YOU are right to highlight in your leader the fact that "the UK has the highest train fares in Europe, with some UK tickets almost 10 times the price of equivalent fares on the Continent" ("Rail passengers deserve better", The Herald, January 3).
It was the late rail strategist Sir Wilfrid Newton who cannily observed that when heading London Underground, his job was to transport six million commuters "who don't really want to travel, at a time they don't want to leave, to a place they don't want to go to ... in conditions they find uncomfortable, and at fares they think too high. And that's on a good day."
Sir Wilfrid's remarks transport themselves seamlessly to our Scottish scenario, where the same applies, but with two added failings: the same suburban trains cater not just for commuter traffic but for what in any other nation ought to be flagship long-distance services; and Scotland's fares system is labyrinthine in the extreme.
To these ends, the faceless and apparently unaccountable Transport Scotland has made no public utterances regarding when or how it will rid Scotland of the scandal of trains demonstrably unfit for long-distance use. No replacement programme has been announced, far less any suggestion of what facilities replacement trains might offer.
Nor has Transport Scotland publicly moved to end the outrage of unfair fares, whereby it is frequently cheaper to purchase tickets from A to C by asking for tickets A to B, and then B to C. While using "split ticketing" largely remains the province of railway anoraks and those in the know, the existence of split ticketing serves to penalise far too many of us regular long-distance travellers.
Gordon Casely,
Westerton Cottage,
Crathes.
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