A proposed extension of the Borders Railway from Tweedbank to Carlisle has reignited a heated debate over its economic justification, with critics arguing that low population densities and existing transport options make the project an expensive misstep.
A Costly Study with Uncertain Returns
The UK and Scottish governments have allocated £10 million under the Borderlands Inclusive Growth Deal to assess the feasibility of the expansion. While railway enthusiasts celebrate the possibility of reviving the historic Waverley Route, skeptics warn that the project could be a burden on taxpayers without delivering meaningful economic benefits.
“This is a project driven by nostalgia rather than necessity,” said a transport analyst familiar with the plans. “The demand just isn’t there to justify the cost.”
Passenger Numbers: Falling Short of Expectations
Since the reopening of the Borders Railway in 2015, passenger numbers have been closely monitored. The line initially surpassed expectations, with 1.2 million single journeys recorded in its first year. However, the latest figures for the year ending March 31, 2024, show 1.41 million entries and exits across the seven stations—well below the 2 million predicted for this stage.
- 2015 projection: 2 million annual passengers by 2024.
- 2018-2019 peak: 1.56 million passengers.
- 2024 actual: 1.41 million passengers.
These figures reflect post-pandemic shifts in commuting patterns, with fewer daily travelers and an ongoing reliance on the existing direct Edinburgh-Carlisle rail link, which remains significantly faster for end-to-end journeys.
Infrastructure Costs vs. Benefits
Proponents argue that extending the line would boost connectivity and economic development in the Scottish Borders and northern England. However, critics counter that:
- The low population density south of Tweedbank limits the number of potential daily users.
- The existing Edinburgh-Carlisle route is faster and more direct, making a parallel service redundant.
- The high cost of railway infrastructure, including land acquisition, track laying, and station construction, may outweigh economic gains.
The Political and Public Divide
The debate has divided politicians, with some viewing the extension as a catalyst for regional growth, while others question its fiscal responsibility. Public opinion is equally split, with business leaders in the Borders cautiously supportive, but many taxpayers wary of long-term subsidies required to keep the line operational.
As the £10 million feasibility study progresses, all eyes will be on the findings to determine whether the dream of a fully restored Borders Railway aligns with economic reality—or if it remains just that, a dream.
