MSP's PRESSED ON RAIL LINK

[Jingling Geordie]

I should not put to much store on the apparent opinion of a small NIMBY group passing itself off as a Political Party. How many members does the group possess and what were the voting figures that won the man his seat on the council.

Local council turnouts can be as low as 18%-25%, so majorities can be quite slight particular if it reflects a protest vote against the Ruling Party. Don't forget that the Monster Raving Loony Party, The Hartlepool Monkey Hangers and others of a similar ilk have won council seats.

I reckon the only way to counteract this would be to organise a petition at key population centres.

However I can understand his anxiety, those who don't should look at any history of Metro-Land.

But on balance the good far outweight the bad, (only if it were the true Waverley line back to Carlisle.) See below

421

[Jingling Geordie]

This is what the Borders Party published on its web-site

The Borders Party
Standing up for the Scottish Borders
Railway

A real railway; fast, freight-carrying and through to Carlisle, would be welcomed by the Borders Party, but that is simply not on offer. The proposed line cannot carry freight and takes over an hour to Waverley station. Scottish First Minister, Jack McConnell, referred to it as “the tram to Gala”.

The effect of the railway would be, as the Tourism Impact Study puts it “… at least three times as many extra houses being built in the Borders” (Tourism Impact Study - part of the Outline Business Case for the Waverley Project).

The Structure Plan identifies the “Peebles/Innerleithen/Central Borders axis”, (what normal people would call the central Tweed valley) for “substantial development … dependent on progress on the railway” (Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001 – 2011, Principle S3).

The extra 1000 housing units added to the Draft Local Plan will “ensure a continuing commitment by the Scottish Executive to the railway” (Item 2(c) Scottish Borders Council, 16th June 2005).

The Cost

The Strategic Rail Authority recommends that 40% should be allowed for overspend on such construction projects, but Scottish Borders Council has allowed just 4%. As the promoter of the project, the Council is responsible for finding the difference, and a 40% overspend would represent more than £1000 per Borders household.

The Borders Party is the only party opposed to this madness. We will work to expose this extraordinarily successful con-trick, and to put real pressure on Councillors and Planners to take account of informed public opinion.

The prospect of the railway has already driven up house prices and increased demand for executive housing, a blow against those trying to get onto the housing ladder.

Councillors of every hue have applauded the Waverley line and its attendant development. Failure to consult properly on the railway, the biggest project ever undertaken by our local authority, is one of the worst indictments of the present Council.

So there you are, I can now see that I'm in no position to comment on this matter but I think the point they make that they would back the restoration of the full Waverley line is of interest. Many of us outsiders thought that this was the case.

421

[Nicholas W.]

Hello All,

I’m the one you want to shout down, hang and so on.
I don't expect people to agree with me, but the vented spleen of contributors so far seems pretty silly when the arguments haven't been heard yet. “Trains good” is too simplistic, which is unfortunate as I instinctively like them.

Far from being a lone voice there is substantial opposition to the Borders Railway, and for good reason. (And I have no shares in Ford - thank goodness!)

Anyone who has studied this project knows that it is not about re-instating the great Waverley Line. It is about a slow commuter service directly inked to the construction of some 13,700 houses in the central Borders which are crucial to the “business case” for the project. This throws up two major objections.

First, if there is no business case without all these new houses, then why on earth don’t we spend the money where there’s an existing need to be met? Goodness knows there are enough demands on public funds already.

The second is of greater concern to those who love the Borders and are interested in sustainable development. A railway to Galashiels would substantially and irreversibly change the way the region develops. We all know places, parts of Fife for example, that have been damaged by development which is not related to local needs or local employment.

The Borders Railway is about planning for people to live forty-odd miles from where they work: this is bad for the environment and bad for our communities. When I put this to our MP he said that plans for the railway were already stimulating investment in the region, and cited TESCO’s arrival in Galashiels in anticipation of major house building. He should know better: investment, yes, but at what cost? There are now two 24-hour superstores in Galashiels. The historic heart of the town has been ripped out - fine old mill buildings which would have made superb flats and offices - and small shops in Galashiels and other towns are suffering the consequences too. And does anyone think TESCO’s profits stay in the region…?

Our opponents love to paint us as those who want no change: in fact we have more proposals for development in the Borders than any of the other parties – it is just that we dare to make the distinction between development which is well related to local employment and local needs and so brings benefits, and that which is damaging (see above). If we fail to protect the Borders from damaging development everyone loses out: those who live and work here, those who come to visit our unrivalled built and natural heritage, and not least the environment. And research has proved that many investors are drawn to the Borders precisely because it remains such an attractive place.

Do I like trains? Yes. One of my earliest memories was riding on the footplate of the last steam train on a line in North Wales. And my first memory of Scotland, aged four, is of arriving by train and riding down Melrose Station platform on my tricycle, in the snow. It was a tragedy when the real Waverley line was pulled up. Would I use a Borders Railway? Yes, occasionally. Would I support the re-instatement of the real Waverley Line? If, like the old one, it was fast, could carry freight and went all the way to Carlisle then yes, of course – but that’s simply not on offer. (Branson was interested in investing until he realised it wasn’t heading for Carlisle and couldn’t carry freight.)

And if anyone is picturing Steam Specials from Edinburgh to the Borders, forget it: there are not even plans for a turntable at the Southern end of the line and the single-track arrangement and tight timetabling (to cope with the junction with the main line) are not flexible enough anyway.

As for fixing the debate we held, please see notes at foot of the letter below. The real fixing has been done by national political parties who will not allow their locally elected representatives to speak out against the project - even those who know it is a flawed project - for fear of rocking the boat.

Some twenty million pounds have been spent promoting the Borders Railway and one of the most distasteful aspects of this is the constant talking down of the region - claims that our traditional industries are stuffed and we’ll have to hang onto Edinburgh’s coat-tails if we are to survive. Of course we have our problems in the Borders but we have huge strengths and qualities too, and it is to these assets we must look in planning a sustainable future for the region – a major reason for our starting the Borders Party. Far from being run-down we have record levels of new businesses starting in the Borders, relatively low unemployment and strong, generous communities.

One of the privileges of being a councillor in the Borders is getting to see so many varied and worthwhile things that happen here, and meeting so many interesting people. This has made me even more determined over the last two years not to let the Borders become a suburb of Edinburgh.


Nicholas Watson



Letter sent to all MSPs:
Borders Railway - How to win votes and save £300m!

By Councillor Nicholas Watson, Scottish Borders Council

Why should Scotland pay for a railway to Galashiels which not even Borderers want?

Taxpayers and transport buffs alike were reassured by Scotland’s first Strategic Transport Projects Review last year. But despite the importance of objectively rating major projects against each other the Borders Railway was not part of that review.

And although there are glaring differences between the two distinct parts of the project, they have never been separately considered. A line as far as Midlothian, with a good park and ride service, would be far better for the Borders than a line all the way to Galashiels.

MSPs should understand that most Borderers know a line to Galashiels would be a colossal waste of money and couldn’t possibly deliver the sweeping benefits claimed by its backers. Borders voters would be far more impressed if even a fraction of the £300m was spent on projects of real value, such as high-speed broadband.

If you want to gauge public opinion on the Borders Railway don't ask politicians, many are confused by it, and even those who think it's a rotten project seem to be frightened of rocking the boat.

Why not ask people in the Borders what they think? The substantial majority are either opposed to the railway or have very serious concerns and would happily see it scrapped - see NOTES below.

The Borders Railway should have been dropped long before the Glasgow Airport Rail Link, which has a real business case.

Please make sure the Borders Railway is properly scrutinised: get Transport Scotland to rate its usefulness against other projects - before yet more public money is thrown at it!




NOTES:

• The Borders Party which I belong to has balanced support from right across the political spectrum. Although a stance on the railway was only part of our 2007 platform, we have been constantly asked since then to articulate many, many people’s concerns about the project - concerns which were given no hearing by the Waverley Railway Bill Committee (2004 - 2006).

In January 2008 we organised a public debate, with a massive turn-out for the Borders, and over 75% voted against the railway's reinstatement. (206 votes to 67.) This was the first time there had been an open, public debate on the project.

This televised debate was organised in response to a challenge in the press from Christopher Harvie MSP. It was widely publicised by Radio Borders, BBC Radio Scotland, Border Television and all the local papers. Because it was well on the public radar there was no way that the overall balance of the audience could have been influenced.

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/sou ... 193937.stm

• The Scotsman carried out a poll last year which revealed equally limited enthusiasm for the line.

• In August 2007 Cyril Sweet, construction consultants, scrutinised the Borders Railway’s business case for ministers. Their findings were pretty damning:

"The most basic point to make is that the presentation of information in the business case is very poor. It is difficult to follow and there are numerous errors, both mathematical, methodological and in stating the nature of the development of the case. There is a significant lack of information on many of the issues that the document should be covering: Operating cost assumptions: Fares assumptions: Patronage assumptions: Housing assumptions: Rolling stock requirements: Renewals costs."

The Borders Railway's business case is flawed and the scheme has only been kept afloat by politics. Realising that the real "Waverley Line" is not on offer, many who petitioned for its reinstatement have now turned against the project: it will not go to Carlisle, cannot carry freight and is not even fast enough to compete effectively with buses…




Nicholas Watson
Councillor for Leaderdale and Melrose. Scottish Borders Council.
Tel. 01896 752751
NWatson@scotborders.gov.uk

[52D]

Thank you Mr Watson, the floor is now open for serious debate.

I for one would be better pleased with a full reinstatement From Edinburgh to Carlisle where a spur could penetrate to Keilder for timber traffic. Other branches could be reopened im not talking about the Tweed valley or Berwickshire Railway routes much as i miss them but other branches such as Langholm and Selkirk where development in housing and regeneration could be carried out sympathetically I dont know what Mr Watson thinks of new towns but there is potential for some of the central borders towns to expand without ripping the heart out of them indeed isnt part of St Boswells known as Newton from an earlier expansion.
A reopened Waverley also gives a useful diversion route if the ECML is blocked for any reason and also gives an alternate freight path. This would take some of the strain off the WCML by routing more freight over the Settle & Carlisle then Waverley.
Another possibility for a reopening is Reston which could lead to a call to reinstate the Branch to Duns possibly on the lines of the North Berwick Branch with trains running through to Edinburgh at peak times and connecting with Edinburgh Newcastle trains at other times.

[60041]

Thankyou Mr Watson for taking the trouble to reply. I agree that much of the modern "development" in the Borders is inappropriate and undesireable, but there is also much that is good.
I do not have any connections with Galashiels other than being a frequent visitor to the town and being a regular customer of some of the businesses there. When I first started visiting Gala in the early '90s, the town had a very run down feel to it, with the High Street mainly home to charity shops, pound shops and a few cheque-cashing shops; the sure sign of a community in trouble. The contrast with today is remarkable, the town has a "buzz" about it and, as Mr Watson points out, there is a huge amount of development taking place. While much of this change may have happened anyway, there is no doubt that the projected railway has stumulated development like nothing else could have done. Some of these changes may not suit everybody, I also mourn the destruction of some of the fine victorian mill buildings, but a town like Galasheils can not be pickled in aspic and allowed to drift along without purpose. Mr Watson is right in saying that the profits from the Tesco store are lost to the area, but the existance of their store shows that that company, along with many others, has confidence in the economic prospects of the towm that they would not have had 15 years ago.

I firmly believe that if the railway is not re-opened that two things will happen:
1) The rail route will be start to disappear under road improvements, farmers ploughs and sporadic developments until it is lost for ever.
2) Sooner or later, maybe not this year or next but sometime, there will be calls to improve the road links and when this happens the development of the town will continue unabated; but of course this time there will not be the possibility that the railway could take the traffic.

Along with virtually every other user of this forum, I think that the Waverley Route should never have been closed in the first place, but it is too late to worry about that now; the main priority should be to get the railway re-opened as far as possible, even as a single track, then use that start as the basis of a fully re-opened route all the way to Carlisle. This is our last chance to get rails back into the border country, so please don't mess it up now, any railway is better than none, and lets all hope that one day we can catch a train that will take us not only to Gala, but also to Hawick and Carlisle.

[BJamieson]

It's good to see that so many folk on the LNER Encyclopedia site support reinstatement of the Waverley Line. As for the Borders Party, I never get into debates with any of them. Nicolas Watson is probably sincere but, in my view, misguided. It's doubtful whether most of his party have any real interest in providing decent public transport in the Borders. They often wax lyrical about buses but this is unlikely to be based on any personal experience of using them. The party policy of supporting a line through to Carlisle, but not the initial stage to Tweedbank, is clearly a red herring designed to try and broaden their appeal - it should be obvious to everyone that the line will only be reinstated in sections - scrapping the first stage now would not only set the project back a decade (at least) but most likely scupper it for ever.
And as for a party which claims to believe in sustainable development but then advocates that the money for the Borders line should be spent on making it easier for folk to get to an airport - well, it just leaves me speechless. I could go on but would rather not waste any more time on them.

Bill

[52D]

It is with great interest i submit this article from the Southern Reporter Newspaper;

SCOTTISH Borders Council leader David Parker has launched a blistering attack on the Borders Party and its leader Nicholas Watson for attempting to scupper the Borders railway project.
Last week Councillor Watson wrote to all 129 MSPs telling them most Borderers knew a line from Edinburgh to Tweedbank would be “a colossal waste of money that cannot possibly deliver the sweeping benefits claimed by its supporters”.

He told Scotland’s decision-makers that the Waverley project, due for completion at a cost of £295million in 2013, should have been dropped long before the £395million Glasgow Airport rail link, which was scrapped by the Scottish Government last month.

Mr Watson asked the MSPs to rate the usefulness of the Borders railway against other projects and claimed a line to Midlothian, with a good park-and-ride service, would be far better for the region than a line all the way to Tweedbank.

And he claimed he and Councillor Sandy Aitchison, who were elected to SBC for the Borders Party in 2007, had been asked many times to express the concerns of the public about the project.

This week, a furious Mr Parker hit back. “I was astonished that the Borders Party wrote to MSPs in Scotland telling them that £300million worth of public transport and economic development investment should not come to the Borders,” Mr Parker told The Southern Reporter.

“To recommend that the Borders railway should be cancelled and that the money invested in other parts of Scotland is a total betrayal of the Borders and they are clearly pursuing an anti-Borders agenda which the vast majority of Borderers will recognise and be appalled with.

“The letter to MSPs does not set out a convincing case and is based on dodgy facts and questionable statistics. It is also appalling that this party seeks to have investment, which is being targeted at our region, redirected to other parts of Scotland. A more convincing argument would have been for them to recommend how £300million of investment could be spent in a different way in the Borders, but the simple truth is that they have no policies and no ideas about how to improve the Borders economy.

“I am heartened by the fact that virtually no MSPs have responded to this schoolboy political stunt and quite frankly those behind it should grow up and start behaving like proper adult politicians.

“There will be positive announcements about the progress of the Borders railway in the weeks ahead and the project is vital to the future health of the Borders in terms of economic regeneration and improved public transport infrastructure.

“In terms of the park-and-ride Gorebridge option which the Borders Party highlights, this issue was comprehensively tested by the parliamentary committee that scrutinised the Waverley Bill.
They rejected it outright after considering submissions from the promoters of the bill and also after taking their own independent advice".

“The parliament was adamant that to get the benefits from the railway the line had to run from Edinburgh to Tweedbank and that is why at the end of the day the final report described it as the Borders Railway.

“We have numerous statistics and evidence that support our arguments but I have rehearsed all of these in the past and I am not sure I want to waste the energy doing it again on this ridiculous political stunt.”

Mr Watson, however, is unrepentant.

“If Mr Parker thinks it’s such a great project, why should he worry about it being scrutinised, which is what my letter specifically called for?” said Mr Watson yesterday.

“The truth is it has never been assessed against other projects to see if it offers value for money, and value for money has never been more important.

“The real tragedy is that politicians have hijacked a once honourable project, the return of the real Waverley line, and turned it into a commuter line dependent on a housing explosion.

“One of the most unattractive aspects of the way the railway has been promoted is the constant talking down of the region with claims that our traditional industries are stuffed and we’ll have to hang onto Edinburgh’s coat tails if we are to survive.

“In fact, the proposed railway to Tweedbank would irreversibly change the way the region develops, and threaten the very qualities we should look to in planning a sustainable future for the region.

“Other councillors who know the project is a dud have sat on their hands for years now, but that’s not the Borders Party’s style.

“And the timing is important: many MSPs know it’s economic madness but dare not admit so. As they focus on how to spend Scotland’s money in these difficult times, they need to understand that many Borderers are opposed to the railway for very good reasons.”

I have contacted David Parker and asked him to address the forum.

[richard]

I did post something a couple of days ago but it looks like it has been eaten by the Great Atlantic Internet Whale.

Basically as forum owner/manager, it thanked Nicholas Watson for taking the time to reply. I did not expect him to, and I am glad to be proved wrong in this cynical age of politics.

I also noted that there were a number of main lines (I believe I listed Waverley, Woodhead, and the GCR London Extension) which, with hindsight, should not have been closed - even allowing for the nostalgia that a site like this will attract.

Richard

[52D]

The three lines mentioned by Richard above are the three ex LNER lines together with the Leamside line are the ones that in my opinion should have never shut.

[BJamieson]

What about the ex NB main line between Cowdenbeath and Bridge of Earn? It seems incredible that the most direct route between Edinburgh and Perth (one of the most populous places in Scotland after Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen) could be closed. The position was slightly improved subsequently by the reopening of the Ladybank to Hilton Junction section to passenger traffic, but the current timing of about 75 minutes is fairly pathetic when considering that the direct distance by road is about 43 miles and the AA Route Planner reckons it can be done in less than an hour.
But of course it had to be sacrificed to facilitate construction of the M90 motorway.

[52D]

Same excuse to sever the Alnwick Branch, bridge over new bypass road = loads a money so lets close the line and put the road in a nice big cutting through the formation. So the AVRS will never get enough money for a bridge even if Concrete Bobs company will do it at cost.

[52A]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/sou ... 338410.stm

Just picked this up on beeb.

[60041]

Latest news on the subject, yet another delay in the start:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/sou ... 340027.stm

I wonder if any of us will live long enough to see the line reopen

[redtoon1892]

You dont really expect ANY MP to take into consideration the general publics view do you ? MPs at both levels are there for their own and families advancement rather than serve any useful purpose to the community, I should have thought that was pretty obvious by now.

[52D]

This missive dropped into my inbox this morning from the leader of the Borders Council it is printed below in full with his permission.

Thank you for contacting me via the Council's website. Can I apologise for the delay in responding to you, but I have been out of the office unwell, and on my return I am only now catching up on correspondence.



It would not be appropriate for me to join your forum or take part in the discussion group however, I am happy to provide you with some information about the Waverley Railway project, which you are more than welcome to give to others.



The Waverley Railway project is now moving forward and the official invitation to tender for the project will be in the 'European Journal' in December of this year. The tender process should be concluded by the autumn of 2011 and full scale construction will begin in 2012.



In preparation for construction, numerous contracts have recently been confirmed and work to clear vegetation from the line and prepare the line for construction, will commence in spring 2010. It is also the case that utility diversion works will commence in the spring of 2010 and there are various other contracts associated with bridge/banking stabilisation and potentially tunnel works which are either happening at present, or are set to go to tender very soon.



The Waverley project is now progressing at a fair pace, and despite the recent negative publicity a huge amount of work is being done to bring the project to fruition.



I hope you find this information helpful,



Kind regards



Cllr David Parker

Leader

Scottish Borders Council



Home Tel: (01896) 756558

Council: (01835) 826571

Mobile: 07812 166107



dparker@scotborders.gov.uk