What is better for a retaining wall, timber sleepers or blocks?

Treated timber is approved for in ground use and has a reasonable service life, however block retaining walls and concrete sleeper retaining walls are more durable having a greater life expectancy. This is based on suitable footings & good drainage. Both Blocks and concrete sleepers come in a wide range of colours, sizes and styles to create a more aesthetic landscape. Common styles of retainers walls to consider are timber sleep retaining walls, link wall or link block retaining walls and concrete sleeper walls

Should I pave or concrete?

While concrete certainly has its benefits, pavers give a more aesthetic finish to a landscape area. Pavers area available in range of colours, texture, styles and sizes. Larger format, 400mm and 500mm pavers have become increasingly popular with modern and contemporary landscape designs. Pavers are also commonly used for garden borders and edges for their straight line finish which is widely desired in modern landscape construction.

Do I need landscape design plans before I get a construction quote?

Yes. A landscape design will allow us to discuss the project with enough detail to allow for an accurate price estimate. This design process will also determine whether council approvals are required, which can impact cost and timing.

Call Our Local Landscaping Melrose Park Team

Reap Financial Benefits with Quality Landscaping Melrose Park Services. To illustrate, landscaping is not an expense; it’s an investment. Indeed, a well-maintained garden can raise your property value by up to 20%. Choose All Green Gardening Services for an investment that pays off. Remember, quality is just a call away.

Call 0410 196 069

Image describes garderner Sydney and gardener near you

Looking for a Local Landscaper in Melrose Park? 🌱

Most people search for “landscaper near me” to find someone local. That’s Us! We offer a spectrum of landscape garden maintenance services, including retaining walls, outdoor space design, garden planning, and full landscaping projects.

Melrose Park’s Best Landscaping Company Is Here

Whether your project is substantial or minor, we provide affordable, quality landscape design services. In structural landscaping, our seasoned team offers a full-service solution.

With our Best Price Guarantee, we provide local affordability and expertise!

In NSW, All Green Gardening & Landscaping is synonymous with excellence. Offering services from paving to tree removal, we’re passionate about making gardens bloom. Increase your property’s worth and aesthetic. Dive into a world of lush landscapes with us.

We also serve and have landscaping projects in the following surrounding suburbs:

With All Green Gardening, Here’s What You Get:

Skill Spectrum: Our services span every possible gardening requirement.
Enhancement Assured: Your property will shine and its worth will be appreciated.
Unique to You: Tailored solutions for every unique garden.
Green Pledge: We champion sustainable and eco-conscious gardening.
Trust the Best: Our team’s expertise ensures top-tier results.
Service Excellence: Prioritizing client satisfaction in every endeavour.

OUR EXPERTS SPECIALISE IN

Melrose Park Landscaping Services by All Green Gardening & Landscaping

All Green Gardening and Landscaping excels at crafting stunning, natural settings that elevate homes and businesses through thoughtful landscape design. Connect with us on our Facebook Page. For backyard landscaping in Melrose Park or more ambitious projects, our commitment remains steadfast: delivering superb customer service and expert Melrose Park landscaping solutions. Residential or commercial, our landscaping services cover it all, collaborating with our skilled designers and installers.

When it comes to significant design tasks, our licensed landscape designers will be on-site to create the perfect layout. Starting off, our designers will set up a site consultation to go over your project and work scope. Upon finishing this step, you’ll obtain a detailed landscape design consultation.

Why Trust All Green Gardening & Landscaping? ⭐

Our professional landscapers have been enhancing your local landscapes since 2010. Our gardening and landscaping services are backed by a 100% Satisfaction Guarantee, assuring your complete happiness.

Our experienced landscapers offer services so exceptional that when clients consider the Best Landscaper Nearby, our name immediately springs to mind.

Our Services

Turf Laying

Greener & Healthier

Mulching

Great Range

Paving

Great Styles

Retaining Walls

Just the best

Tree Services

Tree Removal and Pruning Services

Weeding

Cleaning Up The Naughty Ones

Best Turf Laying Solutions in Melrose Park

Hassle-Free Turf Laying Services in Melrose Park by All Green Gardening Services. Importantly, turf laying can be a complex process that requires proper preparation and installation. Here at All Green Gardening Services, we make the process smooth and hassle-free. To put it simply, excellence is just a phone call away.

Top-Quality Mulching Services: Best in Melrose Park, NSW

All Green Gardening & Landscaping brings toMelrose Park, NSW 2114 mulching services that breathe life into gardens. We focus on moisture retention, weed reduction, and soil enrichment, guaranteeing gardens that exude health and charm. Choose us for unparalleled gardening prowess.

Our Paving Melrose Park Experts

For the best pavers in Melrose Park, look no further than All Green Gardening and Landscaping!

Need a Retaining Walls Melrose Park Team

Our commitment at Melrose Park is to furnish superior panel and post concrete retaining walls, an economical choice compared to brick and limestone.

Expert Tree Services inMelrose Park

Dive into the world of superior tree care with All Green Gardening & Landscaping. ServingMelrose Park, our services range from trimming to full-scale removals, all done with utmost precision. Trust us for a greener, safer outdoor space.

Top-Tier Weeding Services in Melrose Park

A garden’s beauty is often overshadowed by weeds. But with All Green Gardening & Landscaping, gardens in Melrose Park can regain their charm. Our weeding services ensure landscapes are lush and free from distractions. Let’s create a garden paradise together.

Reliable Landscaping Services in Melrose Park NSW 2114

Frequently Asked Questions

{We offer a comprehensive range of landscaping services, including garden design, lawn maintenance, tree and shrub care, hardscape construction, irrigation system installation, and more. | Our landscaping services encompass garden design, lawn upkeep, tree and shrub care, hardscape construction, irrigation system installation, and much more.

Our landscaping services are designed to enhance the visual appeal of your property by creating beautiful and well-maintained outdoor spaces that increase curb appeal and property value.

Customising landscapes to match your style and desires is what we do best, ensuring your vision is realized.

Current Landscaping Jobs in Melrose Park

Seeking a qualified Local Landscaper in Melrose Park capable of immediate job assignments.

Melrose Park
Metra 104, the Chicago unit, departs Melrose Park, IL with the inbound UP Holiday Train.

Melrose
The Petite Typographic Messenger, April, May, June, 1890. Digitization hosted by Toronto Public Library. Haven’t seen a 19th-century design quite like this. Are these arrows? Or “knobs”, as The American Bookmaker calls them in a review? “It is probably without much value, as there are already many dozens of gothics in the market, all being as good as this, and many much better.” Like many typefaces released by American foundries in the late 1800s, this one had a very short life. It was scrapped when Conner was absorbed by ATF in 1892. Melrose on Fonts In Use →

003 Graham and 300
Graham having his first drive of 300 under his ownership. 300 arrived at father farm at the Gyle in 1988 and was the bus sparked our interest. My father’s bus was already at the farm so I spent many days with Graham playing on 300. She will certainly be looked after continuing the work Davy Warren has done to her.

002 Behind the wheel
Graham getting familiar with the cab and controls of 300. Her cab is surprising much smaller than 659. Another reason to diet in 2025.

001 Hand Over day
The deal is done and 300 has passed in the care of Graham and our collection of buses. Today was the day 300 was handed over to Graham you can see her in Shed 04 at the top of the site. She will join the rest of our buses in shed 92 the “Edinburgh shed”.

009 Winter Sun
I stopped 300 on the hill to catch the winter sun

010 Winter Sun
I stopped 300 on the hill to catch the winter sun

006 Cold December
300 Looking stunning in the winter sun

005 Cold December
It may be a cold December morning but Graham was beaming ear to ear driving 300 a lovely bus and a credit to Davy Warren who put so much work into her. Graham will now look after the work and write the next chapter in 300 story.

008 Calum
Well I was not going to miss an opportunity. Aged 9 300 was the first bus I drove back in 1989 (on private land) here I am now aged 45 driving her again, hopefully in 2025 I will get the chance to get her out onto the open road.

007 Cold December
300 Looking stunning in the winter sun

004 Graham and 300
Graham having his first drive of 300 under his ownership. 300 arrived at father farm at the Gyle in 1988 and was the bus sparked our interest. My father’s bus was already at the farm so I spent many days with Graham playing on 300. She will certainly be looked after continuing the work Davy Warren has done to her.

013 Shed 92
300 in a clag filled shed as we move a few buses around.

014 Brian
Due to the clag 300 was taken back out the shed by Brian for a drive around the site. He has not driven 300 since 1991. IT was n ice to see him behind the wheel but he was struggling with the heavy steering

017 Shed 92
With Tiger cub 86 and Seddon 928 moved 300 was parked behind 659 in shed 92. She likely will not stay here and move to the other side of shed as we have a large amount of buses arriving in the new year and we will have to work carefully to get them all in the shed.

015 Lower Saloon
300 is a real credit to Davy Warren the bus is in great condition and I am sure Graham will cherish her.

011 Winter Sun
I had to do the obligatory head out the slider window. It has to be done.

012 Winter Sun
I stopped 300 on the hill to catch the winter sun

018 Shed 92
The iconic Carlsberg advert on the rear of 300. I have memories of this advert walking around the rear of Longstone depot going my Gran’s flat.

Border Buses Alexander Dennis Enviro 200MMC
The Waverley Route Seen exiting the small, almost an excuse of bus station in Edinburgh is Border Buses 12001 (YX20ODK). This particular bus has been adapted to carry bicycles to assist tourism in the Scottish Borders. Notice the destination display which incorporates Carlisle, in England. The route the bus is on goes right through the Scottish Borders to end up right outside (more or less) Carlisle Railway Station. It basically shadows what was a railway line and was one of the most controversial railway closures that arose out of the much unfairly maligned Beeching Report into the reshaping of the railways in Britain. The Waverley Route was a railway line that ran south from Edinburgh, through Midlothian and the Scottish Borders, to Carlisle. The line was built by the North British Railway; the stretch from Edinburgh to Hawick opened in 1849 and the remainder to Carlisle opened in 1862. The line was nicknamed after the immensely popular Waverley Novels, written by Sir Walter Scott. The North British Railway (NBR) was established on 4 July 1844 when Parliamentary authorisation was given for the construction of a 57-mile-30-chain (92.3 km) line from Edinburgh to Berwick-upon-Tweed with a 4-mile-50-chain (7.4 km) branch to Haddington. The company's chairman and founder was John Learmonth, the chairman of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway, whose ambition it was to enclose the triangle of land between Edinburgh, Berwick and Carlisle with NBR rails. Carlisle was a key railway centre where a cross-border link with the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway could be established. The NBR's Edinburgh-Berwick line was to be the starting point for the route which would run diagonally across the Southern Uplands to the Solway Plain and Carlisle, a distance of some 98 miles (158 km). The first step in establishing the line was the acquisition of the Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway (E&DR), a local line opened in 1831 which ran from an inconveniently sited station at St Leonards on the southern extremity of Edinburgh to Dalhousie on the Lothian Coalfield. The E&DR, which had been authorised on 26 May 1826 as a tramway to carry coal to the Firth of Forth at Fisherrow and, later, Leith, ran for a distance of 8+1⁄2 miles (13.7 km) with branches eastwards to Leith and Fisherrow from Wanton Walls.The proprietors of the E&DR viewed the NBR's overtures with some alarm as they feared the loss of their valuable coal traffic; thought was given to extending the E&DR to meet the Edinburgh and Glasgow or the projected Caledonian Main Line but the proprietors' concerns were assuaged by the NBR's generous offer of £113,000 for the outright purchase of the line and the sale was completed in October 1845. In the state in which it was acquired, the E&DR was of little use to the NBR as it had been operated as a horse-drawn tramway for the previous thirteen years, was built to a 4 ft 6 in gauge and was in a dilapidated state in terms of both infrastructure and rolling stock. Nevertheless, the concern brought with it a number of advantages: its proprietors had developed an efficient coal-marketing organisation which would greatly benefit its new owners, it consolidated the NBR's position in Edinburgh while also barring the rival Caledonian Railway from the Lothian Coalfields, and, perhaps most importantly, the E&DR pointed in the direction of Carlisle. Parliamentary authorisation for the line's acquisition was obtained on 21 July 1845 with the passing of the North British Railway (Edinburgh & Dalkeith Purchase) Act, which allowed the NBR to lay a spur from its Edinburgh-Berwick line near Portobello to the E&DR at Niddrie, thereby allowing NBR services to run directly from North Bridge station to Dalhousie. Even before the NBR had obtained its Act authorising the acquisition of the E&DR, John Learmonth had instructed John Miller to carry out a flying survey of the territory to the south of Dalkeith for a potential line to Kelso which would connect with a branch from Berwick. The scheme, which would see a 52-mile (84 km) line from the E&DR's terminus at Dalhousie Mains to Hawick, was discussed at a shareholders' meeting on 19 December 1844 where it drew criticism for being nearly as long as the NBR's Berwick line.[14] Learmonth described the line as a "protective" one to guard against incursions by the NBR's Glasgow-based rival, the Caledonian Railway, and stated that there was no intention of extending it further to Carlisle. The proposal having been carried by a substantial majority, the Act authorising the line was obtained on 21 July 1845 with the incorporation of the Edinburgh and Hawick Railway Although nominally independent, the company had £400,000 of its capital subscribed by NBR directors and the shares, each bearing a 4% guarantee, were to be transferred to NBR shareholders after incorporation.[6] A special shareholders' meeting on 18 August 1845 authorised a further £400,000 to be raised which would be used to buy out the Edinburgh and Hawick company.[14] At the same time, Learmonth revealed that it was in fact intended to continue to Carlisle. The line would first be extended to Galashiels by paying £1,200 to buy out the independent Galashiels Railway project The line to Hawick was to be the greatest and most costly of the NBR's lines.From Dalhousie it climbed up the valleys of the South Esk and the Gore Water for 8 miles (13 km) at 1 in 70 to reach a 900-foot (270 m) summit at Falahill, before dropping down to the Gala Water which it crossed fifteen times to reach Galashiels. The next stage passed through the Tweed Valley, around the Eildons to Melrose and St Boswells, and finally to Hawick over undulating terrain.Construction was already under way in June 1846 when the company obtained authorisation to build seven branch lines – four from its Berwick line and three from the Hawick line.The line opened on 1 November 1849. The completion of the Border Union Railway was an unwelcome development for the West Coast partnership set up by the London and North Western Railway (L&NWR), the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway and the Caledonian Railway, which had dominated the joint station at Carlisle Citadel and the profitable Anglo-Scottish traffic which passed through it. By 1860, the traffic was generating more than £1,500,000 for the partnership; this represented more than two-thirds of its income.To protect their interests, the companies concluded a secret agreement to deny a share of the Carlisle traffic to the newcomer by providing that traffic from the south for Edinburgh had to be sent via the Caledonian main line unless specifically consigned to the NBR's Waverley line. This proved so effective that locomotive parts ordered by the NBR from the Midlands reached the company's St Margarets works in Edinburgh via the Caledonian. Nevertheless, the NBR did make some inroads into the partnership's traffic, and the Edinburgh-London goods traffic carried over the East Coast line declined from 4,045 tonnes in 1861 to 624 tonnes in 1863. In the face of these difficulties, the initial results of the Waverley Route were disappointing; this led to heated discussions at NBR board meetings. A lobby developed, featuring in particular shareholders from Glasgow, which called for the line to be abandoned or sold to the Midland Railway.The campaign was led by Archibald Orr-Ewing, an NBR director who described the line as "the most serious burden on the North British". By 1872, expenditure on the Border Union Railway had reached £847,000, £199,000 more than the capital hitherto raised, and a further £300,000 was required. In addition, no shipping company was prepared to start a service to Ireland from Silloth, even though the port had assumed greater importance for the NBR as a result of the difficulties at Carlisle. As a result, although it had not been the NBR's intention to own ships, it became necessary to acquire the paddle steamers Ariel in 1862, followed by Queen and Silloth in 1864, in order to operate a passenger and goods service between Silloth and Liverpool, Dublin and Belfast. The financial picture changed with the decision of the Midland Railway to construct the Settle-Carlisle Line. Intent on establishing an Anglo-Scottish main line to rival the East Coast and West Coast lines, the Midland's ambitions had been stymied by the L&NWR, upon which the Midland depended for access to Carlisle via the Ingleton branch. The L&NWR's insistence on operating the service between Ingleton and Low Gill as a rural branch line led the Midland in 1866 to apply for Parliamentary authorisation to construct its own line to Carlisle. However, in the wake of the Overend Gurney crisis and an offer by the L&NWR to grant running powers between Ingleton and Carlisle on reasonable conditions, the Midland began to have second thoughts, and requested the abandonment of its proposed scheme in 1869. Both the NBR and the Glasgow and South Western Railway petitioned against the abandonment on the basis that it would leave them dependent on the L&NWR's monopoly at Carlisle; they also resented the fact that they had been used by the Midland as a means to negotiate terms with the L&NWR.The House of Commons Committee hearing the case for the bill took the same view, and the Midland was obliged to proceed with construction of the Settle-Carlisle line. A through service between St Pancras and Edinburgh began on 1 May 1876 after new rails had been fitted to the Waverley Route at a cost of £23,957 in order to equip the line for Midland trains. The block telegraph was still being installed when the first through services traversed the line. Upon completion of the Midland's line, the Waverley Route attained main line status. The opening of the Forth Bridge in 1890 led to an increase in traffic carried over the Midland's line to stations north of Carlisle. Receipts in June, July, August and September of that year were £6,809 higher than in the corresponding months of the previous year. Throughout its lifetime, the Waverley Route only achieved moderate success. Even during its best years, returns from the line's intermediate stations were meagre. In 1920, the eleven stations between Stobs and Harker on the sparsely populated area between Hawick and Carlisle raised only £28,152 in receipts, with Longtown contributing the bulk of this amount. The line was challenging to work due to its severe gradients requiring costly double-heading, and difficult to maintain particularly in winter. As a result, right from the first year of its existence, there were calls from within the NBR to close the line; it was considered a millstone by its successive operators. Too far east of the Scottish industrial heartland in the Clyde Valley, and traversing thinly-populated countryside for much of the way, the Waverley Route lived off cross-border passenger services and traffic generated by the wool textile industries in Galashiels, Selkirk and Hawick. As a passenger artery, the effectiveness of the route as a competitor to Edinburgh-London traffic was hampered by its slower journey times compared with the East Coast and West Coast lines, requiring the line's operators to compensate by laying on superior rolling stock. In 1910, the West Coast and East Coast lines achieved a journey time of eight hours and fifteen minutes over their respective distances of 400 miles (640 km) and 393 miles (632 km), whereas the Midland's expresses via the Waverley Route covered the 406+3⁄4 miles (654.6 km) in eight hours and forty minutes. Those who travelled on the line often did so because of the pleasant journey and spectacular scenery north of Leeds, and holiday workings were timed to allow passengers to take in the landscape during daylight hours. In terms of passenger numbers, a reasonable load was carried from Edinburgh to Leeds and Sheffield, but beyond there, patronage was lighter. A survey conducted in July 1963 on a peak Saturday Edinburgh-London service showed that fewer than 40 passengers were carried between Kettering and St Pancras, although the train had been standing room only as far as Leeds Local services fared little better, as motor transport made inroads from the 1920s onwards, resulting in the successive closures to passenger traffic of the Waverley Route's branch lines: Lauder on 12 September 1932, Dolphinton on 1 April 1933, Duns to Earlston and Jedburgh on 12 August 1948, Duns and Selkirk on 10 September 1951, Hexham on 15 October 1956 and Peebles and Eyemouth on 5 February 1962 After railway nationalisation in 1948, the need for two lines between Edinburgh and Carlisle was inevitably questioned. The Caledonian's main line provided a faster connection, and could be operated as a branch off the West Coast line. With passenger receipts inconsequential, the line relied on its goods traffic: coal was brought in and out of the Tweed town mills and Cheviot wool brought from local farms.Once new road transport techniques allowed farmers to move their sheep to market in one move and merchants to shift coal from pit to boilerhouse without using the railway, an impending sense of doom could be felt for the line. In March 1963, the British Railways Board published Richard Beeching's report on the Reshaping of British Railways. The 148-page document proposed the withdrawal of passenger services from 5,000 route miles (8,000 km) considered as unremunerative, and the closure of over 2,000 stations. Among the lines whose passenger service would be affected was the Waverley Route. The document had a map which showed that the section between Hawick and Carlisle fell into the lowest category of unremunerative line, with a weekly patronage of less than 5,000 passengers. The Hawick-Edinburgh stretch fared little better, with between 5,000 and 10,000 passengers a week.] At the time, the Waverley Route was running at an estimated annual loss of £113,000, with an average operating cost per train mile for diesel-hauled freights of 12.390 shillings, one of the worst in Scotland. For British Railways, the line was seen as a high-cost alternative to the West Coast Main Line, and its retention could not be justified by its dwindling freight traffic which could be diverted to the West Coast. As a result, as from the publication of the report, the Scottish Region and the London Midland Regions of British Railways, which had responsibility for the section south of Longtown, both assumed that the line would definitely close, as proposed by Beeching. The Beeching report was received with dismay in the Borders, as although many were not surprised to see the Langholm branch slated for closure, the loss of the whole Waverley line came as a shock, particularly as even more rural-based routes such as the West Highland Line were not mentioned in the document. The economic and social implications of the proposed closure were of concern to a number of Government ministries, including the Scottish Office which, in April 1964, requested the Minister of Transport to ask Beeching to postpone publication of closure notices for the Waverley Route. The Scottish Economic Planning Council also asked the Minister to hold fire on any proposals, due to the nature, size and importance of the region served by the line. In the 1964 general election, the Unionist Party Member of Parliament for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, Charles Donaldson, whose constituency covered Hawick and who had voted for the Beeching report, saw his majority cut by the Liberal candidate, David Steel, who had opposed closure of the railway line. Steel overturned the Conservative majority in a 1965 by-election; his opposition to the route's closure was one of the three main local issues of his campaign. The election of Labour in October 1964 did not stop the programme of Beeching closures, despite the party's manifesto commitment to halt major closures. It was still intended to close the Waverley Route, although the timing of the proposal was a matter of debate between the new Minister of Transport, Barbara Castle, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, Willie Ross, who was acutely aware of the sensitivity of the closure proposal for the Borders region and for wider Scottish economic development. The proposal for the closure of the entire line and its 24 stations was finally issued on 17 August 1966; it said closure would happen on 2 January 1967 if no objections were received; replacement bus services were to be provided by Eastern Scottish. British Rail estimated that a net saving of £232,000 would be made from closure.[109] 508 objections to closure were lodged with the Transport Users' Consultative Committee (TUCC) in Edinburgh within the allotted six-week period, and a public hearing was held in Hawick on 16 and 17 November 1966. Representatives from the County councils of Berwickshire, Roxburghshire and Selkirkshire and the town councils of Galashiels, Jedburgh, Innerleithen, Hawick, Kelso, Selkirk and Peebles attended the meeting to fight the case against closure.[111] There were no representatives from English councils; only Northumberland had contacted the TUCC requesting to be informed of the outcome.Arguments made against closure included the inadequacies of local roads and the damage which would be caused to the fabric of Borders life, whilst British Rail pointed to the falling patronage of the line and the increased car ownership in the area. The TUCC's 15-page report was submitted to Barbara Castle in December 1966, but it was only in April 1968 that she concluded that the annual subsidy required for the line's retention – £700,000 for the whole route or £390,000 for Hawick-Edinburgh – could not be justified.Even to run a reduced service between Edinburgh and Hawick, on a single track with most stations closed and with the most stringent economies, a grant of about £250,000 per year would be required, representing 11d per passenger mile. In the Minister's opinion, grants on such a scale, even for a drastically modified and rationalised service, could not be justified on a value-for-money basis. In the meantime, British Rail's Network for Development plans published in May 1967 confirmed that the line was considered neither as a trunk route to be developed, nor as a rural branch line qualifying for subsidy on social grounds. Barbara Castle's intention to discontinue passenger services on the Waverley Route was opposed by Willie Ross and Anthony Crosland, President of the Board of Trade, who considered that it would call into question the Government's intention to support the economic development of the Borders region and make a mockery of the consultative arrangements for the closure of railway lines by ignoring the findings of the TUCC and rejecting the recommendations of the Scottish Economic Planning Council. Castle was replaced by Richard Marsh in April 1968 after a Cabinet reshuffle. The new minister was unhappy to be moved from his previous position of Minister of Power to a ministry about which he "knew nothing and cared less".On 8 April 1968, two days after the reshuffle, the Ministerial Committee on Environmental Planning (MCEP) met to hear the arguments for and against closure of the line; Marsh referred to statistics which showed that passenger numbers between Edinburgh and Hawick had dipped by 30% between 1964 and 1967, while car ownership had risen by 120% and the local population had decreased by 9.5%. In reply, those on the side of retention argued that closure of the line at a time when government policy was to encourage industry to move to the Borders area would send the wrong message and asked the Minister not to reach a final decision until publication of a report by a group of University of Edinburgh consultants, James Wreford Watson, Percy Johnson-Marshall and James Nathan Wolfe, on the development of the Borders region. The report – The Central Borders: A Plan for Expansion – was delivered to Willie Ross on 19 April and, while concluding that the economic well-being of the region depended on good transport links with Edinburgh, it was nevertheless equivocal on the need for the Waverley Route and its recommendations concerned road transport rather than rail. The Waverley Route's fate was decided at a meeting of the MCEP on 21 May chaired by Peter Shore, Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, and attended by Willie Ross, Marsh, Tom Urwin, Ray Gunter, Dick Taverne and Ernest Fernyhough. Two supporters of the line – Antony Crosland and Lord Brown of Machrihanish – were absent. After hearing arguments on both sides, Shore summarised the committee's opinion in favour of closure throughout "as quickly as possible", noting that the effect on the movement of freight traffic would be minimal and that inconvenience for some passengers was an inevitable consequence of any closure. Following the meeting, Ross escalated the matter to the Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, begging him "to look at the cumulative consequences of our course of action on our standing in Scotland". Marsh countered with a memorandum which stated that closure would affect "only about 200 regular travellers [...], of whom all but 30 would be adequately catered for by alternative bus services", and that the subsidy required to continue the passenger service would run into more than several million pounds per year. He was supported by Peter Shore, who sent a separate memorandum referring to the Central Borders study and its lack of support for the line. The Prime Minister replied to Ross on 5 June indicating that he saw no reason to reopen the MCEP's decision. An official statement by Richard Marsh in the House of Commons on 15 July 1968 confirmed the Waverley Route's demise. A petition against closure, with 11,678 signatures presented to the Prime Minister in December 1968 by a Hawick housewife, Madge Elliot, accompanied by David Steel and the Earl of Dalkeith, MP for Edinburgh North, was to no avail.The line closed on Monday 6 January 1969, one of 37 lines closed by Marsh during his 18-month term of office.It was the largest railway closure in the United Kingdom until the closure of the Great Central Main Line a few months later. The demise of the Waverley Route contrasts with the outcome of the proposal to close the Llanelli-Craven Arms line which was considered in Summer 1969. In both cases, patronage had declined and closure would result in a large area left without rail transport. However, the decisive difference which ensured the survival of the Welsh line was the number of marginal Labour constituencies through which it ran, a fact exploited to great effect by George Thomas, Secretary of State for Wales, in his successful defence of the line. Freight services to Hawick continued until 25 April 1969, while the Longtown-Harker section survived until August 1970 to service the Ministry of Defence munitions depot. The last section to close was the line from Millerhill junction to the National Coal Board's Butlerfield washery south of Newtongrange in June 1972. The line to Millerhill junction remained open to serve the marshalling yard and diesel depot at Millerhill, as well as to give access to the freight-only Edinburgh South Suburban lines. Two days after closure, on Wednesday 8 January, British Rail symbolically lifted a section of track at Riddings Junction in the presence of reporters and photographers. Tracklifting was complete by late 1972. Negotiations for the sale of parts of the railway solum had already begun, despite a request by Lord Melgund for it to be safeguarded. Lothian Regional Council was offered the section between Millerhill and the southern Midlothian boundary for £7,000 in May 1975 but refused on account of the limited possibilities for reuse of the trackbed and the potential maintenance liability involved. The short viaduct over the Teviot in Hawick was dismantled in September 1975, with Hawick station itself becoming the site of the Teviotdale Leisure Centre, and the A7 road was realigned on parts of the solum, notably north of Heriot, by 1977. Redevelopment of the trackbed accelerated after 1984 with the construction of a small housing estate near the site of Gorebridge station, the Melrose bypass in 1988 over much of the trackbed through Melrose station, as well as further A7 improvements including the Dalkeith western bypass and the Hardengreen bypass in 2000. In 1986, the Tarras and Byreburn viaducts on the Langholm branch were demolished. Cut off from Edinburgh to the north and Carlisle to the south, those without a car had no option but to travel by bus. The additional bus services laid on by Eastern Scottish as a condition of closure were more frequent than the Waverley Route's trains, but the journey time was 50% longer. The Galashiels-Edinburgh X95 service took 75 minutes in 2006 to travel the distance, this journey time increasing to 86 minutes northbound in 2010 and May 2011 as a result of timetable changes. This compares unfavourably with the last Waverley Route timetable in 1968–1969, according to which the slowest train took 65 minutes over the same distance, whereas the fastest managed the journey in 42 minutes. The replacement bus moved to Lowland Scottish as part of the restructuring of the Scottish Bus Group in 1985 and stayed with Lowland when it was privatised. With the purchase of Lowland by Firstbus, the service moved to sit eventually under First Scotland East. However the reopening of the Borders Railway as far as Tweedbank, which shadows part of the former Waverley Route, played havoc with the economics of the route and were a key factor in First’s decision to sell the business to Craig of Campbeltown which led to the creation of Border Buses. Now only alternate hour cover the full route, mainly to allow for concessionary travel. Campaigners want the railway line to be re-opened as far as Carlisle. But this history shows that it was never a viable or extensively used railway. I get that there is a desire to travel by train but it has to be realistic. There is little point in re-opening a line that’ll be poorly used. Perhaps the line should be left as it is.

Ready to work, CNW 6626, rebuilt SD18M, idles at the Proviso Diesel Shop in Melrose Park IL 11-1-93 © Paul Rome
CNW 6626, rebuilt SD18M, ex PNC 1808, originally built as EMD SD24, as SOU 6308

Temple Beth Shalom Holiday Meal For The Community Freezer Food Drive At The Kitchen
Temple Beth Shalom Holiday Meal Prep The Kitchen Melrose MA December 2024