This is such a good video and conveys an excellent argument about why this rail project should be built. Projects like this Fraserburgh and Peterhead line should be a big priority for all levels of government. From the East of England you have my support and I will definitely ride this service when it hopefully gets built.
Another East Anglia subscriber here, living within one mile of the East Coast Main Line between Peterborough and Huntingdon. The re-instatement of the Fraserburgh and Peterhead line is an absolute must for the Buchan region and will bring so many benefits to the area, just as the Borders Railway has proved to have done since its opening. In my area, the re-instatement of the March to Wisbech line (the Bramley Line) is also a must, as is the completion of East/West Rail between Cambridge and Oxford with a new section between Cambridge and Bedford. Thanks for this very informative video.
Looking forward to this! As an Aberdeenshire man this is one of the main Infrastructure projects that would boost the economy of the north east! Happy to help out where I can.
@@WorldWide_Dom there will be local meetings being held in the early new year to inform folk, get discussions going and as an opportunity for locals like us to pitch in too. Keep an eye out around Feb on our website, Facebook and twitter.
@@nigelkthomas9501Grampian hasn’t been around since 1996, still was a stretch to call the NE Grampian regardless, only a small portion of the Grampian Highlands are in Aberdeenshire.
I agree - and I'd like to see it pushed beyond Ballater all the way to Braemar . . . But let's at least get this opened first. It's success can be pointed to as evidence that North East Rail projects have massive potential!
This is a fantastic video, and I could not agree more - The Buchan Coast desperately needs a rail link. The Borders Railway proves it is totally possible and demonstrates the enormous benefits. I really hope that Kittybrewster station in Aberdeen would reopen as part of a future Buchan Rail project - would be a no brainer and would make such a difference for students who'd commute to The University of Aberdeen.
I hope you manage to make some headway with this- It was utter madness to rip up these lines when they were being used for freight well into the oil boom and we could see the growth that the North East was experiencing. And I'd like to add- we don't just need the line built- we also need fast and frequent services on the line once it is built. The borders railway is already overcrowded and needs longer trains and more of them.
@@JKMeZmA follow us on social media, Facebook and Twitter @CNERail, and check out the website. Well be having local meetings in Ellon Peterhead and Fraserburgh around February so keep an eye out for those!
And ScotRail doesn’t want the Inter7City HSTs anymore as what I have heard on some railway website and on social media. Very sad to see that ScotRail aren’t going to keep them much longer.
Everyone blames Beeching for all the rail closures, but he was acting on behalf of his puppet master, the then transport minister Marples who had massive shares in road building.
Yes, but why didn’t Beeching question it? Say something like; “Hang on a minute, we can’t get rid of this much of the rail network. A lot of this is well used and will piss thousands if not millions of people off!” Marples was a git with vested interests and should never have been transport minister.
@@nigelkthomas9501 He was appointed to the job because they knew Beeching would not question it and of course at the back of Beeching's mind. was he may receive an honour.
@@G4WYZYou're horribly wide of the mark. Long before Beeching's tenure, government had imposed a requirement that British Railways financially break even. The reasons this was a frankly ridiculous demand go back to the dawn of railways and lie squarely with government. There was no central 'controlling mind' at any point before the ROD control during WW1. This translated as utterly ad-hoc, often crazily speculative development of hopelessly unremunerative lines, by no means all of which were rural branches. The costs of the GCR 'London Extension' might not have accounted for all of the LNER's financial woes, but sure as hell didn't help. In the wake of WW1, sale of thousands of 'War Surplus' vans and lorries to demobbed troops to enable foundation of goods transport businesses unhindered by the 'common carrier' obligations which hamstrung the railways led to the loss of a considerable amount of goods traffic, meaning many lines which had in truth always been marginal were rendered hopelessly uneconomic. The Big 4 lobbied for repeal of theor common carrier obligations more than once. Parliament, as they often do, precavicated and did nothing. In parallel with the decline in general wagonload goods traffic, introduction of bus services, as vehicles became more reliable, was often both more convenient and cheaper than the train greatly impacted passenger numbers. This meant "The Big Four" were seriously concerned with their legal commitments to financial drains on resources well before WW2 state control effectively put a hold on normal financial considerations (and witness income tax rates during those years, not all of which could be described as 'for the war effort'!). Following WW2 and increasingly with the end of rationing, add to the foregoing the proliferation of private car ownership and what freight traffic remained was largely coal, bound for electricity generating stations (small local plant replaced by centralieed power stations following the advent of the National Grid), town gas production, domestic fires and the railways' own steam loco fleet. You don't need to have written a Master's Thesis to answer where the trajectory of coal tonnage was headed, even before the advent of North Sea oil and gas. At the time of Beeching's 'Restructuring' report (which contained many positives that went ignored by governement) there was *no* legal recognition of indirect benefits of railways to communities, or recognition of social needs. That came in during Barbara Castle's time as Min of Transport. Prior to Beeching, BR was legally *prevented* from abandoning horrendously unremunerative lines when their original authorising legislation specified maintenance of services as a condition of construction (see the Ffestiniog Railway's Schrödinger-ish limbo between 1946-54 as a comparatively straightforward introduction to that legal minefield). If there were unforgivable flaws in the wake of (rather than within) the Beeching Report, they lay in the crazy notion of 'duplicate routes' and the permissive flogging off of formation by successive governments of both stripes. Beeching merely *reported* , he didn't have authority to close anything. That power lead with the Minister (later SoS) for Transport. .... and as chairman of ICI, one of Britain's foremost conglomerates at the time, Beeching would likely have been awarded something without any stint at BR, just as later BR chairmen were, both during and after their time in post. If you want a self-serving villain, look to the biography of Ernest Marples.
@@G4WYZA comprehensive reply mysteriously got deleted. Let's try again. • Beeching 'reported', Parliament debated, the Minister Of Transport authorised closure. No BR Chairman before or after Beeching had the authority to simply close lines. • wagonload freight had been in decline since the sale of War Surplus vans and lorries to demobbed troops following WW1 when many unregulated transport operations mushroomed, whilst railways reamined saddled with common carrier" obligations which Parliament refused to rescind. • short distance passenger numbers on many lines were badly hit by bus competition from the 1920s onwards. This only got worse with the advent of (usually) larger diesel buses post WW2. • coal traffic largely kept many branchlines going. The advent of the National Grid meant fewer, larger generating stations, meaning less branch line coal traffic as the grid came to completion. The end of steam reduced internal coal traffic and North Sea oils and gas merely accelerated the decline in coal tonnage as gas fired central heating proliferated, long after Beeching's time (those images of gas and oil pipes on a doomed freight line prove the point). • long and short distance passenger numbers decined as private car ownership increased after WW2, as rationing ended. • BR was ordered to break even economically long before Beeching and the railway had no authority to operate lines based on social need until Barbara Castle's stint as Min of Trans. • many positive points within 'Reshaping' went unrealised. In point of fact, they still largely are. Freightliner worked, Speedlink did well for decades (but needed investment it didn't receive) and Merry go Round coal trains coped superbly with what mineral traffic remained. Have a look at Beeching's recommendations for electrification of core lines. Still getting spurious arguments over *that* ... right now! • sale of redundant rail formation was a decision of governement, not of Beeching. Just look at HS2 to see how well *that* lesson has sunk in. • as chairman of ICI, Beeching would likely have been given some form of recognition. Don't forget many significant board members had receive gongs or ennoblement before and after Beeching. I think your charge is grossly unfair. You want a pantomime villain, look to Ernest Marples.
Has there been any studies about continuing on to Elgin? Electrifying line? Also is freight not restricted by gauge of Tunnel south of Aberdeen? It's time money was spent outside the M8 corridor.
We also desperately need to sort the line at Usan/Montrose as it's the only single track working on the East Coast Mainline and as such is a *MASSIVE* bottleneck. It limits the number of trains that can travel, which means that freight is severely limited
@Person4148better obviously we'd prefer it all to be double, but we aren't treating that as a red line for our campaign. Rather, we are fighting for the line to have capacity for a half-hourly passenger rail services plus one freight train in each direction every hour. We will let the boffins calculate what is required for that in the design stage. If you want to stay up to date with the campaign, please do follow us on Facebook and Twitter, there is much more to come this year.
Good to see the reopening proposal as an entirely new route, reopening it on the original 2 branches would make little sense. 1 through route for the area is much better! I've only been to Aberdeen a few times. but if the buses out of Aberdeen towards these towns is anything to go by, a train would be very well used. The buses are packed! Also makes me wonder if this is how it starts with new railways in Scotland? Seem the positive and community based approach could do a lot of good in both England and Wales for its railways. And as always, good to hear Gareth Dennis explain it in such a decent way.
Agreed. There were often good reasons why routes failed and a decent modern design would serve far better. I do hope we see services to these significant towns restored ... preferably sooner rather than later!
@@iam433 Hi, as this study is at a high level cost estimates are loose at this stage. Tighter estimated costings will be a product of the next and final study stage. What we can say is that all of the deviations mentioned in the video have been assessed as "worth the cost", that is to say, the consultant who performed the analysis - AECOM have assessed that these deviations provide enough benefits to justify the cost of the deviation. Further, in the case of the Hatton diversion, it was found that following the original route would be more expensive due to the need to cross over the A90 and back again, an expense that can be avoided by "cutting the corner" and heading directly for Cruden Bay. CNER are striving to fund a Detailed Options Appraisal in 2025, which will come with detailed and thorough cost breakdowns for the project at that stage.
@ thanks for the reply. It’s certainly an interesting project and having driven to / from Peterhead once was struck by the number of trucks on the road. It’s not my local area albeit I am a railwayman and can see justification in reopening to Peterhead and Fraserburgh. I have travelled by rail many times over 35 years both to Inverness and Aberdeen and between both and the increase in passenger numbers is astounding. I wish you all the best and hopefully I’ll have another reopening to go to.
How about the *completion* of the Borders Line (as well, not instead of)? At least *passive provision* for doubling and sparking up ought to be included.
@@TheHoveHereticWhile it would be nice to see both, realistically it's going to be one or the other. Personally, I think the case in the north east is stronger as the area could really use the investment and existing transport links are very poor.
Callum's Road seems to be interfering with the new the new railway. Nice tune. Too loud. And inappropriate! Seems like you need an Englishman to point this out. Lol.
it shouldn't wnd in aberdeen but go throuhr via the portbranch having stations for both near t the university of aberdeen an, aberbdeen science center and the bech retail patk and the under aberfeen stion anf the up the den valley via the tobert gordon univercity.
There are many railway route possibilities that come well above this one. Ultimately, any reestablished routes have to survive the economic viability test as well as contributing most to environmental improvement. I'm afraid to say, that not being a commuter line this just doesn't cut the mustard. Unfortunately nostalgia needs to take a back seat.
@@rosiefay7283 Peterhead and Fraserburgh are the 'largest and furthest'...there may be towns further, but they aren't larger, and there may be towns larger, but they are closer! An extension of the Far North line under the Pentland Firth however would be one of those projects that attracts the attention of the world.
@@richardhussHave you found "Fund the Nine" YT Channel concerning restoration of services twix Letterkenny, Derry, Strabane, Omagh, Dungannon and Portadown? I agree Enniskillen ought to be on that list too.
If we took that 1% of the population would use the train daily it’s 127 and 190 people. Say 300 people. Say £10 a return ticket gets £3000 a day. I don’t think it’s economically viable. Road network upgrades would probably be a better use of money.
An excellent well-presented film. A couple of years ago I cycled the track to Peterhead and made a film about it. You might like to include the link in your film description. Thanks ruclips.net/video/JRncNG4_elU/видео.html
I bide in the same constituency as the Broch and the Blue Toon and think this is a wonderful idea AFTER Transport Scotland has found the money to built a dual carriageway road to the North East (A90/A952), a dual carriageway on the A96 (Aberdeen to Inverness), a dual carriageway for the A9 (Perth to Inverness) and a dual carriageway for the A75 (Gretna to Stranraer). It's all aboot money and priorities and Buchan Rail, I'm afraid, is way doon the list.
@@pragueuprising560 It's like banging your head against a brick wall, 70+ years of building more roads hasn't solved the problem, try something different.
@@Mark-Catz I'm 75 and all of these roads have been virtually unchanged the whole of my lifetime (apart from a few village by-passes)...so where are these roads we've been building for the last 70+ years because they're not across rural Scotland ? We're still driving on roads built by General Wade after the 1745 Rebellion.
I think the railway line could easily be rebuilt , should have been rebuilt many years ago in my opinion but government is pressing ahead in a corrupt project called HS2 that’s probably not needed they should have invested the many , many millions in improvements to the existing network . More benefits nationwide . But instead they pressed ahead with a white elephant scheme called HS2. For just a 15 minute faster journey time to Birmingham. Not too much improvement for the midlands of England. HS2 project is providing to be a not viable project. Makes sense to me this railway rebuilding scheme to me .
This is a pipe dream! While I’d love to see the old railways to Peterhead and Fraserburgh reinstated the chances of that actually happening is zero. It’ll cost multi mega £billions! If we stopped all foreign aid, benefits to scroungers and asylum seekers we just might stand a chance.
This is such a good video and conveys an excellent argument about why this rail project should be built. Projects like this Fraserburgh and Peterhead line should be a big priority for all levels of government.
From the East of England you have my support and I will definitely ride this service when it hopefully gets built.
That was absolutely fantastic video and a no brainier for reinstating the line to Peterhead and Fraserburgh 😊🏴
I hope they finish the Tweedback line one of these days!! I sure hope this project happens! It's DESPERATELY needed!!
Another East Anglia subscriber here, living within one mile of the East Coast Main Line between Peterborough and Huntingdon. The re-instatement of the Fraserburgh and Peterhead line is an absolute must for the Buchan region and will bring so many benefits to the area, just as the Borders Railway has proved to have done since its opening. In my area, the re-instatement of the March to Wisbech line (the Bramley Line) is also a must, as is the completion of East/West Rail between Cambridge and Oxford with a new section between Cambridge and Bedford. Thanks for this very informative video.
Removes rail line just before the oil boom, how typically UK Government and it continues to this day!!
Looking forward to this! As an Aberdeenshire man this is one of the main Infrastructure projects that would boost the economy of the north east! Happy to help out where I can.
@@WorldWide_Dom there will be local meetings being held in the early new year to inform folk, get discussions going and as an opportunity for locals like us to pitch in too. Keep an eye out around Feb on our website, Facebook and twitter.
How is it we keep referring to it as Aberdeenshire? I thought Aberdeen was in Grampian.
@@nigelkthomas9501Grampian hasn’t been around since 1996, still was a stretch to call the NE Grampian regardless, only a small portion of the Grampian Highlands are in Aberdeenshire.
Well, if the Scottish SNP government have anything to do with this, we'll still all be talking about it in 10 years time😂!!!
What a brilliant video, the map and having the line integrated was visionary.
Can't just stop at this. The Deeside line has to be the next reopened railway, massive tourism potential there.
I agree - and I'd like to see it pushed beyond Ballater all the way to Braemar . . . But let's at least get this opened first. It's success can be pointed to as evidence that North East Rail projects have massive potential!
What a wonderful idea and a fantastic opportunity for my native North East. Good luck to all involved.
Very informative and well put-together video, I'm not a local but I 100% support this project and I hope you are successful!
Congratulations on an excellent presentation
This is a fantastic video, and I could not agree more - The Buchan Coast desperately needs a rail link. The Borders Railway proves it is totally possible and demonstrates the enormous benefits. I really hope that Kittybrewster station in Aberdeen would reopen as part of a future Buchan Rail project - would be a no brainer and would make such a difference for students who'd commute to The University of Aberdeen.
I hope you manage to make some headway with this- It was utter madness to rip up these lines when they were being used for freight well into the oil boom and we could see the growth that the North East was experiencing.
And I'd like to add- we don't just need the line built- we also need fast and frequent services on the line once it is built. The borders railway is already overcrowded and needs longer trains and more of them.
Hope it comes to fruition. How can we support this happening? Are there any things supporters can do?
@@JKMeZmA follow us on social media, Facebook and Twitter @CNERail, and check out the website. Well be having local meetings in Ellon Peterhead and Fraserburgh around February so keep an eye out for those!
@ thanks for the info!
And ScotRail doesn’t want the Inter7City HSTs anymore as what I have heard on some railway website and on social media. Very sad to see that ScotRail aren’t going to keep them much longer.
They were never going to be permanent, just an interim measure until electric or bimode stock becomes available
Everyone blames Beeching for all the rail closures, but he was acting on behalf of his puppet master, the then transport minister Marples who had massive shares in road building.
Yes, but why didn’t Beeching question it? Say something like; “Hang on a minute, we can’t get rid of this much of the rail network. A lot of this is well used and will piss thousands if not millions of people off!” Marples was a git with vested interests and should never have been transport minister.
@@nigelkthomas9501 He was appointed to the job because they knew Beeching would not question it and of course at the back of Beeching's mind. was he may receive an honour.
@@G4WYZYou're horribly wide of the mark. Long before Beeching's tenure, government had imposed a requirement that British Railways financially break even. The reasons this was a frankly ridiculous demand go back to the dawn of railways and lie squarely with government.
There was no central 'controlling mind' at any point before the ROD control during WW1. This translated as utterly ad-hoc, often crazily speculative development of hopelessly unremunerative lines, by no means all of which were rural branches. The costs of the GCR 'London Extension' might not have accounted for all of the LNER's financial woes, but sure as hell didn't help.
In the wake of WW1, sale of thousands of 'War Surplus' vans and lorries to demobbed troops to enable foundation of goods transport businesses unhindered by the 'common carrier' obligations which hamstrung the railways led to the loss of a considerable amount of goods traffic, meaning many lines which had in truth always been marginal were rendered hopelessly uneconomic. The Big 4 lobbied for repeal of theor common carrier obligations more than once. Parliament, as they often do, precavicated and did nothing.
In parallel with the decline in general wagonload goods traffic, introduction of bus services, as vehicles became more reliable, was often both more convenient and cheaper than the train greatly impacted passenger numbers. This meant "The Big Four" were seriously concerned with their legal commitments to financial drains on resources well before WW2 state control effectively put a hold on normal financial considerations (and witness income tax rates during those years, not all of which could be described as 'for the war effort'!).
Following WW2 and increasingly with the end of rationing, add to the foregoing the proliferation of private car ownership and what freight traffic remained was largely coal, bound for electricity generating stations (small local plant replaced by centralieed power stations following the advent of the National Grid), town gas production, domestic fires and the railways' own steam loco fleet. You don't need to have written a Master's Thesis to answer where the trajectory of coal tonnage was headed, even before the advent of North Sea oil and gas.
At the time of Beeching's 'Restructuring' report (which contained many positives that went ignored by governement) there was *no* legal recognition of indirect benefits of railways to communities, or recognition of social needs. That came in during Barbara Castle's time as Min of Transport. Prior to Beeching, BR was legally *prevented* from abandoning horrendously unremunerative lines when their original authorising legislation specified maintenance of services as a condition of construction (see the Ffestiniog Railway's Schrödinger-ish limbo between 1946-54 as a comparatively straightforward introduction to that legal minefield).
If there were unforgivable flaws in the wake of (rather than within) the Beeching Report, they lay in the crazy notion of 'duplicate routes' and the permissive flogging off of formation by successive governments of both stripes. Beeching merely *reported* , he didn't have authority to close anything. That power lead with the Minister (later SoS) for Transport.
.... and as chairman of ICI, one of Britain's foremost conglomerates at the time, Beeching would likely have been awarded something without any stint at BR, just as later BR chairmen were, both during and after their time in post. If you want a self-serving villain, look to the biography of Ernest Marples.
Actually closed under the Labour Government elected in 1964 which could have put the Beeching Proposals on hold but didnt.
@@G4WYZA comprehensive reply mysteriously got deleted. Let's try again.
• Beeching 'reported', Parliament debated, the Minister Of Transport authorised closure. No BR Chairman before or after Beeching had the authority to simply close lines.
• wagonload freight had been in decline since the sale of War Surplus vans and lorries to demobbed troops following WW1 when many unregulated transport operations mushroomed, whilst railways reamined saddled with common carrier" obligations which Parliament refused to rescind.
• short distance passenger numbers on many lines were badly hit by bus competition from the 1920s onwards. This only got worse with the advent of (usually) larger diesel buses post WW2.
• coal traffic largely kept many branchlines going. The advent of the National Grid meant fewer, larger generating stations, meaning less branch line coal traffic as the grid came to completion. The end of steam reduced internal coal traffic and North Sea oils and gas merely accelerated the decline in coal tonnage as gas fired central heating proliferated, long after Beeching's time (those images of gas and oil pipes on a doomed freight line prove the point).
• long and short distance passenger numbers decined as private car ownership increased after WW2, as rationing ended.
• BR was ordered to break even economically long before Beeching and the railway had no authority to operate lines based on social need until Barbara Castle's stint as Min of Trans.
• many positive points within 'Reshaping' went unrealised. In point of fact, they still largely are. Freightliner worked, Speedlink did well for decades (but needed investment it didn't receive) and Merry go Round coal trains coped superbly with what mineral traffic remained. Have a look at Beeching's recommendations for electrification of core lines. Still getting spurious arguments over *that* ... right now!
• sale of redundant rail formation was a decision of governement, not of Beeching. Just look at HS2 to see how well *that* lesson has sunk in.
• as chairman of ICI, Beeching would likely have been given some form of recognition. Don't forget many significant board members had receive gongs or ennoblement before and after Beeching. I think your charge is grossly unfair. You want a pantomime villain, look to Ernest Marples.
Has there been any studies about continuing on to Elgin? Electrifying line?
Also is freight not restricted by gauge of Tunnel south of Aberdeen?
It's time money was spent outside the M8 corridor.
Congrats on 101 subs.
To use a well worn phrase - Re-opening the former Buchan line should be a NO-BRAINER !!
We also desperately need to sort the line at Usan/Montrose as it's the only single track working on the East Coast Mainline and as such is a *MASSIVE* bottleneck. It limits the number of trains that can travel, which means that freight is severely limited
It's a very pretty viaduct tho, so the odds of it getting demolished to put in a concrete double track bridge are slim
@@groeacht8525 Build an additional bridge alongside - it's not uncommon
This is really cool, as a Aberdeen local i really want this to happen! i just have one question, will the railway be single or double tracked?
@Person4148better obviously we'd prefer it all to be double, but we aren't treating that as a red line for our campaign. Rather, we are fighting for the line to have capacity for a half-hourly passenger rail services plus one freight train in each direction every hour. We will let the boffins calculate what is required for that in the design stage.
If you want to stay up to date with the campaign, please do follow us on Facebook and Twitter, there is much more to come this year.
@@CNERail thanks for the info!
good dream
Do not know if it is feasible but a ferry from either port to Orkneys/Shetlands would help the less well off!
Good to see the reopening proposal as an entirely new route, reopening it on the original 2 branches would make little sense. 1 through route for the area is much better! I've only been to Aberdeen a few times. but if the buses out of Aberdeen towards these towns is anything to go by, a train would be very well used. The buses are packed! Also makes me wonder if this is how it starts with new railways in Scotland? Seem the positive and community based approach could do a lot of good in both England and Wales for its railways. And as always, good to hear Gareth Dennis explain it in such a decent way.
Agreed. There were often good reasons why routes failed and a decent modern design would serve far better. I do hope we see services to these significant towns restored ... preferably sooner rather than later!
Big hint - It's 136 miles from Thurso to Lerwick.
@Paws4thot sorry I don't get the relevance of this point?
Good to see investment in transport!
Interesting plan. No mention of a rail freight terminal at Fraserburgh. Does that mean that there is no need for one?
I was wondering about any potential for freight too
No the bbc said the oil has ran out 7 years ago so not needed
It'll be at least 20 years with all the reports and over-engineering. The Victorians would have had it done in a couple of years.
I fully support the campaign but why display it inside a tiny screen?
Sounds fabulous but how much more expensive is it to deviate off the original alignment rather than sticking to it?
@@iam433 Hi, as this study is at a high level cost estimates are loose at this stage. Tighter estimated costings will be a product of the next and final study stage. What we can say is that all of the deviations mentioned in the video have been assessed as "worth the cost", that is to say, the consultant who performed the analysis - AECOM have assessed that these deviations provide enough benefits to justify the cost of the deviation. Further, in the case of the Hatton diversion, it was found that following the original route would be more expensive due to the need to cross over the A90 and back again, an expense that can be avoided by "cutting the corner" and heading directly for Cruden Bay. CNER are striving to fund a Detailed Options Appraisal in 2025, which will come with detailed and thorough cost breakdowns for the project at that stage.
@ thanks for the reply. It’s certainly an interesting project and having driven to / from Peterhead once was struck by the number of trucks on the road. It’s not my local area albeit I am a railwayman and can see justification in reopening to Peterhead and Fraserburgh.
I have travelled by rail many times over 35 years both to Inverness and Aberdeen and between both and the increase in passenger numbers is astounding.
I wish you all the best and hopefully I’ll have another reopening to go to.
Transport in the north east is shockingly poor. I can drive to Fraserburgh in around 90 mins, but the bus journey takes over 5 hours.
Hopefully after the success of the borders railway this comes next
How about the *completion* of the Borders Line (as well, not instead of)? At least *passive provision* for doubling and sparking up ought to be included.
@@TheHoveHereticWhile it would be nice to see both, realistically it's going to be one or the other. Personally, I think the case in the north east is stronger as the area could really use the investment and existing transport links are very poor.
i need this for devon
I wish railways came back to Kirriemuir, Forfar, Brechin, Glamis, etc
They should really consider reopening the Dundee to Forfar line. Most of the trackbed still remains
How about modern road and rail links between Scotland and Ireland. Probably generate more economic growth than all the other suggestions put together.
Callum's Road seems to be interfering with the new the new railway. Nice tune. Too loud. And inappropriate!
Seems like you need an Englishman to point this out. Lol.
it shouldn't wnd in aberdeen but go throuhr via the portbranch having stations for both near t the university of aberdeen an, aberbdeen science center and the bech retail patk and the under aberfeen stion anf the up the den valley via the tobert gordon univercity.
There are many railway route possibilities that come well above this one. Ultimately, any reestablished routes have to survive the economic viability test as well as contributing most to environmental improvement. I'm afraid to say, that not being a commuter line this just doesn't cut the mustard. Unfortunately nostalgia needs to take a back seat.
Towns in Shetland and the Outer Hebrides have entered the chat
@@rosiefay7283 Peterhead and Fraserburgh are the 'largest and furthest'...there may be towns further, but they aren't larger, and there may be towns larger, but they are closer!
An extension of the Far North line under the Pentland Firth however would be one of those projects that attracts the attention of the world.
@@CNERailSomeone obviously isn't going to Shetland for their holidays!! Great video BTW. 👍
Great video. The two somewhat comparable towns that occur to me (in terms of population and distance from railhead) are Omagh and Enniskillen.
@@richardhussHave you found "Fund the Nine" YT Channel concerning restoration of services twix Letterkenny, Derry, Strabane, Omagh, Dungannon and Portadown?
I agree Enniskillen ought to be on that list too.
They're not in Great Britain.
Jeez, turn that incessant looped tune off! It's interfering with the narrative! WHY do video uploaders ALWAYS do this?
And it's a tune called Callum's Road!
If we took that 1% of the population would use the train daily it’s 127 and 190 people. Say 300 people. Say £10 a return ticket gets £3000 a day.
I don’t think it’s economically viable.
Road network upgrades would probably be a better use of money.
An excellent well-presented film. A couple of years ago I cycled the track to Peterhead and made a film about it. You might like to include the link in your film description. Thanks ruclips.net/video/JRncNG4_elU/видео.html
Scotlands next new railway. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Surely it should be Tweedbank , Galashiels , Hawick to Carlisle first !! That should be priority !
I bide in the same constituency as the Broch and the Blue Toon and think this is a wonderful idea AFTER Transport Scotland has found the money to built a dual carriageway road to the North East (A90/A952), a dual carriageway on the A96 (Aberdeen to Inverness), a dual carriageway for the A9 (Perth to Inverness) and a dual carriageway for the A75 (Gretna to Stranraer). It's all aboot money and priorities and Buchan Rail, I'm afraid, is way doon the list.
If we could get fewer lorries on the road in the first place, then that will do more to solve the problems mentioned than dualing roads will.
@@pragueuprising560 It's like banging your head against a brick wall, 70+ years of building more roads hasn't solved the problem, try something different.
@@Mark-Catz I'm 75 and all of these roads have been virtually unchanged the whole of my lifetime (apart from a few village by-passes)...so where are these roads we've been building for the last 70+ years because they're not across rural Scotland ? We're still driving on roads built by General Wade after the 1745 Rebellion.
I think the railway line could easily be rebuilt , should have been rebuilt many years ago in my opinion but government is pressing ahead in a corrupt project called HS2 that’s probably not needed they should have invested the many , many millions in improvements to the existing network . More benefits nationwide . But instead they pressed ahead with a white elephant scheme called HS2. For just a 15 minute faster journey time to Birmingham. Not too much improvement for the midlands of England. HS2 project is providing to be a not viable project.
Makes sense to me this railway rebuilding scheme to me .
This is a pipe dream! While I’d love to see the old railways to Peterhead and Fraserburgh reinstated the chances of that actually happening is zero. It’ll cost multi mega £billions! If we stopped all foreign aid, benefits to scroungers and asylum seekers we just might stand a chance.
Fascists everywhere.