Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


15 trains an hour to link cities

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 23 September 2007
GLASGOW and Edinburgh will be connected by up to 15 trains an hour - some non-stop services taking 30 minutes - under ambitious plans to create a central belt 'super-corridor'.
Ministers are expected to announce this week they will back moves to upgrade the lines connecting the country's two main cities and tempt commuters off the M8.

The rail routes have long been the subject of complaints from passengers about over-fi
lled trains and delayed journeys, both of which have persuaded many travellers to stick to the car.

Under the new plans, non-stop express trains are likely to be offered to commuters, with passengers able to choose from four fully electrified routes. Transport chiefs hope the plans will be fully operational by 2015.

The improvement plan is expected to be put forward by ministers this week at the same time as they confirm their plans to scrap the controversial £650m Edinburgh Airport Rail Link (EARL).

Ministers are facing a backlash from Labour and the Liberal Democrats over their decision, amid claims they have been forced to cut it in order to pay for other costly election pledges.

Ministers are believed to be preparing their announcement on the Edinburgh to Glasgow line as a way of 'sweetening the pill'.

Transport experts involved in the scheme say they hope to build an inter-city link to rival those in Europe, particularly in Germany and Holland where fast and frequent services deter many commuters from taking the car.

Currently, most commuters use the four-an-hour shuttle service via Falkirk, which has up to seven stops en route.

This link will now be electrified, and ministers are also said to be examining whether it would be possible to run an express service on the line, running non-stop between Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Together with electrification, this could reduce the time it takes to travel between the two cities to just over half an hour, transport chiefs believe. In addition, a further three upgraded routes via Carstairs, Shotts and Bathgate will also be provided.

The moves won the support of leading transport experts last night. Former Government adviser Professor David Begg said: "There are significant benefits if you build good links between Edinburgh and Glasgow. It is a scheme whose time has come.

"As far as Edinburgh Airport is concerned, there is already an outstanding bus service, and if you are looking at what gives you the best return for your money and which gets Scotland's two cities to work in tandem, then spending money on the Edinburgh to Glasgow link is the key project."

Another Government adviser said: "We'll be creating the kind of high-intensity rail service across the central belt that places like the Ruhr and Holland have had and thrived on for years."

However, the move to scrap EARL was also attacked. Supporters insist that despite concerns raised by the Auditor-General about the way the project was being managed, it should still be backed.

A spokesman for CBI Scotland said: "His findings on the uncertainties over costs are not surprising, and indeed understandable in a large bespoke project of this nature. There are always uncertainties during the period between having the indicative estimates and receipt of the tender submissions, but that is not a reason to abort the project."

The SNP said it would cancel the £650m Edinburgh Airport Rail Link project before the election, comparing it to "a Holyrood building mark two".

Plans were in place to build a tunnel underneath the runway, which would have connected the airport both to Edinburgh and much of the north of Scotland.

Lib Dem deputy leader and former transport minister Tavish Scott said: "I think this is a major strategic error by the SNP.

"In four years they will not be able to say that they have improved the public transport links to Edinburgh Airport at all, to any of the 62 stations it would have linked to across the country.

"Quite how we are meant to sell Scotland internationally when we make a strategic error like this is something they will have to answer for."



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 22 September 2007 9:33 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: The railways
 
1

Hambo,

23/09/2007 00:03:45

Well said David Begg, considering he's Scottish Labour.

2

The Forgotten Princess,

ArchaeologicalDigSite 23/09/2007 04:33:19

There's a fella I know of named Scot
Who spends most of his time on the pot
When they passed out brains
He thought they meant trains
But the train was too full for him to sit down
And with no comode he felt like a frown.
Just when he thought he'd never be fine
The conductor sent him to the next line.

3

The Daleks,

23/09/2007 04:38:17

#2

Back on the hallucinogenic drugs, I see.

Big mistake SNP.

Edinburgh Airport should have a rail link.

4

I'm no really here,

23/09/2007 04:43:35

One train every 4 minutes. I don't think there are enough passengers.

5

rgeg,

23/09/2007 05:40:18

#2 Your talents are wasted, ever thought of making application for a slot as a journalist with the Scotsman?

6

Mikey,

23/09/2007 07:17:53

It'll never happen as it requires the train company to spend some of their profits on new rolling stock!

Unless of course, we really DO get a real Scotrail!

7

Jeeemy,

23/09/2007 08:47:28

If you wish to travel by plane you will book a seat on a flight, on the other hand should you wish to travel on the railway you will be sold a ticket, then it’s up to you whether you are prepared to be treated like cattle and try to get on a train travelling in the direction that you want to go.
To resolve all issues in rail travel start by booking a seat on the train going to your destination just like an Aeroplane and Euro star.
Travel problems are then resolved at a stroke, the railway company’s would then have to extract the finger and the Westminster Government would have to change the Railways Act.

8

Faustus,

23/09/2007 09:26:25

So the Nats were telling porkies to the voters when they said they favoured an alternative, less expensive surface railway station for Edinburgh Airport? They now seem to be saying an airport rail link of any kind is not on the cards.

Yet more SNP lies!

9

Liam,

23/09/2007 09:32:47

We don't need 15 trains an hour between Edinburgh and Glasgow. This is another piece of desperate nonsense from the SNP. We DO need a rail link to Edinburgh Airport, one which connects to towns and cities across Scotland. Why is it SNP policy to treat Edinburgh Airport as though it's only used by people travelliong to or from the city centre of Edinburgh? Building an overground halt on the Fife Line is the answer. It just goes to show you can't trust the nationalists to run Scotland's government.

10

Tim (Blairgowrie),

23/09/2007 11:33:09

This idea that the rail link is connected to 62 stations across the country *may* sound good to some but does it really mean much to anyone? When I've lived in towns north of Edinburgh and had to catch the train on my way to the airport, I've not given two hoots that at the other end I'd need to catch a bus or taxi. I don't care now that (if there were still a rail link in Blairgowrie) the rail link to the airport is at risk and - oh oh - the idea that I wont have the opportunity to get off the train in Edinburgh and wait for a train rather than a bus is at risk. In fact, I'm rather glad that the money may be better spent on Scotland rather than something which *sounds* like it's spent on Scotland but is really just another wasteful transport "initiative" dreamt up by Labour for Edinburgh.

No doubt those prats will be out with their placards again shouting "SAVE OUR TRAINS" and claiming to be hard done by, all in the name of trying to garner political advantage. Or am I wrong in all this, do people across Scotland really look forward to the airport rail link? People across Scotland and close to those 62 stations rather than just a handful?

11

desert rat,

qatar 23/09/2007 12:37:08

I think that a high speed rail link between Glasgow and Edingurgh is a very sound idea.
But one route is all that is needed. From what I remember of train routes through central Scotland there are indeed 4, two of which go through Fakirk. If one was used as a fast non stop line that would get people from city center to city center in the half hour time that makes it worth while, and leave the other three to be used by central belt travellers

12

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 23/09/2007 13:42:11

I think a high speed rail link between Inverness and Edinburgh is a good thing. Ditto one between Aberdeen and Edinburgh. Ditto Inverness-Aberdeen.

This is called joining up the country and having a powerhouse of 5million.

The majority of passengers on the Edinburgh-Glasgow runs do not travel the full journey.

13

Sassenach Observer,

Edinburgh 23/09/2007 14:13:28

#7 Good point. And one to be noted by those who constantly whinge about how much better rail services are in the rest of Europe. Most European rail services do operate exactly like airlines for non-commuter routes - your ticket is valid for a given seat on a given train and last minute travel is not recommended.

I have never quite seen why it is necessary for an underground rail link to the airport. The existing line north already skirts the airport - its just that someone put the terminal in the wrong place.

I rather think that the Scottish Government/Executive is piggybacking on rail plans which were already in place. Three out of the four lines i.e. via Falkirk, via Shotts and via Carstairs are already there and running with the work to re-instate "missing link" between Airdrie and Bathgate underway. There is a basic problem that commuter trains need to have plenty of stops and high speed trains require very few stops and it is very difficult to run both on the same track. Maybe the high speed trains could use a fifth line running down the middle of the M8 ?

The question which no-one yet has answered is "Who actually wants to get to Glasgow that quickly?" - there are plenty who want to go the other way I suppose...

14

'Suck' - McCrunchie,

The Eighth! 23/09/2007 14:29:59

Trains?

What an unfashionable concept!

Surely they can manage trams, bridges or tunnels?

15

Sassenach Observer,

Edinburgh 23/09/2007 14:50:15

#14
"Salmond announces Glasgow-Edinburgh transporter beam investment to be ditched in favour of Tardis"

16

NorT,

Edinburgh 23/09/2007 14:52:57

It is not the time taken to travel between Edinburgh and Glasgow - it is the cost. It is still cheaper for me to travel by car than go into town and get the train. It is also actually quicker as I live right next to the bypass and can be at least a quarter of the way to Glasgow soonber than getting a bus into the centre of edinburgh.

17

The Ghost of Sir William Arrol,

The Forthy Bridge 23/09/2007 19:26:19

The business case for EARL never stood up to any sort of intellectual scrutiny. All very well to build a mega rail hub, in this case rail bottleneck, at the airport and claim that it will save lots of road journeys as the airport expands relentlessly over the next sixty years.

The truth is that energy starvation over the coming decades (as oil reserves decline rapidly around the world) will see a dramatic reversal in the fortunes of aviation as fuel costs rocket. Edinburgh will not have much of an airport in 20 years time and none at all in 60.

Google peak oil and start reading if you disagree!

18

GraemeH,

Edinburgh 23/09/2007 21:50:07

If they want to improve links between Edinburgh and Glasgow it would make much more sense to upgrade the dual carriageway that currently links our two largest cities.

(Note for rail fans - most of the cars, lorries and buses on the A8(M) are not going from the centre of Glasgow to the centre of Edinburgh and these trips cannot be moved onto rail - even assuming they could afford the rip-off costs)

19

robbie runciman,

Lydd 23/09/2007 21:51:04

If anyone has visited Copenhagen or indeed Gatwick, they would see the virtue of the EARL project. I guess the SNP are little Scotlanders.

I hope that they run the same rule over the project to link Glasgow airport to the rail network, but hey, don't they have constituencies over there...

Devolution in scotland has degenerated into the kind of world you see see in the the Republic of Ireland. If your guy is the agriculture Minister there is a better than ven chance that that you will get the shiny new headquarters of the Min or Ag in your town.

perhaps strategic decisions are best made by a knowledgeable honest broker, say the Government in Westminister - rather than at the Scottish version of tammany hall?

20

robbie runciman,

Lydd 23/09/2007 22:00:48

I forgot to add,

++18, Graham, good plan. build another lane each way now, more numpties drive and then you can build 8 or even 10. This is the history of the M25.If the road is clogged and takes too long, its not their fault - its other drivers and the executive for not building more road space...

For your information, none of the 'improvements' to the M25 have made any difference to congestion. It has made parts of Surrey unpleasant to live in, is that the fate you want for the towns between E and G?

The only reason that these journeys cannot be made by rail is because people choose to clog the roads in cars - cos its easy and they make journeys all at the same time that can be made be made more efficiently and intelligently using a variety of means of travel for stages of the journey. My own commute involves, car, train and walking

21

Mad King Bambo,

Roon at Flabskin's bit 24/09/2007 04:46:18

#19 Robbie

"perhaps strategic decisions are best made by a knowledgeable honest broker, say the Government in Westminister - rather than at the Scottish version of tammany hall?"

I agree with you, only I don't think such important decisions should be assigned to knowledgable honest brokers.

I would favour parcelling them out to fourth-rate Nu-Lab Sociology of Batman graduates who have never had a proper job in their lives.

That way we can be sure that they'll be as efficiently, as openly, and as honestly managed as the Scottish Parliament Building project.

22

Mad King Bambo,

Roon at Flabskin's bit 24/09/2007 04:48:36

#20 Come to think of it, maybe you're one of them Robbie. Did you attend the University of Bootle, by any chance?

23

Donsider,

Aberdeenshire 24/09/2007 08:19:02

Having been to Copenhagen I noticed they built their terminal on an existing rail line but also they have built a transport system that covers the whole of Denmark. Only about 40% of homes in the greater Copenhagan area own cars but they only have 6 trains an hour, it just that they also have an intigrated bus service and no trams.

24

Andrew S,

Edinburgh 24/09/2007 12:28:12

The bus service at Edinburgh Airport is the best service I have ever seen and to be honest more than meets demand. It states buses run every 10 minutes, but more often than not they turn up, load and leave. At busy times there is constantly bus after bus, it's only downfall is the traffic normally going through Corstorphine. even then you're still looking at about 30mins to the centre and the main railway station.

I don't see the point in investing huge sums of money on this Airport rail link (Edinburgh). This farce of a tram project is also going to the airport so it's going to be the case that the Airport is over-served by transport. From taxis, local buses, the 747, the 100, the 555, the 777 and I'm sure there are others. It just seems pointless. Spend the money speeding up Edinburgh - Glasgow.

25

Brad,

Glasgow 26/09/2007 15:33:05

The #100 might be good but it doesn't help those living anywhere other than along its route in Edinburgh. This train+tram scheme does, since it connects much of Scotland, even if not quite as well as the EARL scheme.

#7, #13, that's a nonsense idea for most trips. I hope you're not suggesting that you would need a reservation to travel from Gla-Ed... Most British inter-city trips are with reserved seats (often not taken up) already and I've travelled across Europe by train and needed very few reservations. Most longer distance trains aren't Eurostars, TGV, etc.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.