Scottish reopenings
Following the success of the Borders Railway, the clamour is getting louder for more rail reopenings north of the border. ANDREW MOURANT examines the case for two lines
Following the success of the Borders Railway, the clamour is getting louder for more rail reopenings in Scotland.
Some ambitions to reopen disused rail lines are little more than pipe dreams, doomed to be crushed by hard-headed arithmetic. There are no cheap ways of reinstating and adding to infrastructure - the price usually goes one way… up, then up again. The business case can be hard to make.
Scottish government policy makes plenty of pro-rail noises. It claims to embrace a carbon-cutting agenda, social inclusion, and connecting deprived communities. Even so, all that must be set against a finite transport budget - and everyone wants a slice of that.
To make a compelling case from a sound idea, campaigners need patience, persistence and an understanding of the convoluted processes involved in getting a rail project off the ground.
One prime example is the call to reopen the line to Levenmouth and its hinterland in Fife, east Scotland. The case is strong - a population of 46,000 without rail links and within an hour or so of Edinburgh. The sixmile track, though out of use, receives funds to retain it as part of the main network. That means Network Rail is obliged to reopen the line to ‘previous capability’ for freight if an operator asks.
Levenmouth Rail Campaign (LMRC) Chairman Eugene Clarke says reopening would cost between £ 37 million and £ 56m, and be “one of the best-value rail reopening schemes in Britain… certainly the best in Scotland…and could be part-funded with significant contributions from developers”.
He tells RAIL: “It’s technically and operationally feasible. Payback would be around twice the cost of its provision. The benefits will be even greater if - as is generally the case with other rail reopenings - traffic exceeds predictions.”
LMRC is calling for a reinstated line with new stations at Cameron Bridge (which would also have an intermodal freight terminal) and Leven, and with a half-hourly passenger service. As there’s an operational junction with the Edinburgh to Dundee main line, the cost per mile of reinstatement would be ‘significantly less’ than other reopenings.
Levenmouth, comprising the communities of Buckhaven, Kennoway, Leven, Methil and Windygates (population 33,000), is the largest urban area in Scotland without a rail service, according to campaigners. It has suffered since coal mines and other industries shut - under the 2016 Scottish index of multiple deprivation (SIMD) study, Methil ranks in the bottom 11% of almost 7,000 zones examined.
LMRC says new stations would draw custom from small towns and villages such as Largoward, Elie, St Monans, Pittenweem and Anstruther - a total catchment of more than 46,000.
“The restored line offers opportunities to make life better,” says the group. “It will also benefit central and west Fife besides the west side of Edinburgh, giving new access to jobs and cheaper housing.”
It also lists other “huge improvements” for these communities, in terms of higher education, employment, increased business activity, easier access to hospital and other medical services, and expansion of tourism.
LMRC knows the importance of getting key people onside. It claims the support of every local councillor, MPs and MSPs, as well as organisations such Fife Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses.
It also knows exactly what spadework is required. That includes a study to determine the best train timetable, the signalling required, the best place for a passing loop, and the need for more rolling stock.
“Only then can a detailed estimate of capital and operating costs be made to finalise the business case,” it says.
The Levenmouth case has been examined in two Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG) reports - one commissioned from Scott Wilson in 2008, the other from SYSTRA in 2015. Both reckoned that a direct rail service from Leven and Cameron Bridge stations would generate around 160,000 rail journeys per year.
Where would these passengers come from? Scott Wilson estimated a 51% shift from bus to rail and a 14% shift from car.
However, LMRC points to previous assumptions elsewhere that have proved “highly conservative”, claiming: “The demand at Tweedbank (Borders Line) shows drivers will travel further to a railhead than previously thought. A railway to Levenmouth would offer benefits akin to those of Borders for a fraction of its cost, and has the potential for freight traffic.”
But there’s a big gulf in the estimated costs. Scott Wilson put these (including stations at Cameron Bridge and Leven) at £ 58m, while
SYSTRA quoted £ 91m. Even allowing for the 2008 prices levels that Scott Wilson was working with, that’s a huge gap.
According to LMRC, the disparity came down to differing approaches in evaluating risk. SYSTRA reviewed all Scott Wilson’s 19 ‘key risk areas’ but then slapped on a blanket 50% ‘optimism bias’ to cover the worst case scenario in terms of rising costs.
One favourable economic argument is that land values alongside a new rail line increase. Private sector funds can be generated through striking early agreements with developers who would pay a premium for planning permission - funds that would help finance the scheme. That improves the business case, says LMRC.
A decade ago, campaigners explored this more closely by hiring E-Rail, a specialist in securing private money for public transport projects through ‘land value capture’. E-Rail concluded that prices would rise sufficiently to generate a “significant proportion” of the capital funding required - a piece of work ripe for review, according to LMRC.
The group further believes that wider benefits were overlooked in both STAG reports. These include the increased economic activity that results from better connections (rail links to Edinburgh airport and the wider UK), more inward investment, and new job and education opportunities.
“Only a rail link would put the population within an hour of Edinburgh’s employment growth areas,” it concludes.
Both reports estimated the Levenmouth link’s Benefit: Cost Ratio (BCR) at around 1.4 (generating £1.40 for every £1 invested). LMRC says this should be revised upward, given that Systra’s £ 91m projected cost “is too high”.
Moreover, it says the forecast excludes the wider economic benefits, which in Borders Railway’s final business case turned out to be 27% of all benefits.
“Travel demand is difficult to predict and so almost always underestimated,” says LMRC.
It says land value capture could generate a significant proportion of the capital funding required, and that when these factors are taken into account, it’s likely Levenmouth will have a BCR of around 2.0 - presenting
There’s huge pressure on housing in Edinburgh. One of our arguments is that a rail link would allow people living in Fife to commute to west Edinburgh, where there are high-level jobs in areas such as finance. Eugene Clarke, Chairman, Levenmouth Rail Campaign
particularly good value for money. Says Clarke: “We’re looking at large areas that are likely to be developed. I think these could be more significant than people realise. There’s huge pressure on housing in Edinburgh. One of our arguments is that a rail link would allow people living in Fife to commute to west Edinburgh, where there are high-level jobs in areas such as finance.”
Who would use the new line? According to LMRC, not just locals seeking work, but also an untapped tourist market. From 2012-24, Fife aims to increase annual visitor expenditure by 36% to £416m. It’s promoting the ‘Kingdom’ as easily accessible from Edinburgh, although that accessibility would demand better transport… namely rail.
Fife has a coastal path, picturesque fishing villages, beaches, a maritime heritage, golf courses and restaurants. St Andrews has long been a tourist magnet.
“A line to Levenmouth would provide East Fife with a railhead which, combined with a hop-on, hop-off minibus service, opens up attractions that struggle to cope with cars. Similar services from the Borders railhead at Tweedbank have been a success,” says LMRC.
Meanwhile, it’s championing the environmental case for freight - timely, as the Scottish Government has created a £ 30m rail freight fund. Campaigners say that could partfund the infrastructure needed for rail access to a new freight terminal.
LMRC has its sights trained on Diageo’s bottling plant at Leven and distillery at Cameron Bridge, which generates more than 25,000 truck journeys a year. A multiuser rail freight terminal there could link in with Grangemouth, Scotland’s largest container port, for use by other manufacturers, processors and businesses.
LMRC acknowledges that accommodating trains on a new route will demand “ingenuity”. However, it believes that ScotRail’s plan to revise its timetable in December 2018 presents a “unique opportunity” to incorporate a Levenmouth service.
“It should be possible to provide half-hourly trains to Edinburgh in a journey time of around an hour,” says LMCR, although that would entail scrapping level crossings and rights of way over the line - Doble Dykes has a dirt track crossing, while footpaths cross at Tullybreck and Kirkland.
At least two extra train sets would be needed, as well as a crossing loop for the single line. Freight may be able to run without affecting passenger services, otherwise operators might insist on pre-planned off-peak withdrawal of a passenger train, perhaps twice daily.
“Freight provision should be built into the design from the outset,” LMRC therefore concludes.
The group’s report includes the expertise of “senior people” within the rail industry, which accounts for its thoroughness. Even so, everyone is steeled for the slow grind through Network Rail’s Governance for Railway Investment Projects (GRIP) process. This has eight stages, although campaigners believe that through two previous STAG reports, they’ve hurdled the first three stages other than factoring in a freight terminal.
A GRIP4 study would consider every aspect of developing a timetable, the resources to make it work, and infrastructure specification - work that would need Scottish Government funding. Only then will it be possible to produce a definitive business case.
Despite the force of LMRC’s argument, Clarke, having been chairman for the past three years, remains wary of politicians - he’s come to learn that what they say in one breath may come to mean something different in the next.
“The minister (Humza Yousaf) announced in October that he’d instructed Transport Scotland to take Levenmouth forward to GRIP4, working alongside Fife Council. But since then, we’ve become alarmed by what looks like a demand not to get to GRIP4 but only (look at) the business case.”
All that came out of a recent Fife Council
meeting was a reiteration of Yousaf’s stance, stating that there would be “a review of the appraisal and existing STAG work”’.
Clarke describes this as “a fairly meaningless update - I’ve asked for more detail, including a timescale, but am not holding my breath”.
While Levenmouth campaigners hope that so-called wider economic benefits may help push their case forward, quite how these are calculated remains a mystery to them.
Says Clarke: “With the Borders Line, the Scottish Government came up with a figure of £ 24.9m. A Freedom of Information request was made to find out how they came up with that figure, but no answer was received. Meanwhile, Nicola Sturgeon has made noises about a Borders Line extension, yet no work has been done. It’s an absolute non-starter.”
Holyrood’s machinations aren’t Clarke’s only concern: “In the summer, as part of the Edinburgh City Region Deal, Fife Council named Levenmouth link as its number one project. But then it disappeared and there’s been no explanation.
“There seems to be no vision in the Scottish Government about what it wants transport to look like - it likes big roads and big bridges. But I’m always a ‘glass half-full’ man. I think Levenmouth will go ahead, and I’d like to think trains would be running by 2024.”
While Levenmouth ticks many boxes, it seems harder to make a case for reinstating the disused Buchan line, or at least the portion that runs northwest from Aberdeen to Ellon. Yet a project for which no one has seriously worked out a timescale is being chewed over in some detail.
A report commissioned by Nestrans, the transport partnership for Aberdeenshire, considered three options: Aberdeen-Dyce to Ellon (an hourly service); Aberdeen-Dyce to Ellon (trains half-hourly); and Aberdeen-Dyce to Ellon and extending to a new park and ride (also half-hourly). Each involves providing an intermediate station at Newmachar. The new park and ride rail stop would be located next to Ellon’s existing P&R bus station.
The first idea was considered feasible, given the improved infrastructure and services planned between Aberdeen and Inverurie. However, consultant AECOM, which produced the report, says options two and three would require doubling the single-track section north of Aberdeen.
Moreover, Dyce station would need
remodelling to provide a new junction, and the track would need realigning to remove S-curves at Newmachar, which would also need a dynamic loop. A twin platform station at Ellon with double-track approach and a double-track extension between Ellon and the proposed park and ride would also need to be factored in.
Option 1, including a preparing-for-theworst 66% optimism bias, was priced at £ 273m, option 2 at £ 311m, and option 3 at £ 381m. AECOM reckoned that an Ellon park and ride station could save between 700 and 1,000 car journeys each weekday by 2036, and that overall a new service would generate 450,000 to 700,000 rail journeys each year.
But is that value for money? All three options raise “‘significant question marks over affordability… with costs outweighing the benefits”, consultants found.
A projected BCR of 0.2-0.3 would be sufficiently meagre to scupper many a scheme. That said, AECOM is looking on the bright side, saying that the BCR “could improve through, for example, combining different growth forecasts and assumptions around parking costs in Aberdeen”.
It’s well-known that demand for new rail schemes across Scotland has confounded expectations. Even so, says AECOM, however you look at the forecasts for options to Ellon, they fall well short of a strong business case.
But no one’s ruling it out - at least, not yet. The line is being considered alongside projected road improvements as part of a strategy to create better links along and around a 50-mile stretch from Peterhead and Fraserburgh to Aberdeen and Dyce, with a
study under way looking at possibilities for the A90 and A952. These could include new roundabouts at Toll of Birness and Cortes junctions, other junction upgrades, safety improvements, and some dual carriageway. All this has been costed at £ 39m by SYSTRA.
“For a fairly modest investment, we’d see measures to improve safety and reduced journey times - but with little impact on emissions,” says Nestrans Chairman and Aberdeenshire Ccouncillor Peter Argyle.
“Reinstating a rail line between Aberdeen, Dyce and Ellon would be feasible, popular among travellers, and environmentally beneficial. But it’s significantly more expensive and would need ongoing subsidy.”
Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire councils are being asked for their views. These will be considered early next year by Nestrans’ board, which could pursue options for road and rail.
“Both are very much on the table - it’s not an ‘either or’ situation’,” says Argyle. “Hopefully things will be a bit clearer by then.”
Nestrans board member Councillor Martin Ford claims projections of rail journey numbers by people from Newmachar looked only at its population (2,500), and overlooked a further 1,000 people in nearby Kingseat.
“There’s park and ride potential for those people, so this isn’t the whole picture,” he says.
Meanwhile, Aberdeenshire East MSP Gillian Martin points out that the cost:benefit analysis ignores the economic benefits that a reinstated railway would have for Ellon as a commercial town, saying: “This should be investigated.”
Argyle considers the Buchan line as “fundamentally a good idea”, although he tells
RAIL: “But I think everyone recognises that the cost will be enormous - we have our feet firmly on the ground.
“We know that where improvements are made to rail services, usage is far beyond what has been predicted. When there were timetable changes at Inverurie, numbers went up very quickly.
“The demand is there. We feel this would be a good thing to do, and we’re talking about this being factored in rather than just focusing on cost and the business case. But we recognise budgets are tight, especially for big capital projects.”
Even if the scheme does gain momentum, Argyle is reluctant to predict when the line might reopen.
“Things are at a very early stage. The Western peripheral by-pass round Aberdeen [a 36-mile road costed at £ 745m and likely to open in spring 2018]) was first talked about 40 years ago.”
Reinstating a rail line between Aberdeen, Dyce and Ellon would be feasible, popular among travellers, and environmentally beneficial. But it’s significantly more expensive and would need ongoing subsidy. Peter Argyle, Chairman, Nestrans