Borders Railway - Now Open

[najaB]

Having the whole line open would cause a problem in that besides some sections of the line being single track, some of the new bridges are also single track.

That in itself doesn't cause a problem, the question is if the double track sections are long and numerous enough to allow a decent timetable to be cast.

 

[Pinza-C55]

That in itself doesn't cause a problem, the question is if the double track sections are long and numerous enough to allow a decent timetable to be cast.

It's a problem in the sense that if you have single track sections they can be doubled but if you have a road bridge where the road passes over the single line by a concrete bridge which only has space for one track you would have to more or less dismantle the bridge and entirely rebuild it to double the track.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Out of interest how much of the old Borders line between Carlisle and Edinburgh was double track, and how much was single?

 

[Class 170101]

RTT times for Tweedbank training runs
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sea...8/0200-0159?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=SR

 

[Railsigns]

Out of interest how much of the old Borders line between Carlisle and Edinburgh was double track, and how much was single?

It was double track throughout.

 

[Pinza-C55]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/borders-railway-bridges-will-hold-back-expansion-1-3175278

"Growth in the number of passengers using the Borders Railway line will be held back by the building of a series of new bridges, campaigners fear.

The Campaign for Borders Rail (CBR) said at least eight more bridges over the largely single line between Newcraighall and Tweedbank are due to follow a new A7 bridge at Falahill, near Heriot. Their construction could prevent the line being double tracked in the future, campaigners say."

"The total length of double track on the 30-mile line has already been reduced by one-third from 15.5 miles to 9.5 miles. The CBR said later modifications to the bridges to enable double tracking would cost up to ten times as much as their construction."

 

[snowball]

That article is from 2013. The 'future' bridges that it talks about have no doubt now been built.

 

[Pinza-C55]

Yes. That's my point.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

"The total length of double track on the 30-mile line has already been reduced by one-third from 15.5 miles to 9.5 miles. The CBR said later modifications to the bridges to enable double tracking would cost up to ten times as much as their construction."

Hmmmm. 10 times as much? That sounds suspicious to me. One would have thought that, in the hypothetical event that full double tracking becomes necessary, simply building a new bridge alongside each original one would cost not much more than the original bridge, giving a total of around 2 times as much, no?

 

[snowball]

Building a bridge over a live railway is much more expensive than building a bridge over a building site.

Edit: There's also the cost of demolishing the previous bridge (also over a live railway).

 

[Pinza-C55]

Hmmmm. 10 times as much? That sounds suspicious to me. One would have thought that, in the hypothetical event that full double tracking becomes necessary, simply building a new bridge alongside each original one would cost not much more than the original bridge, giving a total of around 2 times as much, no?

Well they said "up to ten times as much" and I don't know where they got that figure from, but I used to volunteer for Peak Rail in the early days and we had a retired Bridge Engineer there who said (quote) "The abutments are 80% of the cost of a bridge".
I'm not sure what you mean by "build a new bridge alongside" but I was thinking specifically where a road crosses over a railway and the span has been built of concrete with only a single track gap underneath ? At best if you have to rebuild it to two track width you might be able to reuse one abutment but you will need to
*Remove the existing span,abutment and foundations of the abutment.
*Build a new abutment and span
*As a previous poster said, have possessions on the track while this huge job is carried out
*Divert road traffic while the work is being carried out.

Instead of which they could have simply built the bridges with slightly longer spans even if it wasn't thought they would be needed.

 

[HowardGWR]

Instead of which they could have simply built the bridges with slightly longer spans even if it wasn't thought they would be needed.

Yes, it's that difference in cost that will in years to come, possibly be rather uncomfortable to those who decided such, perhaps a bit like some of those single lead junctions built in the 80s, now having to be rebuilt. Still, chin up, we've got a new railway.

 

[NotATrainspott]

There's passive provision for 4tph to Gorebridge, and I can't think of many places comparable to Stow, Galashiels and Tweedbank which have more than 2tph.

 

[reb0118]

........ I can't think of many places comparable to Stow, Galashiels and Tweedbank which have more than 2tph.

If, and it's a big if, the line gets extended to Hawick & Carlisle will there be enough paths north of Tweedbank to accommodate any additional freight, diversions, and/or express workings?

 

[NotATrainspott]

If, and it's a big if, the line gets extended to Hawick & Carlisle will there be enough paths north of Tweedbank to accommodate any additional freight, diversions, and/or express workings?

An extension to Hawick is not unlikely to happen eventually, and as part of it the line would need to see workings split into Edinburgh suburban stoppers and the express service to the Borders, using that 4tph passive provision Network Rail designed in. Since reopening to Carlisle would be very low on the list of priorities for public spending, the amount of freight that could be generated in the Borders and sent northwards should be able to be accommodated at off-peak times.

 

[HowardGWR]

An extension to Hawick is not unlikely to happen eventually, and as part of it the line would need to see workings split into Edinburgh suburban stoppers and the express service to the Borders, using that 4tph passive provision Network Rail designed in. Since reopening to Carlisle would be very low on the list of priorities for public spending, the amount of freight that could be generated in the Borders and sent northwards should be able to be accommodated at off-peak times.

What freight do people have in mind? I understand the erstwhile proposal to lay up (or down? ) from Carlisle to access timber, but I don't see anything being generated to go north to Edinburgh (is that'up' or 'down' by the way?).

 

[najaB]

... but I don't see anything being generated to go north to Edinburgh (is that'up' or 'down' by the way?).

I would think down since Edinburgh is the starting point.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I would think down since Edinburgh is the starting point.

The 'up' direction is towards Carlisle on the reopened route. I've been lead to believe it's due to the track naming at the Newcraighall end rather than any aspirations of reopening the entire Midland route to St Pancras...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Well they said "up to ten times as much" and I don't know where they got that figure from, but I used to volunteer for Peak Rail in the early days and we had a retired Bridge Engineer there who said (quote) "The abutments are 80% of the cost of a bridge".
I'm not sure what you mean by "build a new bridge alongside" but I was thinking specifically where a road crosses over a railway and the span has been built of concrete with only a single track gap underneath ?

Ah. I was thinking of a bridge in which the railway goes above the read, hence my comment about building another one alongside it.

But I would imagine roughly the same logic ought to apply if the road goes over the railway: Whatever the engineers did to build the first bridge, with its single-track railway, they could just do the same thing again, say, 5-10 metres away, to create a separate bridge for the 2nd track, and at a first guess that should be a similar cost to the first bridge. Making it say 5-10 metres away means you're not building right next to a live running railway, so you don't get those associated costs.

There may be other complications. Perhaps the 1st bridge was in the optimum location so the 2nd bridge will have to go in a more awkward location as far as the road alignment is concerned, but it would seem surprising to me if that sort of thing is likely to increase the cost by a factor of 10.

Obviously that's still much more expensive than just building the first bridge wide enough for 2 tracks in the first place would have been, but it suggests to me that it ought in most cases be possible to accommodate a 2nd track for (roughly) the original cost again rather than 10 times the original cost.

 

[najaB]

The 'up' direction is towards Carlisle on the reopened route. I've been lead to believe it's due to the track naming at the Newcraighall end rather than any aspirations of reopening the entire Midland route to St Pancras...

Then we're in agreement, though my reasoning was flawed - towards Edinburgh is down.

 

[Pinza-C55]

Ah. I was thinking of a bridge in which the railway goes above the read, hence my comment about building another one alongside it.

But I would imagine roughly the same logic ought to apply if the road goes over the railway: Whatever the engineers did to build the first bridge, with its single-track railway, they could just do the same thing again, say, 5-10 metres away, to create a separate bridge for the 2nd track, and at a first guess that should be a similar cost to the first bridge. Making it say 5-10 metres away means you're not building right next to a live running railway, so you don't get those associated costs.

There may be other complications. Perhaps the 1st bridge was in the optimum location so the 2nd bridge will have to go in a more awkward location as far as the road alignment is concerned, but it would seem surprising to me if that sort of thing is likely to increase the cost by a factor of 10.

Obviously that's still much more expensive than just building the first bridge wide enough for 2 tracks in the first place would have been, but it suggests to me that it ought in most cases be possible to accommodate a 2nd track for (roughly) the original cost again rather than 10 times the original cost.

I get what you mean now but instead of saving one abutment you are now building an entirely new bridge and associated earthworks to divert the track under the new bridge which will then require a possession of the track and at least a temporary closure of the road. I looked at the Borders Railway site and some of these bridges are colossal structures even for single track .This is the A7 bridge even before backfilling.

https://waverleyrouteha.wordpress.c...ject-fountainhall-to-heriot/#jp-carousel-2354

 

[edwin_m]

But I would imagine roughly the same logic ought to apply if the road goes over the railway: Whatever the engineers did to build the first bridge, with its single-track railway, they could just do the same thing again, say, 5-10 metres away, to create a separate bridge for the 2nd track, and at a first guess that should be a similar cost to the first bridge. Making it say 5-10 metres away means you're not building right next to a live running railway, so you don't get those associated costs.

There may be other complications. Perhaps the 1st bridge was in the optimum location so the 2nd bridge will have to go in a more awkward location as far as the road alignment is concerned, but it would seem surprising to me if that sort of thing is likely to increase the cost by a factor of 10.

Problem with that is that the second track would need to diverge from the first one a surprisingly long distance away so the "kink" isn't severe enough to restrict train speeds. That then needs some land take and usually some earthworks outside the original railway boundary, and obviously gets more difficult if there is any property, road etc in the strip of land affected. It would also trigger the need for new legal powers, at least in England (not sure what system applies in Scotland).

Incidentally the same would apply, though not as severely, to most types of underbridge. There is usually some structure to the side of the track, so you can't put another one next to it without increasing the track spacing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Then we're in agreement, though my reasoning was flawed - towards Edinburgh is down.

The more important junction is that for trains towards Waverley, which join the Down ECML. Therefore it's more logical to have Down in this direction from the Borders too, which I believe was the historic designation as well (track diagrams on Signalbox.co.uk confirm Hawick North to Hawick South was Up).

 

[fegguk]

170414 comes home as the Borders Railway sees its first DMU. Network Rail takeover the line at midnight. Driver familiarization runs begin tomorrow. Watch this space

http://youtu.be/9GjcIb7wPYk

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Thanks again fegguk, really enjoyed that. As one old enough to remember seeing trains on the Waverley line I found that quite emotional at times.

On Track has just posted this video of today's driver training with 158741. Well seen our Stuart is geared up for TV news workflow - that's fast!

EDIT: That video has been updated with a longer version including other locations and a short scene with the NR test train.

 

[Pinza-C55]

Thanks again fegguk, really enjoyed that. As one old enough to remember seeing trains on the Waverley line I found that quite emotional at times.

On Track has just posted this video of today's driver training with 158741. Well seen our Stuart is geared up for TV news workflow - that's fast!

Nice little contrast between the thumbnail for that video and the first photo in this thread http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/bowshank-tunnel.t62172

 

[MidnightFlyer]

It was double track throughout.

Cheers

 

[fegguk]

The first 158 makes an appearance on the Borders railway. It was not working to the timetable I had which made things a bit more interesting than I would have liked. Anyway worth spending a whole day in the sunshine waiting to see it.

https://youtu.be/UpQ_CeEjudQ

 

[HowardGWR]

The first 158 makes an appearance on the Borders railway. It was not working to the timetable I had which made things a bit more interesting than I would have liked. Anyway worth spending a whole day in the sunshine waiting to see it.

https://youtu.be/UpQ_CeEjudQ

Great stuff, thanks. If the 158s are to the same comfort level as the SWT 158s / 159s, which I use down here, then I don't see what the moaning in the Scottish press about the 'poor first impressions' was about.

 

[alexf380]

Great stuff, thanks. If the 158s are to the same comfort level as the SWT 158s / 159s, which I use down here, then I don't see what the moaning in the Scottish press about the 'poor first impressions' was about.

To be blunt about it, they're not. The Haymarket based ones are in need of a good clean and a bit of a refresh, as the last time they were done was when they were painted into NX Scotrail livery in 1999/2000. I believe they will receive an Inverness style refurb over the coming years but I have no idea when it's to start.

Good to see driver training has started. One step closer to an operational railway!

 

[Railsigns]

Good to see driver training has started. One step closer to an operational railway!

Technically, it became an operational railway yesterday. There just aren't any revenue earning trains using it yet.