Borders Railway - Now Open

[Flying Snail]

867 and 871 are the worst.

867 especially has the most operators (6) evidently present within an interior I think.

No wonder them clunkers are struggling down the Borders!

Those are two of the higher powered units.

This issue with the 158s seems a bit odd, not something that has been a problem with them on other lines, a maintenance issue perhaps?

 

[edwin_m]

Not surprised the 158's are struggling with repeated runs over Falahill; it's a murderous climb. 9 miles at 1 in 70 from memory (anyone confirm?)

From the Ian Allan book it's 1 in 70 from about MP8.5 to about MP16.75 interrupted by a short level section at Gorebridge and about half a mile of 1 in 111. This is the historic route but won't have changed much.

158s are climbing Talerding Bank on the Cambrian day in and day out. The climb from Machynlleth is 13-14 miles and the last 3/4 is 1/52. Overall no problems. Also 38 miles climb from Carlisle to Sis Gill.

I make it 3 miles at 1 in 52 followed by 1 mile at 1 in 56 up to the summit.

The difference may be that leaving Machynlleth there is three miles of level or moderate ascent to get up some speed, and with no stations or loops there is no need to stop and restart. Borders has Newtongrange on the 1 in 70 and Gorebridge with 1 in 70 not far from the platform ends, which (I guess - never visited!) means the unit doesn't have the chance to build up any speed. The transmission probably stays in converter mode which is less efficient and will be producing more heat.

Settle and Carlisle is only 1 in 100.

 

[philthetube]

Sounds like a job for the 185's

I expected this comment being rubbished but not a peep about it, would they be good for the job?

 

[47271]

158s have been going up Slochd on the Highland Main Line (some very long stretches of 1:60, the first one straight out of Inverness) for 25 years now and, whilst we've had quite a few complaints about the unit type for other reasons, I don't remember habitual overheating being a problem.

More generally, I think it's quite funny that a lot of the problems upsetting Borders users, and The Scotsman - especially those brought on by long sections of single line - have been at large on the HML since the mid nineteeth century!

185s probably would be better, but if they're not part of the overall solution for Scotrail, and they're not, then it's a non starter. Unless of course some built a line to Carlisle to let them in that way. [emoji38]

 

[Chrism20]

185s probably are the best DMU out there for the job but like others I can't see why the 158s are causing so many problems - as 47271 said they manage fine on the HML and are widely used on other lines with steep gradients whilst the 185s replaced 158s across the pennies.

Other than a 158 the only other option at the moment is a 170 and would they be any better with the stop starting on the steep climb as acceleration isn't a 170s strongpoint IIRC.

 

[Bald Rick]

Do tell.

It's been told several times before, by others, including further up thread I think.

But here's a link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-25035749

" The decision to build the new Borders railway has been described as "insane" by the Institute of Economic Affairs. The think tank said the project was "exceedingly poor value for money". "

 

[jopsuk]

Do remember that the IEA are not some politically neutral organisation. They're very much conservative and favour road building and private cars over public transport (and bicycles)

 

[Polarbear]

One year on from the re-opening, and we find that far from being the White elephant predicted in some quarters, the Tweedbank line is becoming a hostage to its own success!

It's great to hear that passenger numbers have exceeded all expectations & that the link continues to be well used. It is however, unfortunate that some of the cost-cutting that was implemented during the planning stages, has bitten hard.

As to how to fix the problems, it's clear that the 158s struggle on the 1:70 climb which has become an issue. For me, the solution would be to electrify the line as given its mainly single line (thanks to the cutbacks noted above), it surely wouldn't cost that much to do?

Certainly, EMUs would address both capacity issues & timing issues that currently affect this line.

 

[Mordac]

One year on from the re-opening, and we find that far from being the White elephant predicted in some quarters, the Tweedbank line is becoming a hostage to its own success!

It's great to hear that passenger numbers have exceeded all expectations & that the link continues to be well used. It is however, unfortunate that some of the cost-cutting that was implemented during the planning stages, has bitten hard.

As to how to fix the problems, it's clear that the 158s struggle on the 1:70 climb which has become an issue. For me, the solution would be to electrify the line as given its mainly single line (thanks to the cutbacks noted above), it surely wouldn't cost that much to do?

Certainly, EMUs would address both capacity issues & timing issues that currently affect this line.

The big bottleneck is actually the pre-existing section from Newcraighall to the ECML. Money would be better spent dualling that section, and increasing speed there, as well as remodelling Portobello Junction. The latter also benefits the ECML, so better business case.

 

[Carntyne]

It'll be at the back of the queue for electrification hopefully.

It'll get 170s when the 385 fleet take over the E&G and central belt routes.

 

[DPWH]

For me, the solution would be to electrify the line as given its mainly single line (thanks to the cutbacks noted above), it surely wouldn't cost that much to do?

Certainly, EMUs would address both capacity issues & timing issues that currently affect this line.

I'm not sure that elecrtifying single line. For a start, you'll probably need about as many substations as before, and since it's single track, it's a bit harder for one going downhill to power one going up.

As for improvements, because it's just been done it's gone to the back of the queue for further improvements and as they have a plan worked out for the next 10+ years, it'll be that long before they'll even consider doing something.

 

[fgwrich]

I'm not sure that elecrtifying single line. For a start, you'll probably need about as many substations as before, and since it's single track, it's a bit harder for one going downhill to power one going up.

As for improvements, because it's just been done it's gone to the back of the queue for further improvements and as they have a plan worked out for the next 10+ years, it'll be that long before they'll even consider doing something.

Taking that comment for a moment, surely with the means of regenerative braking it would be slightly easier? And if you tied it all into Edinburgh Suburban / Portobello Junction & ECML improvements it would go a little way to offset some of it's costs?

 

[Mordac]

Taking that comment for a moment, surely with the means of regenerative braking it would be slightly easier? And if you tied it all into Edinburgh Suburban / Portobello Junction & ECML improvements it would go a little way to offset some of it's costs?

Keep in mind the line was built with passive provision for electrification, so unless the new regs have fouled things up, there should be no need for changes in any structures along the line.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The delay in Fife electrification will make it easier to keep the Borders Railway unelectrified, as there will be suburban DMUs coming into Edinburgh from the west which can be linked to the line. If Fife electrification were to happen sooner then Borders electrification would be more useful as it would otherwise be a diesel island.

 

[Highland37]

It's been told several times before, by others, including further up thread I think.

But here's a link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-25035749

" The decision to build the new Borders railway has been described as "insane" by the Institute of Economic Affairs. The think tank said the project was "exceedingly poor value for money". "

I consider that criticism by the IEA for the Borders Railway to be a great accolade and high praise indeed.

"The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) is a think tank based in Westminster, London, United Kingdom. Founded by businessman Antony Fisher in 1955, it promotes free market economics. It publishes a magazine, books, and holds lectures regularly."

This lot are probably against all railway re-openings in Scotland and if they are against it, it's probably a good idea.

 

[DPWH]

Yes, the IEA is a right-wing tory thinktank/pressure group.

Somebody is going to have to do some studies on how the BCR turned out vs how it was predicted, and see what if anything went wrong. Overestimated optimism bias perhaps?

Electrification of the Borders line could however make extending the line on to Carlisle more difficult, as through running would require (1) full electrification of the reopened line (2) DMUs to be used under the wires or (3) use of bimodal trains.

 

[Bald Rick]

Somebody is going to have to do some studies on how the BCR turned out vs how it was predicted, and see what if anything went wrong. Overestimated optimism bias perhaps?

I think some work has been done on that, but can't find a link.

Optimism bias (OB) is applied to the capital cost at an early stage of a project. As the project progresses, the OB is removed and replaced with a full Quantified Cost Risk Assessment.

Nevertheless, even with usage being 22% (?) ahead of forecast in year 1, it's unlikely that would be anywhere near enough to have turned the business case into one that represents value for money for the nation of Scotland. Especially as the final cost was well above the estimate used for the business case.

I do think there is a good PhD thesis subject for some brave soul: to compare forecast growth vs actual growth over, say, the first 10 years of a new railway (including new stations), and to identify reasons for variance. This could help improve forecasting, which in turn would help to better identify the best cases for new stations / lines.

 

[asylumxl]

I think the last few paragraphs from this Railnews article on the Borders Railway are rather telling about the IEA, particularly the last paragraph.

However, the railway scheme had to survive critics, some of whom wanted a shorter line, terminating nearer Edinburgh, while in 2013 the Institute of Economic Affairs had described the project as 'insane'. At that time Dr Richard Wellings of the IEA told the BBC: "Even looking at the official figures, this is just about the worst value project you can find.

"The whole project's insane. The average strategic road scheme has a benefit cost ratio of around five, which is ten times higher than the Borders railway, so this is a gross misallocation of resources, particularly when there are still huge problems on the road network in Scotland."

Dr Wellings, who also opposes HS2, has more recently proposed that the third-rail commuter network south of London should be replaced by a network of guided busways.

 

[Flying Snail]

I think the last few paragraphs from this Railnews article on the Borders Railway are rather telling about the IEA, particularly the last paragraph.

Replacing one of the busiest commuter networks in the world with guided busways, he sounds like a right clown.

It is depressing that the failed road building ideology of the last century still has to be argued against. I am reminded of that saying about economists: they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

 

[Altnabreac]

Replacing one of the busiest commuter networks in the world with guided busways, he sounds like a right clown.

It is depressing that the failed road building ideology of the last century still has to be argued against. I am reminded of that saying about economists: they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

The IEA are not keen on rail and have some strange prejudices. However we should beware decrying all economists and business cases. Without BCRs there is no way of persuading politicians which schemes have value and need investment.

Without doubt more work can be done on accurate forecasting, capturing wider economic benefits of regeneration, accessibility and economic development potential in business cases.

However just saying schemes will work "because enthusiasts say so" doesn't cut it.

The Borders line had a weak business case. The fact numbers are up overall is great but they aren't ahead of schedule at all stations and overall it's hard to tell how much of the year 1 travel was for the novelty of the new line. I expect it to do reasonably well, especially as house building continues along the route but it will still be a net consumer of subsidy by some margin.

That's why I came up with Altnabreac's Golden Rules as a quick sense check of which lines will work based on existing scheme performance rather than BCRs but ultimately my Golden Rules are capturing the same factors as what Transport Planners call "Wider Economic Benefits".

The Borders Line was originally conceived as a political scheme on both party political grounds (Liberal Democrat entry into Coalition in 2003) and wider political inclusion grounds (large area unconnected to rail network and feeling unloved by politicians). I happen to think it was justified by the wider economic benefits especially around inclusion and regeneration.

But it infuriates me when people then try and justify a scheme like Hawick - Carlisle or Dumfries - Stranraer claiming its benefits can't be measured. It would just take one useless scheme like that with a huge cost and no passengers to kill rail investment dead for 20 years. Enthusiasts need to be realistic about what will work. Busy commuter lines - Yes. Fast Intercity links - Yes. Slow cross country routes linking Provincial towns - No.

 

[daodao]

It infuriates me when people then try and justify a scheme like Hawick - Carlisle or Dumfries - Stranraer claiming its benefits can't be measured. It would just take one useless scheme like that with a huge cost and no passengers to kill rail investment dead for 20 years. Enthusiasts need to be realistic about what will work. Busy commuter lines - Yes. Fast Intercity links - Yes. Slow cross country routes linking Provincial towns - No.

Well put.

There are a number of other non-Scottish examples of cross country routes linking provincial towns, which would be very difficult and expensive to reconstruct, that are enthusiastically but inappropriately promoted on this site. One is Cambridge-Bedford, which has minimal commuter potential as Cambridge station is extremely poorly sited. Others include Ripon-Northallerton, Beverley-Market Weighton-York and Caerfyrddin-Aberystwyth.

 

[edwin_m]

Well put.

There are a number of other non-Scottish examples of cross country routes linking provincial towns, which would be very difficult and expensive to reconstruct, that are enthusiastically but inappropriately promoted on this site. One is Cambridge-Bedford, which has no commuter potential as Cambridge station is extremely poorly sited. Others include Ripon-Northallerton, Beverley-Market Weighton-York and Caerfyrddin-Aberystwyth.

You can't put Cambridge-Bedford into that bracket. The work done already indicates it has enough of a business case to stand a good chance of going ahead, so it is emphatically more than an enthusiast pipe dream.

While populations are not the be-all and end-all they do give some indication of potential, being 124000 (more than the entire Borders region) and 79000 respectively according to Google. Cambridge is also a major employment centre with many offices around the station, and the new North station provides direct access to more employment in the Science Park. The historic centre is about 20min brisk walk with buses available, and the shops are a bit closer.

The route also facilitates longer journeys such as Oxford-Cambridge and MK-Ipswich (depending on service pattern) and connections to other routes. A new or reinstated railway across a relatively densely-populated area with poor existing east-west links is simply not comparable with one in a deep rural area.

 

[daodao]

You can't put Cambridge-Bedford into that bracket. The work done already indicates it has enough of a business case to stand a good chance of going ahead, so it is emphatically more than an enthusiast pipe dream.

While populations are not the be-all and end-all they do give some indication of potential, being 124000 (more than the entire Borders region) and 79000 respectively according to Google. Cambridge is also a major employment centre with many offices around the station, and the new North station provides direct access to more employment in the Science Park. The historic centre is about 20min brisk walk with buses available, and the shops are a bit closer.

The route also facilitates longer journeys such as Oxford-Cambridge and MK-Ipswich (depending on service pattern) and connections to other routes. A new or reinstated railway across a relatively densely-populated area with poor existing east-west links is simply not comparable with one in a deep rural area.

A 20 minute walk from the station to the town centre makes rail services of limited value for commuting. Compare Cambridge with Cardiff, which has 2 excellently sited city centre stations, and 2 more (Bute Road and Cathays Park) serving other key destinations.

West Cambridgeshire, between Gamlingay and Cambridge, is a deep rural area devoid of any substantial settlements. Only a few longer-distance cross-country journeys (albeit including Cambridge-Oxford) would be made easier by rebuilding the Cambridge-Bedford line.

Cambridge North station is unlikely to be served by many trains entering Cambridge from the south, although this might be easier now that Cambridge station has more than 1 through platform.

 

[edwin_m]

A 20 minute walk from the station to the town centre makes rail services of limited value for commuting. Compare Cambridge with Cardiff, which has 2 excellently sited city centre stations, and 2 more (Bute Road and Cathays Park) serving other key destinations.

West Cambridgeshire, between Gamlingay and Cambridge, is a deep rural area devoid of any substantial settlements. Only a few longer-distance journeys (albeit including Cambridge-Oxford) would be made easier by rebuilding the Cambridge-Bedford line.

Cambridge North station is unlikely to be served by many trains entering Cambridge from the south, although this might be easier now that Cambridge station has more than 1 through platform.

I'm not going to debate it on here because there are other threads more relevant. But including a throwaway reference to Cambridge-Bedford in a list of what you consider to be no-hopers for reopening helps you case and credibility not at all.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Well put.

There are a number of other non-Scottish examples of cross country routes linking provincial towns, which would be very difficult and expensive to reconstruct, that are enthusiastically but inappropriately promoted on this site. One is Cambridge-Bedford, which has minimal commuter potential as Cambridge station is extremely poorly sited. Others include Ripon-Northallerton, Beverley-Market Weighton-York and Caerfyrddin-Aberystwyth.

Yet again you spout this deluded rubbish. The scheme as proposed has a BCR of nearly 3 - you have wilfully ignored the evidence in favour of your own biases, which I believe seemed to boil down to being annoyed that another local rail scheme you want not getting any funding. I'm sorry, but links between cities of 100,000 people or more are not links between "provincial towns", especially when the link would assist long-distance journeys from further afield, such as Bristol to East Anglia.

Then deriding Cambridge as not having a useful station when it has comparable numbers of passengers through it to Cardiff Central (at 10.42 million, plus 558k interchanges) demonstrates pure ignorance and wishful thinking on your part.

 

[swt_passenger]

Replacing one of the busiest commuter networks in the world with guided busways, he sounds like a right clown.

Welling's daft ideas about conversions to bus or coach (which are not really recent as quoted above) were nothing to do with guided busways.

He simply proposed building normal 'bus/coach only' roads on existing viaducts and approaches. A Waterloo under these circumstances would become a coach station turning round about 1200 coaches per hour, that's one every 3 seconds, to give similar capacity to 60 full length trains per hour.

 

[daodao]

Yet again you spout this deluded rubbish. The scheme as proposed has a BCR of nearly 3 - you have wilfully ignored the evidence in favour of your own biases, which I believe seemed to boil down to being annoyed that another local rail scheme you want not getting any funding. I'm sorry, but links between cities of 100,000 people or more are not links between "provincial towns", especially when the link would assist long-distance journeys from further afield, such as Bristol to East Anglia.

Then deriding Cambridge as not having a useful station when it has comparable numbers of passengers through it to Cardiff Central (at 10.42 million, plus 558k interchanges) demonstrates pure ignorance and wishful thinking on your part.

I stated that the siting of Cambridge station is poor for local commuter journeys into Cambridge; the station is well used because it is currently the sole station serving a sizeable town. The BCR while positive, is somewhat lower than 3. The best performing routing option (C2-2) for Bedford-Cambridge (via Sandy) achieves a BCR of between 1.4 and 1.5, exclusive of Wider Economic Benefits, increasing to 2.04 when these are taken into consideration (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/East-West-Rail/). However, it would be a very expensive route to construct for a line connecting provincial towns, and even the promoters are not expecting it to open until the mid 2030s.

 

[edwin_m]

I stated that the siting of Cambridge station is poor for local commuter journeys into Cambridge; the station is well used because it is currently the sole station serving a sizeable town. The BCR while positive, is somewhat lower than 3. The best performing routing option (C2-2) for Bedford-Cambridge (via Sandy) achieves a BCR of between 1.4 and 1.5, exclusive of Wider Economic Benefits, increasing to 2.04 when these are taken into consideration (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/East-West-Rail/). However, it would be a very expensive route to construct for a line connecting provincial towns, and even the promoters are not expecting it to open until the mid 2030s.

So if the station is well-used, why would an extra route providing new links to it not be well-used?

A BCR of 1.4 to 2.04 isn't great but it is similar to that for Borders IIRC, and way in excess of that for the routes that are the real "no-hopers". It just doesn't deserve to be lumped into that category.

 

[glbotu]

I stated that the siting of Cambridge station is poor for local commuter journeys into Cambridge; the station is well used because it is currently the sole station serving a sizeable town. The BCR while positive, is somewhat lower than 3. The best performing routing option (C2-2) for Bedford-Cambridge (via Sandy) achieves a BCR of between 1.4 and 1.5, exclusive of Wider Economic Benefits, increasing to 2.04 when these are taken into consideration (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/East-West-Rail/). However, it would be a very expensive route to construct for a line connecting provincial towns, and even the promoters are not expecting it to open until the mid 2030s.

1. Cambridge railway station is absolutely fine in terms of its positioning for pretty much most people who live there. Sure, a station in the original planned position near Christ's Pieces would have been better to get people into the heart of Cambridge, but it's no worse sited than other stations for cities of that size.

2. Cambridge North station is going to be built for the commuters to the science park, increasing the commuting potential.

3. Cambridge has a colossal influx of tourists. It's ridiculous. They all get there by train pretty much.

4. The region through which EWR is going to be built is heavily trafficked. The A14, A428 and A10 which currently handle the entirety of East-West traffic in the area are at capacity. The X5 bus, which currently handles public transport from East to West is surprisingly well loaded for a bus that takes well over 3 hours from Oxford to Cambridge.

Those are the reasons Bedford - Cambridge is very likely to be built.

 

[WatcherZero]

Scottish government spending £14m refurbing 158's at a rate of one a month and upgrading the unreliable signalling on the Borders railway.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/scotrail-to-spend-14m-on-carriage-upgrades-1-3874438

Borders telegraph is further saying that despite the first refurbed 158 to be on the borders railway that the 158's will be gradually phased off the line over two years replaced with longer and more reliable rolling stock, which I would presume to be 170's.