Brian Monteith - "Borders railway will never pay"

[whole diary]

[Lee]

From The Scotsman:

Brian Monteith: Borders railway will never pay

Borders railway is a white elephant which will cost so much that it simply isn^t worth it, writes Brian Monteith

A project that is likely to be at least four years late and is approaching being five times its original projected cost, it is entirely fitting that the Borders railway is the spawn of the Holyrood parliament. More worrying still, and entirely in keeping with the management of the construction of their own temple to political self-indulgence, our MSPs^▸ (Member of Scottish Parliament) have thus far not managed to exert any sort of control on what will become the most expensive railway in Scotland ^ if not Britain.

It is worth going back to those early days of 2000 when MSPs were still meeting at the Assembly Hall on the Mound and were dreaming of the many great projects they could unleash on an expectant public. There appeared to be no end to what could be done by the new Scottish Parliament ^ and re-opening a railway line from Edinburgh to Galashiels or thereabouts was an ideal contender.

For one thing it cemented the Labour^Liberal Democrat coalition, as Labour would get its pet schemes through (like the Glasgow Airport rail link) while the Liberal Democrats could claim the Borders railway as their great achievement.

Secondly, it would right what was portrayed as a great Tory wrong ^ the closing of the Waverley line, that most romantic but highly uneconomic direct route from Edinburgh to Gala, Hawick and on to Carlisle.

It was a moot point that the closure, recommended by the farsighted British rail chairman Dr Richard Beeching during the early 1960s, was actually carried out by Harold Wilson^s Labour government in 1969. The prevailing anti-Tory consensus did not want such truths to get in the way of any myth-making about the Scots-hating Tory party. Ironically, in an attempt to curry favour in the Borders and seem like all-round good guys, some Conservative MSPs, most vocally David Mundell, now an MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) and Scotland Office minister, got behind the idea.

And so it left the drawing board, and an ^independent study^ commissioned by the Scottish Executive, Scottish Borders Council, Midlothian Council and Scottish Borders Enterprise reported that a half-hourly service from Tweedbank (almost but not quite Melrose) to Edinburgh could cover its operating costs and would have an estimated capital cost of ^73 million.

By 2003 the cost was being quoted as between ^125-^130m but by the time the proposal had been worked up and studied by a Parliamentary Bill committee and passed by 114 votes to one (that one being me) the cost had doubled to ^155m, an ominous sign that might have woken politicians up to the dangers. These were, however, still the days of loadsamoney government, so almost everybody slapped their backs and looked forward to riding on the first trains in 2011.

Unfortunately the timetable and ticket price turned out to be beyond the scope of any fat controllers.

After 2007 the project was in the hands of the minority SNP government and the price had, within a year, risen to between ^235-^295m and delivery was shunted into 2013. By 2010 the target completion had slipped again into 2014 and in 2012 it was put back further ^ to September 2015. When announced, this date was admitted to be ^challenging^ by the new minister in charge, Keith Brown. His arithmetic was no less challenging as his quoted figure of ^294m construction conveniently left out some ^54m costs already spent.

So let us just clear away the steam and soot surrounding the project. It is admitted to be four years late ^ but could be later ^ and standing today at ^353m is approaching five times the original quoted cost ^ but could be costlier.

The truth is that the Borders railway will be costlier for there are aspects of the project that are being kept off the balance sheet; and there is absolutely no prospect that ^ as was claimed ^ the railway will pay its way. The Borders railway is continuing to bust its own budget and is set to become the most expensive and heavily subsidised line in Scotland if not the whole of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) (the latter claim, while alarming, is irrelevant as it us Scots who will subsidise it).

Here is why. If the Borders railway had not been started there would have been no need to make engineering changes to Portobello junction, but because of it there were and these costs ^ in undisclosed millions ^ have not been credited to the project. Neither have extensions to platform lengths previously uncosted.

Secondly, if the railway had not gone beyond Gorebridge it would not have required a new bridge at Falahill. This bridge, not included in the costs of the project managers, Transport Scotland, is now on its third design (having previously involved significant realignment of the A720 and the addition of two roundabouts that have now been dropped in favour of a more expensive slew bridge).

The costs for this exercise have yet to appear ^ I suggest looking at road costs rather than the Borders railway project where it would cause embarrassment.

The difference of the economics of the railway travelling south of Gorebridge to Galashiels and Tweedbank is key ^ for the official projections admit that 70 per cent of the passenger numbers are on 7.9 per cent of the route between Edinburgh and Gorebridge. Had politicians been given a business case that split the viability of building a commuter railway to Gorebridge and then a second part to the heart of the Borders ^ as they should have ^ then they would have been able to see the white elephant they were proposing.

That the parliamentary Bill committee did not demand such information ^ as was its right ^ was an abrogation of those MSPs^ fiduciary duty to the public.

If we compare the number of passengers being carried per kilometre being run, with a UK average of 101, a Scottish average of 66, and the Borders railway at around 30, we can see how low the traffic will be. When we consider the low number includes commuters and that most trains will therefore be closer to empty, we can see that for all the cost, the Borders railway is Holyrood^s greatest folly yet.

[Red Squirrel]

Please note that this is an opinion piece, not a news item.

A little googling of 'brian monteith' (I'd not heard of him before) reveals that it is fairly predictable that he would take this view. The fact that he claims to have been the only person to have voted against the scheme - 'passed by 114 votes to one (that one being me)' - suggests that he is rather out on a limb in holding these opinions. Or - adopts BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) 'in the interests of balance' voice - maybe he's right and all the others are wrong.

[grahame]

Please note that this is an opinion piece, not a news item.

A little googling of 'brian monteith' (I'd not heard of him before) reveals that it is fairly predictable that he would take this view. ....

Yeah ... Lee posted that with source so that the background would be very clear  . One of our strengths here is that we can, and do, quote opinions that may differ from our own.  Far better to acknowledge the presence of differing views and to offer logical discussion than prevent they don't exist.

The business of lines with unbalanced ends, especially with significant traffic from a central point, iran interesting one.   Do you look at the income and running costs of each section in isolation when you're doing the sums, or take a look at the whole?

Away from the Borders, and away from the GW^▸ (Great Western) area too, let's take another example of a long 'tail' - say Chester to Holyhead.  Holyhead to Valley isn't all that busy; "doesn't pay for itself", and you could probably extend that to Bangor.  Howerver, cut the line back to Bangor and the section from there to Chester won't pay for itself because of the traffic loss, so cut it back to Llandudno junction.   Oops - without the Bangor and Holyhead traffic it doesn't pay, so cut it back to Rhyl.  But ... so we go on, and before we realise it the whole line is uneconomic - an uneconomic tail may well make a body economic that otherwise wouldn't be.

I do wonder if rails should still go to Ilfracombe ...

And I'm so glad I live on a double ended line 

[Red Squirrel]

Yes, perhaps I should have thanked Lee for that (Thanks, Lee!  ) , because (as I've said elsewhere on this forum) it really matters to know who is saying these things, and whether they represent a moderate or an extreme view. Of course, extreme views are arguably more interesting and sell more papers than moderate ones!

On your second point about unbalanced ends; the Severn Beach line (which, of course, used to be double-ended) is a prime case in point - traffic falls away sharply at Clifton Down, but to prune it there would be to play into the hands of the bustituters who would, without doubt, argue that existing bus services have the whole route covered without laying on extra services.

Essentially this is Beeching's argument - that the right mode for local services (outside London, of course) is the bus; rail was just to get people in and out of London and one or two other large cities. But Beeching's primary directive was to make rail profitable (outside London, of course); the 'social railway' concept was limited to London commuter flows and a few marginal constituencies. The consensus has now, thankfully, shifted, but those who acted on Beeching's report very nearly took the railway to an unrecoverable tipping point - and there are poeple will who, to my amazement, still see all investment in rail as a waste of money.

 

[anthony215]

People said the Ebbw Vale line would not live up to expactations and trains would not carry many passengers.

Funilly enough those same people have gone very quiet now that trains are regulary crowded and that passenger numbers far exceded expectations and now come electrification services will be increased to run every 30 minutes wi new stations at Pye Corner and an extension to Ebbw Vale Town.

I wouldnt be surprised if there are those in Bristol who say the Portishead and Henbury lines are a waste of money (look on their faces when the lines are re-opened and trains are regulary crowded)

The same could be said for the service through Melksham, I wonder if there are some who think the improved service from december is a waste of money

[Lee]

Yes, perhaps I should have thanked Lee for that (Thanks, Lee!  ) , because (as I've said elsewhere on this forum) it really matters to know who is saying these things, and whether they represent a moderate or an extreme view. Of course, extreme views are arguably more interesting and sell more papers than moderate ones!

No problem.

Please note that this is an opinion piece, not a news item.

A little googling of 'brian monteith' (I'd not heard of him before) reveals that it is fairly predictable that he would take this view. ....

Yeah ... Lee posted that with source so that the background would be very clear  . One of our strengths here is that we can, and do, quote opinions that may differ from our own.  Far better to acknowledge the presence of differing views and to offer logical discussion than prevent they don't exist.

Indeed. We do take on board suggestions such as the one below which RS made recently on a similar issue:

I'm not saying we should dismiss this 'anti' press, but I think it's worth checking who's behind these articles - are these voices just a small number of shouty people who think they can smell blood, or is there really a groundswell of opinion turning against HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s))? My suspicion is that few people are actually changing their minds, but that the anti camp think now is the time to get out the powder they have been keeping dry.

I'm simply aiming to put views from both sides of the argument across when posting articles. I'd agree that some correspondents have rather more "form" than others, but I'll leave it down to forum members to make their own minds up when reading them, as indeed you have on this occasion.

I wasn't meaning to criticise; I just think that (for the benefit of those who may not study the form book as you or I might) it is worth pointing out who wrote these quotes, as well as which newspaper they were published in - particularly when they are opinion columns. 'Who is saying it' is every bit as important as 'what they are saying'; for example if Dr Richard BeechingWellings of the IEA said that 'there may be a case for HS2' (or indeed for government spending money on anything) that would be truly astonishing.

My highlighting, and job done as you will see from how I arranged the original post.

Now, I could of course go much further and provide a whole host of background information links on such opinion piece authors, but frankly, as I contribute to the forum in breaks between working, I simply don't have the time. Also, previous experience has shown that people can be equally put off if you provide too information in such posts.

We always try and strike an appropriate balance and I hope that in general, forum members are happy with it, whilst feeling that, as RS did, that they can approach us with suggestions that we will always welcome and look at implementing where appropriate & practical.

Talking of balance, here's a piece that came through this morning which may help 

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Borders to Edinburgh rail route interchange preparations begin

Preparations have begun to clear the way for a purpose-built transport interchange in Galashiels associated with the Borders to Edinburgh railway.

It aims to "link up sustainable modes of transport" with the rail route when it reopens in 2015.

The first phase of works will see the realignment of the town's Stirling Street to create a space for the new building.

It will also see the creation of a new civic space and car park.

Construction work will begin on 14 October and is likely to continue until the new interchange comes into operation in 2015.

Car parks in the area have now been closed in order to let preparatory works begin.

Construction of the building itself will start in early 2014 once the infrastructure improvements are complete.

Minimise impact
 
Scottish Borders Council's executive member for roads and infrastructure, Gordon Edgar, said it would ultimately be a major boost for the area.

"We appreciate there is going to be some impact to existing arrangements to allow this work to get under way, but this is a huge project which will bring some significant benefits for local businesses and for people travelling into and out of the Borders," he said.

"All of the work this year is being carried out by SBc Contracts, the council's in-house contractor, to ensure traffic management requirements are fully co-ordinated so that disruption is kept to a minimum.

"This single point of control will also benefit co-ordination with the Borders railway project."

On your second point about unbalanced ends; the Severn Beach line (which, of course, used to be double-ended) is a prime case in point - traffic falls away sharply at Clifton Down, but to prune it there would be to play into the hands of the bustituters who would, without doubt, argue that existing bus services have the whole route covered without laying on extra services.

Nearly happened with the current franchise. See Page 195 of this link.

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

Monteith's logic seems to be much the same as that used to close many railways going back to the Beeching era, i.e. looking at the economics of the rail in isolation from other transport modes. I am not familar with the arguments for the Borders rail project but presumably the alterative roads are suffering from congestion and by opening a rail line the road congestion would be reduced giving benefits to all those road users for whom the rail is is not a convenient alternative. When the social benefits for these people have been assessed and if a value could be placed on those benefits, the overall cost of the rail scheme could be much lower. However as Richard Faulkner & Chris Austin's new book, "Holding the Line" shows, such logic has often been ignored by the road building lobby that has so much influence on government policy.

[Red Squirrel]

An observation for people like me who spend time staring at Google maps and Google earth, dreaming of reopening old lines: This satellite view of Galashiels shows clearly that there are no significant obstacles in the path of the Borders line - doesn't it? Well not quite - the street view tells a different tale, of what looks like quite a few thousands of tonnes of spoil dumped on the trackbed.

Essential Galashiels road closure brings town a step closer to new railway
Tuesday, September 17, 2013

The team delivering the Borders Railway will be closing Winston Road in Galashiels for up to 12 months from 23rd September, as part of crucial construction progress through the town.

Network Rail, along with contractors BAM, will be working to excavate tonnes of material which has lain under Winston Road for over 40 years. This will allow the new railway bed to be constructed at the right level and for a new road bridge to then be built over the railway.

Hugh Wark, Project Director for the Borders Railway, explains:

^The new railway will run at approximately the same level as the historic line. To achieve this, we will need to use specialist machinery to remove large amounts of material, including the old bridge that was buried in the early 1970s.

See full article on Borders Rail website

They don't make it clear what sort of material it is - does anyone know? Was it a landfill site?

Edit: fixed sickly owl