TO quote from the Transport Scotland website, its Ferries Unit “is responsible for the overarching ferries policy … and policy on future vessel and infrastructure investment”. Given the lack of experience of dual fuel vessels, it would be interesting to know to what extent the research prior to the policy decision to include the purchase of such vessels explored the potential problems of building and operating them.
There is another problem facing the Ferries Unit. Seventeen ships – just over half the CalMac fleet – have served for 20 years or more, including eight aged 30 or more but, apart from the two Ferguson vessels, no orders have been placed for the replacement of these vessels.
In its report on Transport Scotland’s ferry service, Audit Scotland expressed concern about the escalating costs and the need to improve long-term planning, commenting that “Scotland’s future spending requirements on services and assets is not known. In the context of limited public finances, Transport Scotland will find it challenging to continue to provide ferry services that meet the needs of users within its allocated budget.”
Reducing capital expenditure and the annual depreciation charges by adopting a policy of extending the operating life of ships and infrastructure may seem to help meet these concerns but this will be offset by the increased maintenance costs of ageing units and the loss of revenue from reduced reliability, with the latter having repercussions for social and economic conditions in the communities served. That is surely not in the interests of the users of these lifeline services nor of those who strive to maintain them.
John Whittle, Former Chief Executive, Caledonian MacBrayne, Carluke.
AS an engineer with Strathclyde Roads and Transportation, I had the opportunity to investigate one of the alternatives to the then preferred airport link, either heavy or light rail (“Airport link back on table as part of Glasgow tram network”, The Herald, January 6, and Letters, January 7). It was during the consultation phase regarding Braehead shopping centre, when it seemed rational to include a station there and possible meet part of the cost. The route then extended to Renfrew, having lost its rail connection. Thus a route: Ibrox; (hospital site); Braehead; Renfrew; (Paisley spur); airport could come to be.
Heavy rail, that is, conventional rolling stock was probably impractical, but a light rail showed promise. It did however cut out Paisley Gilmour Street though a spur could integrate that station to the airport.
It was not pursued with money intended for the original Glasgow Airport Rail Link (Garl).
John Taylor, Dunlop.
IT was surprising and disappointing that the contribution from William Maley (Your views online", The Herald, January 7) should be so inaccurate. He states that nothing has been done to the Greater Glasgow rail network since the Argyle Line was reopened in the late 1970s.
May I remind him of just some of the improvements brought about in the 1980s and 90s while Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive was in a harmonious partnership with ScotRail?
* Four new suburban railway lines opened: Glasgow-Mount Vernon-Whifflet; Glasgow-Maryhill-Anniesland; Glasgow-Paisley Canal; and Hamilton-Larkhall.
* Electrification from Paisley to Ayr and Largs.
* More than 40 new stations on local rail routes – the largest being at Prestwick Airport.
* Complete resignalling of North Electrics [Helensburgh to Airdrie plus branches].
* Replacement of all diesel trains and almost all electric trains,
I could say much more, but space precludes.
James B Duncan, Cardross.
BRIAN C Henderson's comment on the possibility of an early arrival of a new Glasgow tramway system is commendable but possibly optimistic (Letters, January 8). Surely the required consultation, planning and tendering processes will take several years (not months) to process. Regardless, many appreciate the efforts being made to get the trams back on track on our city streets.
Allan C Steele, Giffnock.
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 here