SCOTTISH BRANCH NOTES No 58: Oct 2004 Autumn Meeting – Saturday 20th November at 14:00 Ken Sutherland writes: Councillor Alistair Watson was previously a train driver with Quality [Central Station] Hotel, Gordon Street, Glasgow ScotRail, and chaired the Land Services Committee (which has transport responsibility) with Glasgow City Council. He currently Speaker: Alistair Watson (SPT) is Chairman of the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority, and a key fi gure on the wider WESTRANS grouping of west Meeting for Members – Non-members welcome of Scotland councils, and doubtless current/previous COSLA experience. Ralph Barker and Ken Sutherland had a very positive Alistair will give a presentation, which will be followed by questions and discussion. discussion with Alistair in September 2003 - primarily on the At some stage there will be a break for refreshments (not at the start at 2 o’clock). Glasgow Airport Rail Link/CrossRail issues, as well as progress on the Hamilton-Larkhall/Anniesland-Maryhill re-openings. This is members’ half-yearly opportunity to discuss any matters of interest and to assist the committee in formulating the policy and campaign strategy of the Branch. Obviously whilst these projects are key elements in rail regenera- tion within the SPT area, Alistair would be delighted to discuss The last two meetings have focused on the east of Scotland a range of other issues/concerns here, as well as elsewhere in (Waverley Station and the Edinburgh Airport link). This meet- ing gives us an opportunity to focus on the west, as well as to Scotland, and the UK, as best he can - including Virgin Trains discuss matters of great importance nationally – for example developments (as Alistair now works for Virgin management). the First ScotRail franchise, the planned Transport for Scotland It’s getting late now, but if you have burning questions or issues, authority and its relation to the area transport organisations, could you drop a note of them to Ken Sutherland (12A Dirleton and UK matters such as the July 2004 DfT paper The Future of Gate, Bearsden, Glasgow, G61 1NP) as soon as possible. Rail. EDITORIAL traffi c listed above, but would also have provision for either light rail (trams from Dunfermline to Edinburgh?) or heavy rail. The bridge would be a two-span suspen- It’s been diffi cult to separate fact from fantasy over the last few months as new and sion bridge using the Beamer Rock for the middle pier. Technically it is possible, but revived schemes for public transport have been released. At last the summer is over, of course this is the most expensive Package. Once again ‘big projectitis’ is a factor. and perhaps the silly season for the media is now over too. FETA (which has Fife, Edinburgh and West Lothian council representatives on its board) would love the glory of creating this big project (cost about £750m), but the ‘Big Projectitis’ Packages 1 to 3 contain measures which have no glamour but would actually solve a lot of the problems. ‘Big projectitis’ is a part of the problem. There’s much more publicity mileage for government and local authorities in large expensive projects than there is in modest The dilemma for Railfuture is acute. With the 1996 proposal for a road-only bridge spending in upgrading and extending existing facilities. An example is the question it was easy for Railfuture to be against that proposal. With the possibility (but not the of Glasgow-Edinburgh. There are two routes and half of a third. Railfuture has long certainty) of this including a rail facility we have to consider the possible benefi ts for been campaigning for the Falkirk route to be upgraded especially by electrifi cation, rail. In a brief discussion at the last Committee Meeting we felt that for the moment which would solve many of the problems and bring the line back to the speed it was we should sit on the fence – we cannot automatically oppose a bridge which would many years ago. But it’s obviously much better publicity to propose a bullet train enhance the rail service, but know that there are many other measures at a much lower between the two cities (at a cost of £1.5bn to £4bn). This would be fantastic for a cost (like improving the signalling on the present Forth Rail Bridge) could make a few users of the route, but a very large number on that line are not travelling between signifi cant improvement to the services. Yet we would still oppose a new bridge which the two cities, they are travelling from Polmont to Edinburgh or Falkirk to Glasgow was for road traffi c only. The Scotsman Transport Correspondent wrote a clear sum- (or even Linlithgow to Croy). Then there has had to be the discussion as to whether mary of the situation complete with supplementary ‘For’ and ‘Against’ pieces. You a bullet train would need a completely new dedicated track or whether it could be can read this at http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=1024962004 accommodated on the existing track. There is a consultation which closes on 30th September, and there is now a web-form And what about a tunnel under the Forth? I thought we had killed that idea in our for your views. Beware, the questions are loaded so that one tends to go through April 1st article in the last Branch News, but it’s surfaced again. It was even quoted saying ‘yes’ to most of the questions (it is generally blindingly obvious that most of in the press that TRANSform Scotland was in favour of a tunnel. The four members the things suggested make sense), it’s easy to go on and click ‘yes’ to build a new of Railfuture who are on the Board of TRANSform have never heard of this ‘policy’! bridge without realising that building a bridge has several variants in the plans. The Add to this Brian Soutar is backing a Forth Ferry – which would be a modern vessel least expensive is a new road bridge which, while relieving the load (physically) on and not like some of the previous ones (10 minutes from Kirkcaldy to Edinburgh the current road bridge, would inevitably mean more cars. The next option is to have has been quoted!). light rail included, but as far as I know there are no plans for any other light rail nearer to the estuary than Newbridge. The ultimate option is for a full road and heavy rail The Third Forth Bridge bridge, which is what FETA and especially Fife Council would like. Many feel that this is unrealistic and that it would not be funded, and also that the estimated costings In 1996 a proposal to build a second Forth Road Bridge was put down assisted by a do not include approaches by either road or rail to such a bridge. So be careful if you campaign of a number of bodies of which RDS was one. The group worked together just say ‘yes’ to a new bridge. Railfuture opposed the 1996 proposals for a new road under the name of the Forthright Alliance. Now FETA (Forth Estuary Transport Author- bridge saying that there were demand management measures which could make it ity) is resurrecting this plan, but with signifi cant modifi cations. Their argument is that unnecessary. This is still the case. However, we would not necessarily oppose a bridge the Forth Road Bridge is carrying far more than was envisaged when it was built and which included heavy rail. It would still be the case that many other measures at much there are problems in normal use exacerbated when repairs are necessary. They see a less expense could make the present Forth Bridge more effective. The reinstatement second road bridge as taking mainly public transport but also HGVs as normal, and of the Stirling-Kincardine line, for example, would take the coal trains off the Firth then other traffi c when the old road bridge is under repair or otherwise restricted. Bridge, and resignalling the bridge (and electrifi cation of the lines to the north) would This second road bridge is Package 4. Packages 1,2 & 3 propose a variety of meas- all reduce the need for another bridge. So be careful with the questions about a new ures, most of which are sustainable such as managing demand or developing public bridge – not any type of brige will do for us. transport which almost no-one would oppose. There is a big hike in the cost for Pack- If you ignore that and actually write a letter please send Railfuture Scotland a copy. age 4. which includes a new multi-modal bridge which would carry the kind of road The consultation is at www.feta.gov.uk. continued on page 2 Editorial - continued from page 1 “We are committed to improving rail services across Scotland and are making a real investment in rail infrastructure to improve reliability, punctu- First ScotRail ality, performance and enhance customer service. First have indicated that they are going to tread softly. After keeping quiet for some time after gaining the franchise, the indications now are that there will be a range Toilets and trolleys and new uniforms for staff seem to be top of the agenda at of improvements but no sudden sweeping changes. present. Hopefully it will develop to cover reliability, punctuality, seating capacity The initial statement said: and getting people where they want to be when they want to be there. Glasgow is to benefi t from later evening trains. This will not be of use to many “FirstGroup said customers would see improved punctuality and reliability, clubbers, but will help people wanting an evening in the city at a concert, opera or and increased passenger capacity.