Hawick should be prioritised as an extension; the rest of the route is not very feasible considering the costs and the lack of population.

 

[yoyothehobo]

An interesting point, but if this line was still open today, would it actually have any services do you think, other than potentially some freight services taking a scenic route and passenger trains between Hawick and Edinburgh?

 

[Senex]

NR did last year, massively.

Still seems to cost between 2 and 2½ minutes as against a theoretical sustained line-speed between Thankerton and Auchengray (assuming the new bridge over the Clyde and a real high-speed junction on straight track south of the river).

 

[waverley47]

An interesting point, but if this line was still open today, would it actually have any services do you think, other than potentially some freight services taking a scenic route and passenger trains between Hawick and Edinburgh?

Yes.

If the line had stayed open, it would have had to have remained signalled to a passenger standard to serve as a diversionary route.

If it was still signalled as such, even with the stations closed, a parliamentary service would still operate over the line to maintain the statutory obligation to "serve" the line, even if all the stations were closed.

Still seems to cost between 2 and 2½ minutes as against a theoretical sustained line-speed between Thankerton and Auchengray (assuming the new bridge over the Clyde and a real high-speed junction on straight track south of the river).

Unfortunately, things cost money. We don't have much money as a country right now. Please submit a proposal and the Department for Transport will get back to you in, I don't know, 2045?

Also wavering off topic, but we're in the speculative thread so I'll say it while we are here, you could do a lot worse than resignalling the Haymarket to Carstairs line to bring the capacity up. Currently capacity is limited in busy periods or during disruption by the very very lengthy signal sections, and it would cost a lot less than a new grade separated junction and viaducts over the Clyde.

 

[The Planner]

Still seems to cost between 2 and 2½ minutes as against a theoretical sustained line-speed between Thankerton and Auchengray (assuming the new bridge over the Clyde and a real high-speed junction on straight track south of the river).

Can you achieve higher around the bend, and I have no doubt the early work looked at other options and they were discounted.

 

[Mr. SW]

NR did last year, massively.

Indeed. But such work is not set in stone.