Railfuture Scotland
Article in Herald newspaper by Jane Ann Liston, Secretary, Railfuture Scotland, January 2025
Railfuture Scotland: A long-term vision for our trains is required
The Herald newspaper article included a photograph (by Gordon Terris) of Jane Ann Liston at Edinburgh's Waverley Station.
Scotland's trains: On the right track?
Railfuture Scotland is a longstanding and influential transport think tank which has been campaigning for better services and an expanded rail network for passengers and freight users.
It is a voluntary group representing rail users, with 20,000 affiliated and individual members.
Its secretary Jane Ann Liston says Railfuture Scotland questions whether the travelling public has benefitted from nationalisation in the wake of Abellio being removed from responsibility for running ScotRail in April, 2022 and believes the costs to the taxpayer and the difficulties associated with the operation were underestimated.
The Herald revealed yesterday that the operation of Scotland's key railway services has cost nearly £600 million more in the first two years of nationalisation than when it was operating under Abellio before the Covid pandemic.
Here Ms Liston gives her overview on the state of ScotRail in public hands in 2025.
There can be little doubt that hopes were high in some quarters that the return of ScotRail to Government control would result in a much-improved service, as first National Express, then First Group and finally Abellio were found wanting as operators.
Some described the ScotRail franchise as "a dripping roast", extremely attractive to eager and greedy profit-making operators and yearned for the old days of British Rail, over which the passage of time had cast a rosy glow.
In fact, far from making huge profits for shareholders, Abellio latterly had to subsidise ScotRail from their other interests. Never mind improvements, have passengers actually noticed any difference under the new ownership?
The first thing that the Scottish Government did as steward of the railway was to cut the services by a third of the pre-pandemic timetable.
They now propose to cut ticket-office hours, an action vehemently opposed by the trades unions and Fife and City of Edinburgh, two of the largest councils. No consultation with passengers is planned, perhaps because similar proposals in England were withdrawn after overwhelming opposition, and apparently the Scottish Government does not want to risk a similar outcome.
The plan also risks the fragile relationship between rail management and staff, so recently resolved after the disruptions of the past two years; counter-intuitively, industrial relations had deteriorated shortly after nationalisation. The result was a greatly-curtailed 'emergency' timetable over the summer months to the consternation of tourists, and which must have driven many passengers away from the railway, some permanently.
It is unbelievable that an adequate Sunday service still depends upon volunteers working rest-days, despite travel patterns having moved away from the five days a week commute towards weekend leisure travel; this should have been resolved years ago.
Another irony was the withdrawal of the integrated Rail & Sail ticket, forced upon the nationalised ScotRail because the Scottish Government had approved the introduction of an incompatible ticket system by the equally nationalised CalMac.
And the refurbished of ScotRail's Queen Street station just before nationalisation was tarnished somewhat by the charges for the toilets, while the facilities at the nearby Central station, operated by National Rail, are free.
There is a belief amongst many that public transport should be run by the government for the benefit of the people, rather than by private firms for the benefit of shareholders.
While nationalisation may have been the answer to this sort of ideological concern, clearly the difficulties and costs of running trains in Scotland was greatly underestimated.
Although the success of the nationalised East Coast Main Line service was cited as an example in support of the state-owned model, a heavily-used main route linking several large cities is a far cry from the sparse Scottish network.
Whoever runs ScotRail has to manage a network of services covering a third of the landmass of Great Britain across some rather challenging terrain, nearly all of which make a loss though nevertheless provide important economic and social links; this all on a publicly-owned infrastructure which for too long has been starved of investment.
The old British Rail increasingly found itself a political football, its funding dependent upon the whim of transport ministers, some of whom, such as Richard Marsh, knew nothing about the railway and cared less, while others were actively involved in the roads industry, such as Ernest Marples, who clearly had a vested interest in hamstringing the railway.
British Rail never knew from one year to the next how much money they would receive, thus hampering their ability to invest and improve the network; it was no accident that Beeching's brief was to "make the railways pay" not to make them work, resulting in pressure to run the railway 'on the cheap'.
As a result the first franchisees were faced with a legacy of underinvestment, making it somewhat challenging to run the level of services specified by the franchises. Nevertheless, while Bathgate was re-opened pre-privatisation by the far-seeing ScotRail manager Chris Green, Airdrie-Bathgate, the Borders, Kintore, Laurencekirk, Conon Bridge and Robroyston were all re-opened under privatisation, and while Reston, East Linton, Leven and Cameron Bridge have continued this pattern under nationalisation, albeit Reston is not served by any ScotRail trains, the seeds of those projects were sown well before the Scottish Government took control.
Railfuture Scotland's position is that, while public ownership may be desirable, the important thing is not who runs the trains but how they are run, which should be where people want to go, when people want to go and at a reasonable price.
That should be the Scottish Government's prime concern, to make the necessary shift from road to rail possible and reduce harmful emissions.
Railfuture Scotland believes that more stations should be re-opened to bring about the greatest immediate benefits, and an increase in minimum annual usage of 8.2 million passengers.
A glance at a map of the ScotRail network will show several 'loose ends' and gaps, with many journeys especially travelling between the east and west of the country requiring a lengthy detour via the Central Belt.
No wonder it is difficult to prise motorists, particularly visitors who find buses too slow, too infrequent or too cramped, out of cars, when a rail journey from Oban to Kyle of Lochalsh requires a 12-hour trip via Glasgow and Inverness!
All too often cars are needed to reach the parts trains cannot reach.
For a rail service fit for what is left of the 21st century, electrification, redoubling of track such as the line from Perth to Inverness and upgrading of signalling — semaphores may be picturesque but restrict line capacity — are all necessary, as is building new lines to fill in some of the gaps.
Some of these are ridiculously straightforward: Grangemouth only needs a passenger train, as a freight line is already there, as is the Edinburgh South Suburban line, used for diversions and also for excursions such as the seasonal Polar Express.
Less than two miles of new track and three stations, Glasgow Cross, West Street and Citizens Theatre, are needed to connect the lines serving Queen Street and Central — no expensive tunnelling is required — enabling seamless travel through Scotland's largest city.
These three stations would be used by 2.76 million passengers, which would reduce the overcrowding on the concourses at Queen Street and Central. New branch lines to important and popular destinations, such as Haddington and St Andrews, would also offer an attractive alternative to motorists, because, despite the best efforts of British Rail and their successors, people actually like travelling by train!
Longer lines in Railfuture Scotland's proposals which would connect existing routes, reconnect significant settlements long-severed from the railway, and thus provide resilience to the network, include: Tweedbank to Carlisle, Dumfries-Stranraer-Cairnryan ferry terminal, Dunblane-Callander-Crianlarich, Perth-Forfar-Laurencekirk, Aberdeen-Peterhead & Fraserburgh and Alloa-Kincardine-Dunfermline.
Also, the Dornoch Firth should be bridged as was originally intended, as this link between Tain and Golspie would speed up travel on the Far North Line, while retaining the Lairg Loop for local services.
And if Troon is to become the permanent main port for Arran, then the railway track must be realigned to accommodate the ferry terminal, if foot passengers are not to be pushed towards due to the sheer hassle of getting from train to boat and no, a shuttle bus does not cut it.
But why stop there?
Over a century ago Parliament approved a line from Garve to Ullapool, and with 112,000 cars and 14,000 coaches and lorries per annum all trundling up the road to catch the Stornoway ferry, surely that needs revisiting?
Other connections which would help plug the gaps include Tweedbank-Kelso-Berwick, Largs-Wemyss Bay, Oban-Fort William, Thurso-Scrabster ferry terminal, Tulloch to Newtonmore and Mallaig to Kyle of Lochalsh.
The odd station here and short branch line there is not enough; a long-term vision is required.
Page last modified on Wednesday 11 June 2025.
Back to [HOME] page • Go to [DASHBOARD] page • Go to [INDEX] page
|
Support Our National Campaigning - Join Railfuture
Annual Rates: £20 individuals, £22 joint, £14 under 26 |
|
Page last changed on 26th May 2022.
