JOHN Black’s constructive words (Letters, May 30) ring true among the very many of us who care so very much for improvement in our pan-Scotland rail services.
His suggestion that elimination of commuter and local stations would help the creation of end-to-end express service is correct, but only up to a point. Take away commuter and local stations, and the ghost of Dr Beeching rides again.
The problem is wider than Mr Black suggests. We need, and deserve to have, both express and local services – and pre-Beeching, we had both, and useful they were indeed.
What we currently have under Transport Scotland and Abellio ScotRail is the worst of all worlds: inadequate trains that attempt to provide end-to-end express services, but stop occasionally at intermediate stations as well.
Thus on what should be our, say, premier route of Glasgow-Aberdeenthere are trains which also variously serve Gleneagles, Invergowrie, Broughty Ferry, Carnoustie and Laurencekirk. This one-size-fits-all attempt to cater for both local and express services has resulted in provision of wretched one-size-fits-all trains, carriages never designed for long-distance travel.
These trains are meretricious (posh wordy for “poxy”), and have rightly been castigated ever since they were introduced more than a quarter-of-a-century ago. Their existence serves nothing bar the self-serving ninnies who originally inflicted them upon us poor travellers, and says little for our rail operators and transport civil servants who have excused their use in the intervening years.
Ask our rail head honchos about these appalling trains, and they immediately take shelter behind the nearest set of buffer stops.
Mr Black correctly highlights the failings of the current Glasgow-Edinburgh service. Those of us with long memories recall how the then BR Scotland revolutionised InterCity travel in the UK in 1971 by bringing in plush trains headed by locomotives at each end, and pioneering push-pull. Thus from May 1971, services of just 43 minutes connected the two cities; timings never attained before or since.
Beeching did no one any favours in his report of 1963 axing so many lines. He closed the Strathmore route from Perth to north of Montrose. In doing so, he shut a racing railway, a line deliberately built for high speed (and in so doing, Beeching created the dreadful “pinch point” that Dundee now is). But Beeching’s sins represent no reason why the present generation of rail planners and operators should slacken their grip and aim low.
Combination of local services and high-speed routes isn’t rocket science. It comes about with intelligent provision of passing places for local trains at intermediate stations. We already have in place the modern signalling systems that can accommodate this.
A little more vision in our transport civil servants and some courage among our politicians would champion a future our railways, and make reality of the Flying Scots for which Mr Black rightly dreams.
Gordon Casely,
Westerton Cottage, Crathes, Kincardineshire.
BOB Downie (Letters, May 30) is obviously sincere in his belief that "non-polluting pedestrians and cycling" should be given priority over motorists. He wants Glasgow City Council to install modern segregated cycle facilities in Byres Road.
Cyclists all want expensive cycling infrastructure. These specialist facilities costs money but cyclists make no significant contribution to them since these are funded by general taxation and council tax.
In addition motorists pay on every litre of fuel costing £1.20 fuel duty of 57.95p and VAT of 19.9p, a total of 77.94p.
There are approximately 25 vehicle owners for every cyclist.
Cyclists should pay an annual fee to help towards their specialist facilities and then perhaps peace would break out when motorists are satisfied that cyclists are partly paying towards the costs of their specialised infrastructure.
Clark Cross,
138 Springfield Road, Linlithgow.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel