BEFORE anybody starts blasting holes in the hillside for a tunnel or roofing the Rest and be Thankful roadway, can I just point out that the present Duke of Argyll might have a solution to the landslide problem gathering dust in the archives at Inveraray Castle.

His ancestor John, the seventh duke, in 1807, was so exasperated by the "difficult and dangerous" journeys over the Rest he paid for a major survey to chart a completely new route linking the head of Loch Fyne to Loch Lomond.

Sixty years after the original military road was completed, he engaged the eminent land surveyor Charles Abercrombie to navigate an easier carriageway already tramped down by the cattle drovers then and "green road" 4x4 drivers and walkers today.

He was so impressed with the result he promised a government commission he and fellow landowners would pay half the cost of building if the maintenance was financed by tolls.

The proposal was to cut a detour from Butterbridge on the Cairndow side towards the head of Loch Sloy and back down its shore, crossing to Loch Lomond where the present hydro scheme terminates on the A82.

The commissioners of Highland Roads and Bridges were told that one of the reasons a new road was needed was that when the original was built it was not intended for use by wheeled carriages as there were so few at the time.

It was stated: "Of late years it is found to be both difficult and dangerous and it has been the desire of every person concerned, particularly the judges of the Supreme Criminal Court, who are obliged to travel the road twice year, to have alterations made upon the present line of the road to make it more easy and safe for travellers".

The convenor added that while parts of the Rest rose one-in-three, the new route "nowhere exceeded one in twenty-five and a great part will not rise above one in thirty". There was no appreciable increase in distance.

I have yet to discover why the road failed to materialise and assume the funding was not granted. From this distance in time it was a bargain estimated at £6,890.

The fact that the works did not proceed were no reflection on Abercrombie's professional competence as a tribute stated: "the art of reducing ascents and descents by a well-directed line has been brought to its utmost perfection by Mr Charles Abercrombie".

Gerry Burke,

Montgomery Place, Strachur, Argyll.

THE residents of Argyll and the Cowal Penisula have again been held hostage again by their elected representatives in Edinburgh and their designated traffic engineers.

A sum of £66 million has been wasted with a further £2m about to be spent on further "mitigation measures".

The money has been wasted since there has been no proper analysis of the problem. The bare hillside is unstable. Spending money on matchsticks to catch the falling debris is an exercise in futility. It is only by good luck that no lives have been lost.

The solution is to channel the rainwater safely from the hillside and to stabilise the soil on the upper reaches above the A83 by suitable plantings. This cannot be achieved overnight. Public safety demands either a tunnel or an alpine-style partial tunnel used in areas of avalanche danger.

Transport Scotland has demonstrated its inability to spend public money wisely in the work carried out on the old Rest and Be Thankful road, now a designated emergency road. There is a brand new two-lane section leading from the A83 to the bottom of the hill climb section of the old Rest. This new section has a posted 15mph limit enforced by very expensive manufactured speed bumps. The remaining section built by General Wade with conscripted manual labour following the Jacobite defeat at Culloden in 1746 is untouched– proving conclusivelythat Wade was a better road engineer than any nominee from Transport Scotland with a fleet of JCBs and computers.

The A83 is a political problem. A practical problem for the people of Argyll and Cowal but a political problem for Nicola Sturgeon and the MSPs in Holyrood.

John Black,

The Scottish Jacobite Party, 6 Woodhollow House, Helensburgh.

I AGREE with recent comment that railway investment should be on main lines, yet I note that the Government has financed a study as to the feasibility of building a branch line between St Andrews and Leuchars at a cost of £80 million for track alone.

Rolling stock, track access and new station costs would bring the total to well over £ 100m.

I assume that this would be met by taxpayers. If so, why? The Government does not pay for local roads or subsidise bus services so there is no reason it should pay for a local railway or subsidise a local train service. This one would certainly require such.

St Andrews is within 15 minutes' car or bus ride of a mainline rail station (a position enjoyed by only a tiny proportion of UK residents). The new link would not reduce journey times or the need to transfer to car, taxi or bus transport to get to or from destinations. Any benefits would not remotely justify costs.

The funds required would much better be used on improving main lines, including routes connecting Inverness with Aberdeen and Perth. Several new passing loops could be provided on these.

Alan Mathieson,

93 Telford Street, Inverness.