Borders Railway engineering drawings on the web

London-based CBR activist Nick Bethune has kindly drawn our attention to the fact that the full set of engineering drawings for the Borders Railway has been posted on the web – more evidence that the railway really is coming, in case you were rubbing your eyes and asking if it really was true after all!

6 thoughts on “Borders Railway engineering drawings on the web

  1. So much for passive provision for double track then, no obvious attempt to provide room. Does this merely sink any hope for a through route or does the length placement of dynamic loops for DMU’s also torpedo any journey time improvements from electrification?

  2. One of the other disappointing things to note is that the combined length of the dynamic loops has been cut back to the original specification of just over 9.5 miles from looking at the distance markers on the locations of the ends of the loops. It will be a challenge to keep trains on time with this configuration. Are they including the Waverley to Portobello section in the quoted figure of 12 miles of double track?

  3. Bill Jamieson says:

    Just one word of caution, the plans don’t seem to be up to date – for example the Tweedbank plan (where I would have expected alterations) is dated May 2012 with no revision and the most recent revision date I have noticed (without going through all the drawings) is August 2012.

    However there are likely to have been changes in the meantime which would invalidate the points Chris and Paul have made. Like Chris I can find no evidence of passive provision for double track and it’s particularly disappointing to see that the new road over rail bridges in the Heriot / Fountainhall area all appear to be single track only.

    I agree that the total length of loops is just over 9.5 miles which is near enough back to the old specification. Paul’s suggestion that Waverley to Portobello has been included in officialdom’s 12 miles is probably correct – a case of spin if there ever was one.

  4. Bill Jamieson says:

    I understand from someone who was at the public meeting held by BAM et al in Stow last Thursday that they are still considering changes to the design so it may be worthwhile CBR pursuing the single track bridges issue with them.

Leave a Reply