WHILST it is encouraging that you are hosting considerable coverage of transport matters, particularly in relation to the new South Glasgow University Hospital, it is disappointing to see that some commentary is based on historic or misleading information.

Archie Burleigh (Letters, February 17) provides a case in point. As part of a rail lobby group which supports Crossrail and has undertaken more than 60 presentations it is clear from the responses received (wholly positive) that Crossrail is only "extremely limited" to those who refuse to recognise the wider possibilities which the scheme offers, particularly in terms of true cross-country rail travel. Consequently, our group does not refer to "Glasgow" Crossrail but rather Scotland's Crossrail, reflecting the significant enhancements which this relatively simple addition to the overall rail network offers.

Opponents of Crossrail, who we find mostly reside within the Scottish Government, have been dealing with out of date and frankly disconcerting misinformation. Most notably we had to go to the Office of Rail Regulation to establish that the then Transport Minister Keith Brown's belief that the line had structural problems was basically untrue.

The fact is that since Transport Scotland last considered Crossrail in any serious light, railway patronage has increased by almost 40 per cent and the case for another central Glasgow station on the Crossrail line has been reinforced. Indeed, it is a particular concern that, last year, of the 25 biggest stations in the UK by passenger patronage only two recorded a fall in passenger numbers - Glasgow Central and Glasgow Queen Street. That could be a statistical blip (two stations in one city?) or it could just point out what some consider an emerging problem.

That lack of reliable information continues with the reactions to resolving the connectivity problems identified at the new Glasgow hospital. As with Crossrail, solutions now being promoted are being considered in a vacuum with very little thought being given to either the place of the hospital from a locational perspective or indeed its true national (if not international) importance as a centre of excellence in healthcare.

For example, from a map, it may appear that Cardonald Station is best placed to provide a link between the hospital and the rail network. However, in our plan for the rail link to Glasgow Airport we include for the upgrade of Hillington East Station to be fully compliant for disability access and be the "hospital" station. The choice of Hillington East is made on the basis that it is technically closer, less prone to traffic disruption and can justify a circular shuttle connection which not only connects with the hospital but also with Braehead Shopping Centre. Add in a provision that patients with proof of appointments should travel free on the railway and that the 10,000 hospital staff will welcome an easy connection to Braehead and there is justification for taking a wider view on our transport network and how it should not be limited to single-issue solutions.

William Forbes,

RailQwest, 23 Greenlees Park, Cambuslang.

I NOTE with interest Archie Burleigh's letter regarding the interim proposal for Cardonald Station being the new South Glasgow Hospital (SGH) hub with shuttle buses. This has already been taken care of courtesy of McGill's.

McGill's number 17 service will run between the Cardonald station and the SGH every 12 minutes, 6am to 11.30pm, seven days a week from May 11.

Ralph Roberts,

Managing Director, McGill's Bus Service Ltd,

99 Earnhill Road, Larkfield Industrial Estate, Greenock.