I HAVE some questions regarding the costs, safety case and cross-border services provision for the Scottish area railway in the event of a Yes vote.
Network Rail is the owner of the rail infrastructure, and on September 1 the organisation became a public body. What contingency has the Scottish Government allowed for the transfer of assets from Network Rail and more importantly the safety case for their new infrastructure company? What will they be doing about underwriting the entire infrastructure in terms of insurance liability in the event of a major incident? The British Government underwrites all infrastructure incidents as has been the case since the old days of British Rail. It, after all, is more able to carry the risk due to the Treasury having a bigger funding pot.
Another concern is what happens to the cross-border train operating companies. They in effect will be transporting passengers and goods from one railway system on to another. Will their underwriters be comfortable with the infrastructure development, notwithstanding the fact that the physical parameters of the two railway systems are the same?
Lastly I would query whether the cross-border train operating companies will be duty-bound to provide the same level of service as currently enjoyed between London and Glasgow and Edinburgh. Will they simply look at the numbers and decide that the quiet trains terminate at Newcastle and Carlisle respectively? I feel sure that the foregoing concerns, not unlike like the currency debacle, demonstrate that the true costs of the proposed separation have not been properly evaluated.
Archie Burleigh,
Meigle Cottage, Meigle, Skelmorlie.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article