The Borders Railway Fantasy: A Billion-Pound Folly in Search of Passengers

the Borders Railway extension—Scotland’s very own Brigadoon of infrastructure projects, appearing every few years in policy discussions before vanishing into the mist of feasibility studies and political grandstanding. Extending this 68-mile stretch of nostalgia from Tweedbank to Carlisle has become the transport equivalent of chasing the Loch Ness Monster: expensive, elusive, and based on wishful thinking rather than hard evidence.

The original Borders Railway, a scenic 30-mile jaunt from Edinburgh to Tweedbank, cost an eye-watering £294 million in 2015, ballooning to £400 million in 2025 prices—for a single-track line with limited passing loops. Now, proposals to extend this folly could breach the £1 billion mark, dragging us into a realm of costs that only HS2 accountants could admire.

The case for it? Well, supporters argue it will revitalise the Borders, improve connectivity, and align with climate goals. The case against it? Just about everything else.

The Economics of Make-Believe

Proponents love to talk about how the current line “exceeded expectations,” with 1.8 million trips in 2023 against an initial forecast of 1 million. What they forget to mention is that this demand is almost entirely Edinburgh-centric. Commuters from Midlothian and Tweedbank love the train because it gets them into the capital in under an hour. But extend it to Carlisle, and suddenly we’re catering to... what exactly?

Carlisle, with just 110,000 people, lacks the gravitational pull of Edinburgh. Towns en route, such as Hawick (14,000 people) and Newcastleton (700 people, plus some sheep), hardly scream high rail demand. A 2004 Corus Rail study predicted only 900 new jobs from the initial reopening—nice, but hardly worth a billion-pound outlay. And let’s not forget the Borders’ ongoing population decline (down 1% from 2011-2021), meaning the rail extension would serve a shrinking market.

And then there’s the Borderlands Partnership, claiming rail is the “best solution” for connectivity—a statement made with all the conviction of a schoolboy claiming "the dog ate my homework." No detailed patronage forecasts, no robust comparison with existing bus services, just a vague assurance that spending half of Scotland’s annual capital budget on a speculative rail line is somehow a grand idea.

A Billion-Pound Train to Nowhere?

If you’re going to spend a billion pounds on transport, you want a solid return. Typically, major rail projects need a cost-benefit ratio (BCR) above 2.0 to be deemed worthwhile. The original Borders Railway, when proposed, struggled to justify itself even with a BCR hovering around 1.0—and that was for a route with actual commuter demand. Extending it to Carlisle, where car dependency reigns supreme, will likely see a BCR deep in the red.

Meanwhile, £1 billion could:

• Fully electrify Scotland’s Fife rail lines (£210m) five times over.

• Expand Edinburgh’s trams (£207m for Newhaven) and actually serve an urban population.

• Dual the A9 (£3bn for 80 miles), addressing a key national artery instead of a niche rail service.

• Roll out rural broadband, achieving economic gains without an extravagant railway fetish.

Yet, here we are, entertaining the idea of a Borders rail extension while Scottish infrastructure crumbles. It’s as if politicians have mistaken the Borders for Hogwarts—convinced that if they lay enough track, prosperity will magically appear.

The Green Delusion

Of course, the extension’s most ardent supporters like to wrap themselves in the warm, fuzzy blanket of climate virtue. The Campaign for Borders Rail insists this project will “take cars off the road” and reduce emissions. A noble goal—if only it were true.

Here’s the problem:

• Rural residents (85% car-reliant, per 2019 surveys) aren’t swapping their cars for a twice-hourly train.

• The carbon cost of constructing new track, tunnels, and bridges through rugged terrain means the line could take decades to offset emissions.

• Electric buses, at a fraction of the cost, could achieve the same green credentials without building a white elephant railway.

If Scotland is serious about reducing transport emissions, electrifying existing services (like the Fife Circle, currently running on nostalgia and diesel fumes) would be far cheaper, faster, and more impactful than carving up the Borders for an underused railway.

Political Theatre at Its Finest

No grand infrastructure folly would be complete without some political pantomime. The Borders Railway extension is a pet project for every politician desperate to appear visionary—without actually having to deliver.

John Lamont MP and Theresa May sang its praises in 2018. Fiona Hyslop, in 2024, urged “patience” as the £10 million feasibility study stalled. Westminster promised funding in 2021, then promptly forgot about it. Labour’s 2024 capital review tightened the purse strings. Meanwhile, campaigners predict a 15- to 20-year timeline—which, in political speak, means “we’ll all be dead before a spade hits the ground.”

This isn’t transport policy—it’s a PR exercise. A Borders Growth Deal press release, designed to win rural votes, with no real prospect of timely delivery.

Who Actually Benefits?

Even if this project somehow defied economics, logistics, and reality, it would still serve a narrow corridor, neglecting much of the Borders. Galashiels and Tweedbank are already well-served. The Scottish Government has spent £17 million since 2015 on economic development along the route, with modest returns. The idea that extending the railway southward into even sparser areas will yield miraculous growth is wishful thinking at best, reckless optimism at worst.

Meanwhile, the rest of Scotland’s rural transport network lags behind. A 2019 Scotsman study recommended a multi-modal approach—buses, cycling routes, EV charging stations—rather than rail fixation. But, as always, big-ticket projects capture the imagination, while practical solutions gather dust.

Verdict: A Sentimental Vanity Project Scotland Can’t Afford

If there’s one thing Scotland’s constrained capital budget doesn’t need, it’s a billion-pound nostalgia project. Yes, the romance of restoring old rail lines is seductive. But as the ghost of Dr Beeching would remind us, railways shut for a reason. The Waverley Route, axed in 1969, was losing £536,000 annually (about £10m today)—suggesting that, even then, it was financially unviable.

Today’s political and economic reality is even harsher. With Labour’s £22 billion fiscal “black hole”, Scotland’s squeezed budget, and infrastructure priorities stacked against rural rail, this project is a luxury fantasy masquerading as a necessity.

Yes, advocates will argue it will boost tourism, create jobs, and reconnect communities. But so would better roads, reliable broadband, and electric buses—at a fraction of the cost. The question isn’t whether a Borders rail extension is desirable—it’s whether it’s justifiable.

And, quite simply, it isn’t.