Borders Railway - Now Open

[overthewater]

I have to say I agree what been said the £1.60 bus fare is dead cheap compared to the train, but its still quicker by the train, but is there alot of people needing to travel into Central Edinburgh?

A good number could be else where in the city like the Gyle etc

 

[railjock]

I occasionally get the train in the rush hour from Eskbank to South Gyle and back. I always buy a ticket but it's rarely checked on the train so imagine a lot get to travel free.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I would say from recent experience that a lot of the users will often be ticketless owing to 1 card only machine per station, crouding onboard meaning dificult gripping conditions and staffing at various major stations meaning not all trains are checked. I am quite surprised that some stations dont have someone with mobile ticket issuing equipment on hand at certain times. Is it the intention to gate the eastern bays once redevelopment of the old taxi rank into platforms is complete at Waverley?

Also is the line carrying many season holders and would it be a good one for smart card introduction soon?

 

[deltic08]

Some very interesting usage figures by station published today by Transport Scotland. Overall journeys are still around 20% higher than anticipated but there are some stations well ahead of expectation and some well behind.

http://www.transport.gov.scot/news/borders-railway-22-ahead-target-first-6-months



What the data shows is that in general demand has been lower than expected in Midlothian, perhaps the pricing here relative to the good quality Lothian Buses service hasn't quite been chosen correctly. Shawfair is a special case in that less development than expected has taken place so demand will take awhile to build.

In Edinburgh demand for travel to the line is broadly as expected.

In the Borders meanwhile the demand level is much higher than anticipated (5 to 10 times beyond what was expected).

I think an interesting number may be the differential between Tweedband (10 times higher) and Stow / Galashiels (5 times higher). The higher Tweedbank numbers may reflect the initial excitement, one off trips to try out the new line and possibly even the bargain fares mistake found by forum members and others.

However it looks like the figure of 5 times higher than expected numbers at Stow and Gala may reflect a genuine long term underestimate of demand for rail travel from the Borders. In the longer term I'd expect the Tweedbank figure to fall back to more like that seen at Galashiels but still stay well above expected demand levels.

I am so pleased for Councillor Bill Jamieson from Stow who campaigned against all odds for a station at Stow as this was not in the original plans.

 

[och aye]

That said the Midlothian stations do seem a lot quieter than expected. All I will say is LRT Ridacards & the £1.60 flat fare...

LRT! Those were the days!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Very interesting that the Midlothian stations don't have as much anticipated traffic as was forecast and it's the Scottish Borders stations generating most of the traffic.

I think (barring money shortages) that Hawick will be on the radar, sooner rather than later, especially if the region gets a lot of money from the proposed Edinburgh & SE region City Deal.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

I see from RailScot that the Borders Railway has been getting into the news again in the Scotsman:

Train punctuality on the Borders Railway has sunk to a new low as Scotland’s newest line prepares to celebrate its first birthday.

Campaigners have condemned “shocking” recent performance and said delays and cancellations had reached “epidemic” proportions.

ScotRail figures show only about one in four trains – 28.4 per cent – arrived on time at the start of this month.

In addition, at least 70 trains were cancelled over the first ten days of August. These have been blamed on track and train faults, a driver on sick leave and a fallen tree.

The misery for commuters comes as ScotRail shows off the £350m Edinburgh-Tweedbank route with a series of special Sunday steam-hauled services in August and September.

The poor performance is also hitting more passengers because the line is expected to notch up 300,000 more trips than its target of 1.3 million by its first anniversary on 6 September.

Rail consultant and author David Spaven said cuts to double-track sections, enabling trains to pass each other, had hit reliability.

Spaven said: “The Borders Railway has proved to be a classic penny-wise, pound-foolish project. Poor official traffic forecasts have proved to have underestimated passenger numbers by nearly 900 per cent*.

and now on STV:

Campaigners have hit out at the "shambles" on the Borders Railway as just 28% of trains arrived on time at the start of August.

New ScotRail figures also revealed more than 70 trains were cancelled over the first ten days of the month.

Blame was placed on various problems including track and train faults, a driver on sick leave and a fallen tree.

ScotRail said the Borders Railway is subject to "occasional technical faults" in common with the rest of the network.

The line, which was launched in September last year, has had more passengers than expected.

Rail consultant and author David Spaven told the Scotland on Sunday a lack of double-track sections of line where trains can pass each other had hit reliability badly.

I note the predictable response from ScotRail and Transport Scotland

A ScotRail spokeswoman said: "As with other parts of the network, the Borders line is subject to occasional technical faults.

"As always, we do everything we can to keep customers moving when things go wrong and we're working to ensure reliability matches the demand for services on this new line."

A Transport Scotland spokesman said: "We are committed to ensuring ScotRail delivers a punctual and reliable rail service across the network and that they address issues around punctuality to give passengers the very best service possible."

*Not sure where David Spaven gets his 900% from.

 

[Harbornite]

That's concerning, is there enough room to install a second track at other locations on the line?

I've got another question regarding this railway- of all its services, how many are operated by class 170s rather than 158s, and do all the 170 services start at Glenrothes with Thornton as opposed to Edinburgh Waverley? Cheers.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

That's concerning, is there enough room to install a second track at other locations on the line?

Yes. It was a double track railway originally, so plenty of route mileage can be double tracked.

The re-opened route was to have 16 miles of double track, Transport Scotland cut it back to 9.5 miles when the budget got messy.

 

[alexf380]

That's concerning, is there enough room to install a second track at other locations on the line?

I've got another question regarding this railway- of all its services, how many are operated by class 170s rather than 158s, and do all the 170 services start at Glenrothes with Thornton as opposed to Edinburgh Waverley? Cheers.

Generally there is one morning peak round-trip and one evening peak round-trip operated by a 170, everything else is a 158, each continuting to or starting from Glenrothes.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Yes. It was a double track railway originally, so plenty of route mileage can be double tracked.

The re-opened route was to have 16 miles of double track, Transport Scotland cut it back to 9.5 miles when the budget got messy.

Yes, but it's almost as if someone involved in the revised design has gone out of his way to make it difficult to increase the length/number of passing loops. There are many, many examples of apparently unnecessary obstructions from drainage to over- and underbridges. Not just a question of slewing the track a bit (fair enough to take the best line for single track in a double formation). Here's just one example:

https://www.railscot.co.uk/imageenlarge/imagecomplete.php?id=48014

 

[Harbornite]

Yes. It was a double track railway originally, so plenty of route mileage can be double tracked.

The re-opened route was to have 16 miles of double track, Transport Scotland cut it back to 9.5 miles when the budget got messy.

Thanks, I should have remembered that. In theory, difficulties would only be encountered at bridges where the track has been slewed to the centre; this can be avoided by double-tracking elsewhere.

Generally there is one morning peak round-trip and one evening peak round-trip operated by a 170, everything else is a 158, each continuting to or starting from Glenrothes.

Cheers.

 

[XDM]

Yes, but it's almost as if someone involved in the revised design has gone out of his way to make it difficult to increase the length/number of passing loops. There are many, many examples of apparently unnecessary obstructions from drainage to over- and underbridges. Not just a question of slewing the track a bit (fair enough to take the best line for single track in a double formation). Here's just one example:

https://www.railscot.co.uk/imageenlarge/imagecomplete.php?id=48014

Thanks; a brilliant example which Network Rail have repeated in other locations. As you say it looks like a determined attempt to kibosh any attempt at reasonable re dual tracking. The cost of putting in double track bridges at the start would have been a small(like 10%) fraction of doing it once the railway is running. I'd vote for an inquiry,as long as it cost much less than the tram inquisition & it fingers the guilty.

 

[najaB]

The cost of putting in double track bridges at the start would have been a small(like 10%) fraction of doing it once the railway is running. I'd vote for an inquiry,as long as it cost much less than the tram inquisition & it fingers the guilty.

The project was at serious risk of out and out cancellation if the costs couldn't be brought down - that 10% on structures cost may well have been enough to kill the whole line.

Seeing as it's unlikely to see the level of traffic that would require full twin-tracking, the only question that needs to be answered is if the structures prevent enough double-tracking to deliver a more reliable timetable. I doubt that is the case, but leave it to the experts to determine.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Thanks; a brilliant example which Network Rail have repeated in other locations. As you say it looks like a determined attempt to kibosh any attempt at reasonable re dual tracking. The cost of putting in double track bridges at the start would have been a small(like 10%) fraction of doing it once the railway is running. I'd vote for an inquiry,as long as it cost much less than the tram inquisition & it fingers the guilty.

I know how this will go down with you, but this was signed off by Transport Scotland who controlled the budget. Network Rail built what the Scottish Government told them to build.

The budget itself was dictated by the original desire by the Scottish Government to use a PPI contract to build and maintain the route, because it was originally intended for private borrowing (rather than government borrowing) to fund the route, everything was trimmed right to the bone, even a 10% additional contingency to ensure bridges were double width was never going to happen when it was planned someone was going to have to borrow that extra 10% at commercial rates.

The same infrastructure would have been built if Transport Scotland had managed to go down the PPI contract route, but in the end, two out of the three bidders bailed out and the Scottish Government didn't proceed with the remaining bidder.

BAM was the only bidder to remain and although they didn't get the contract directly, they effectively built it on behalf of Network Rail and it was their costings which were involved in setting the budget Network Rail worked to on behalf of Transport Scotland.

And yes, it's short sighted, bloody infuriating and mental, but a poor railway is better than no railway.

 

[fgwrich]

Yes, but it's almost as if someone involved in the revised design has gone out of his way to make it difficult to increase the length/number of passing loops. There are many, many examples of apparently unnecessary obstructions from drainage to over- and underbridges. Not just a question of slewing the track a bit (fair enough to take the best line for single track in a double formation). Here's just one example:

https://www.railscot.co.uk/imageenlarge/imagecomplete.php?id=48014

Agreed. I did the line for the first time last week and was very disappointed with the design of some of the infrastructure. In my view, one of the oddest is Shawfair south to Gorebridge. This section would have been a prime candidate in my eyes to have been designed to at least accept double track in the future if not now - as there are aspirations for the 4TPH to Gorebridge. Unfortunately, most of the route has been singled through the centre of the trackbed through Eskbank, across Lothianbridge viaduct and of course across Hardengreen Roundabout. And Falahill is amongst many other bridges has been built to a single track formation.

It wasn't without a false start either - the 158 I had boarded was subsequently delayed, due to unavailable driver before being cancelled and turfed out onto the next one - from one of the poor condition ex NX ScotRail 158s to an even more interesting Haymarket 8 unit. :roll: Most of it ran on time, with almost no delays on the way down but some delays on the return. Station wise, Tweedbank / Gala / Stow seemed to pick up the most, Gorebridge picked up a few, and about a handful at both Eskbank / Newtongrange / Shawfair.

But of course one of the biggest pinchpoints on the route isn't actually on the borders itself - it's the section between Newcraighall and Portobello Junction. I'm surprised and a little bit sorry that this particular section hasn't seen any upgrade yet, you go from the smoothness of the new line and attractive scenery that the borders has to offer, to something more akin to a back street branchline with sections of 15 mph jointed track. And then end up being held at the junction for 5 minutes or so! Just out of interest, when is Portobello Junction due to be upgraded?

 

[47271]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think David Spaven's 900% may be hidden in the official stats within #1824 in this thread - it looks like it may be Tweedbank's overachievement on target in the first six months? A selective quotation if ever there was one, not that I want to detract from the success of the line overall.

As for the complaints about recent performance on the route, it doesn't look any worse than my experience of Scotrail this summer what with strikes, staff shortages and engineering upheavals, and I've been nowhere near the Borders.

 

[Starmill]

The line does have short sections where there's passive provision for double track, one of which I believe is Newtongrange. Un future both tracks could be used between Portobello and Newcraighall.

 

[Blindtraveler]

With the 1st aniversarry of the route fast approaching it is great to have to eat humble pie and say that it is a wanted and popular route after all. I innitially shared the view of the Scottish Govd that it wouldnt be half as busy as it has been but where as ever they have cocked up is provision for the future.

Given how stretched the DMU fleat is plus all the staff issues its hardly surprising things are suffering but still sad.

I am not impressed with the current Scotrail franchise and this itself woant be helpimg the potential looming PR disaster

 

[Altnabreac]

With the 1st aniversarry of the route fast approaching it is great to have to eat humble pie and say that it is a wanted and popular route after all. I innitially shared the view of the Scottish Govd that it wouldnt be half as busy as it has been but where as ever they have cocked up is provision for the future.

Given how stretched the DMU fleat is plus all the staff issues its hardly surprising things are suffering but still sad.

I am not impressed with the current Scotrail franchise and this itself woant be helpimg the potential looming PR disaster

I think it would be interesting to see the breakdown of what is causing problems on this route.

I suspect there are 4 issues. 2 easy to resolve, 1 trickier and 1 doable but expensive.

There has obviously been a staffing problem on Scotrail this summer linked to the industrial action and manifested in increasing sickness levels and Guard shortages. Hopefully the recent agreement can be firmed up and this isue properley resolved.

Secondly there has been the DMU shortage since the transfer to Southern of the 170s at the Franchise change. Again there is a short term resolution to this as electrification extends to Edinburgh - Glasgow in mid 2017 and especially once a decent number of Class 385s arrive later in 2017. I'd expect this issue to be fully resolved by December 2017.

Thirdly there is the Portobello Junction - Newcraighall section. A single lead junction and slow single track section connecting a heavily trafficked fast mainline to a branch line with a tight timetable is very far from ideal. Junction improvements were proposed by Network Rail in the CP5 Industry Strategic Business Plan but never went forward to the final ORR determination. However the proposal for CP6 is a much more ambitious package of improvements known as "Edinburgh Suburban Enhancement Programme". This is ten times more expensive at £200-300m but resolves a much wider range of issues including:

• Electrification of the Edinburgh Suburban line to the electrified fringes at Millerhill, Portobello Junction on the ECML, Slateford Junction on the Midcalder lines and Haymarket junctions on the Edinburgh to Glasgow lines.
• Redoubling of Portobello Junction and the remodelling of Niddrie West, Slateford and Craiglockhart junctions in conjunction with re-signalling the route and higher linespeeds.
• In addition the capability and capacity at Millerhill through the provision of a new signalling system and optimised track layout between Monktonhall Junction and Niddrie South Junction are proposed.

If that is approved and built in CP6 it will make a huge difference to the reliability on the Borders railway.

Finally there is the issue of further doubling south of Edinburgh Bypass on the Borders line. This will be expensive but there are options:

• The section from the bypass to Newtongrange would be very expensive to provide further double track on, but I don't think this is a huge mistake as it would have been expensive here to make passive provision with the number of structures involved.
• Between Newtongrange and Gorebridge a double track section would be relatively simple to implement outside the stations and a new turnback and station at Redheugh would be one way to create a local Midlothian service if required.
• The dynamic loops at Tynehead and Stow are the final sections of double track. These are shorter than were originally proposed so no doubt a performance improvement could be had by extending the length of the dynamic loops or even connecting the two together north of Stow. How well laid out the track is here for doubling is something I'm not certain of.

The question is though how many (if any) of the delays and issues have been caused by the short dynamic loops at Tynehead & Stow? I suspect it will only be a small proportion and resolving issues with staffing, rolling stock and Portobello Junction will all be much more important to provide increased reliability.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

As the OP of this thread some time ago, may I thank Philip Phlopp (post 1844) and Altnabreac (post 1849 above) for their considered and noteworthy responses (oh dear, I'm beginning to sound like Paul S******** ) which have added insight to the continuing debate over the Borders Railway, and also many others too numerous for my aged brain to recall.

 

[och aye]

Borders rail study to include Langholm option

STUDIES into extending the Borders Railway will look at an option of bringing the route through Langholm and Eskdale.

http://www.dng24.co.uk/borders-rail-study-include-langholm-option/

Sorry to sound harsh, but is it really worth spending the money on looking at this option? Surely, it's almost as viable as reopening (dare I even mention it, after the recent thread! ) the Stranraer to Dumfries line.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I would say that for the sake of the locals in the areas concerned its worth exploring all options, even if some of the business cases are non starters, at least some effort has been made

 

[Altfish]

I would say that for the sake of the locals in the areas concerned its worth exploring all options, even if some of the business cases are non starters, at least some effort has been made

Agreed, as a fairly regular visitor to Langholm, it would benefit greatly from a rail connection again.
On the days of the horse riding it would double numbers and solve parking problems.

 

[Altnabreac]

Borders rail study to include Langholm option

STUDIES into extending the Borders Railway will look at an option of bringing the route through Langholm and Eskdale.

http://www.dng24.co.uk/borders-rail-study-include-langholm-option/

Sorry to sound harsh, but is it really worth spending the money on looking at this option? Surely, it's almost as viable as reopening (dare I even mention it, after the recent thread! ) the Stranraer to Dumfries line.

The commitment is to include Langholm as one of the options in the pre feasibility sifting studies. It will be necessary for the Feasibility Study to compare different options to ensure everyone understands why reopening to Carlisle is totally impracticable.

No poont having a study that says via Newcastleton has a BCR of 0.05 only for councillors to them say What about Langholm when it would actually have been 0.06. Better to include all wacky schemes (maybe also Tweedbank - Hawick via Selkirk as well).

Then it can conclude what we all know which is that a 2tph extension to Hawick may just wash it face on wider economic benefit grounds but anything else would be completely useless economically.

 

[Lurpi]

I just checked - there are eight brand new gleaming bridges over the railway built to single track width.

I see from that Annandale Observer article that

The Scottish Government is committed to examining the feasibility of extending the Borders Railway south west from Tweedbank to Carlisle.

I'm looking forward to the Scottish Government realising, when the feasibility study comes in, that the more they want to extend the Borders Railway, the more of a bottleneck will arise from the single track section of the existing railway, and the more they'll have to think about demolishing those eight new bridges, which cursory research suggests must have over 50 years of useful life in them.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Agreed, sadly

I think the future is in insentivising one of the bus opperaters to run a luxury/gold standard service with good facilitties and plenty of luggage space. The current unpredictabilitty of First isnt helping anyone

 

[47271]

I was passing through Waverley on Sunday just before 5pm and chanced upon Royal Scot with one of the Scotrail Borders steam trips. It looked fantastic as it departed, albeit with a 67 bringing up the rear, but I was struck by how unevenly loaded the train was.

There seemed to be plenty of demand for First Class dining (£130 each return) but Standard was virtually empty at £55. It looks like they've badly overpriced it, and I have to say I would think twice about shelling out £110 for us to spend the early evening in Galashiels.

 

[snowball]

those eight new bridges, which cursory research suggests must have over 50 years of useful life in them.

If they're new they should have 120 years of useful life in them.

 

[Altnabreac]

I just checked - there are eight brand new gleaming bridges over the railway built to single track width.

I see from that Annandale Observer article that

I'm looking forward to the Scottish Government realising, when the feasibility study comes in, that the more they want to extend the Borders Railway, the more of a bottleneck will arise from the single track section of the existing railway, and the more they'll have to think about demolishing those eight new bridges, which cursory research suggests must have over 50 years of useful life in them.

But there is only a bottleneck if there is a need for more than 2tph to run on the single track sections. You can extend existing services back to Hawick (or even Carlisle) without any additional infrastructure north of Tweedbank.

It might make timetabling more challenging and you would need to position loops carefully on the extended section but it is easy enough to extend southwards without any new bridges north of Tweedbank.

More likely is that you might want to run 4tph from Gorebridge northwards although low passenger numbers in Midlothian make this less likely for now.

I believe passive provision is available for this and suspect the most important section to redouble would be Newcraighall - Portobello junction.

You'd also want some doubling south of Newtongrange and possibly extra platforms at either Gorebridge of a new Redheugh station.

But 4tph could almost certainly be run without any doubling in the technically difficult Newtongrange - Bypass section where most of the single track structures are.

 

[edwin_m]

But there is only a bottleneck if there is a need for more than 2tph to run on the single track sections. You can extend existing services back to Hawick (or even Carlisle) without any additional infrastructure north of Tweedbank.

It might make timetabling more challenging and you would need to position loops carefully on the extended section but it is easy enough to extend southwards without any new bridges north of Tweedbank.

More likely is that you might want to run 4tph from Gorebridge northwards although low passenger numbers in Midlothian make this less likely for now.

I believe passive provision is available for this and suspect the most important section to redouble would be Newcraighall - Portobello junction.

You'd also want some doubling south of Newtongrange and possibly extra platforms at either Gorebridge of a new Redheugh station.

But 4tph could almost certainly be run without any doubling in the technically difficult Newtongrange - Bypass section where most of the single track structures are.

Good thought. Are the platforms long enough to lengthen those trains?