Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Monday, 12th May 2008 Change Date

Evening News / Sony Centre Reverse Auction

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

South Sub rail line: 'There must be concern that the cost has doubled'



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

WHETHER today's damaging report by an independent consultant on the feasibility of re-opening Edinburgh's south suburban rail line to passenger traffic proves to be the death knell of the project or not remains to be seen.
But it is quite clear that it is at the very least a major setback for those who have campaigned for the reintroduction of services for so long.

Of all the transport projects that have been proposed in the Capital over the last few years the South
Sub has appeared to have been the least controversial and enjoys political cross-party support.

Unlike trams, the building of a new bridge over the Forth and a rail link to the Borders it has not stirred anywhere near the same level of opposition and on paper, until today, has appeared far more deliverable.

But that does not mean to say the case for it should not be subjected to the same detailed scrutiny as other projects and it would appear that in this respect –like the airport rail link – the business case appears to be seriously flawed.

There must also be considerable concern that the cost of the South Sub – similar to the Waverley Line – has almost doubled since it was last properly priced. And while private backers have already pledged more than £8 million towards the now estimated £40m costs of re-opening the South-Sub concerns have remained over whether the funding gap could be bridged and whether services would be commercially viable.

Indeed today's report indicates that it would require an annual subsidy of almost £2m a year which would make it nigh impossible to attract the public funding it requires.

The suggestion that much of the remaining cash could be raised through developer contributions has always been questioned as it seems the only way to raise such sums might be either to relax planning regulations with regard to out-of-town retail developments or greenbelt housing.

In view of the financial concerns and technical difficulties over capacity at Waverley and Haymarket stations it would be difficult for officials now to recommend to the council that they should push ahead regardless, and hard for councillors themselves to continue to support the plan as it stands.

With the Tram Line 3 indefinitely shelved, the pressure will continue for better transport links in the south of the city. But should the South Sub plan fall it could at some later stage strengthen the argument for proceeding with the tram line to Newcraighall.





The full article contains 431 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Edinburgh 100,

Musselburgh 27/03/2008 13:47:47
Interseting how the costs have doubled and the fooliticians are looking at canceling it. But they never looked at that for the tram. Also who believes that the trams will not get public funding, it may come from cutting other bus routes to keep it busy but it still amounts to a form of public funding.
2

Euan,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 15:37:46
#1, well said.

The thing is, the trams ARE getting public funding, to the tune of around £450 MILLION!, and as you say, they will almost certainly be given heavy public investment in the future - to the detriment of other, far more worthy, transport initiatives and services.

3

Dunaskin,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 17:04:44
The report has not been released yet, so I think our anonymous reporter is guessing from some snippets that have been leaked. What I have heard (on good authority) is that the report has focussed on travel from Newcraighall to the West, and has disregarded travel opportunities into central Edinburgh. Seems odd that the positive benefit-cost ratios of the 2004 Atkins work has suddenly become negative, even though traffic and congestion continues to rise. TramLine 3 is a good way off, and should run from the Bridges to the Infirmary and then to Penicuik.
4

Why can't I use my usual name?,

Glasgow 27/03/2008 17:33:32
Having lived in Ed (and being able to read a map), I know where the S Sub goes but I've never been clear what the objective is here. It seems to be that "we've got a railway, we've got congestion, let's re-open that railway (to passengers)".

What is the problem that needs to be solved? Can the S Sub do that? Is it the best option? What are the disbenefits of doing it (prevents other trains using Waverley, Haymarket; prevents the money being used on other things). Hopefully this report will answer these questions.

For intra-city transport, trams or light rail are often a better option than expensive (to build and run) "heavy-rail". Maybe a more creative solution is needed than just "re-open the SS!"?
5

Dunaskin,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 17:59:00
#4 - your comments are valid - but the South Sub doesn't need to be built. It is a real, live, working railway. Even if scheduled passenger services were not running it would still be maintained to full standards, as it is used by heavy freight trains and for passenger diversions. And this is one problem with using the Sub as a tram-line: we, in Britian, haven't yet got round to the European concept of mixed use. The money, even at £40m, is piffling compared to many other projects (and I've no idea how the journo has managed to think that the Sub will come in at the same cost as the Waverley Route, more like 1/5th!)
6

Dunaskin,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 18:14:53
Re-reading this article yet again - it is absolute mince! What does the South Sub have to do with green belt or out of town retail developments? Has the EEN subcontracted space-filling to the P and J?
7

Dunaskin,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 18:21:26
By the way, there is a campaign to reopen the South Sub. See www.reopenthesouthsub.org.uk for some facts and background.
8

"The Big A",

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 18:32:58
The South-Sub Railway is a Live Line with Track in place that has been there All in Living Memory , only it is only used on Occasions by The Odd freight Train or if there is a Problem @ Haymarket Station a Passenger Train , that dosent stop till it gets to Waverley it goes round the loop.

You say £2M Subsidy seems like small change to me & £38M for Basics like Platforms, Lighting, Passenger Shelters , Ticket Machines.

Who owns the Current Line will it not belong to National Rail former owner Railtrack or The National Government.

I suppose First Scotrail would Run The Passenger Train services What is The Problem.

Cheaper than The Tram which is £500M ++ & Running Costs ++ And it has to be Built !!!
9

Scotland Free or a desert,

Midlothian 27/03/2008 23:29:18
The amount of money that has been spent on numerous reports over the years could have been put to the re-opening costs. Instead of thinking about it, get it built, money should not be the main issue. In Scotland we have to get away from the mentality about how much things cost. You get what you pay for. Quality and the importance of getting people out of their cars and on to public transport are the main issues. Other western countries improve transport because of the need to. I dont see the point in going on about a 1.8 million subsidy when every railway in Scotland operates with public subsidy at the moment. So lets do the right thing and get the railway reopened
10

BobMac,

Edinburgh 28/03/2008 14:56:28
The solution is to route Tramline 3 along the South Sub rather than on-street from Bridges to Cameron Toll. Then one branch continues to Newcraighall along the rail tracks and the other goes to ERI and Dalkeith.

Freight train use is very small and its only real use is as a diversionary route, which could still be preserved with a decent signalling system.

Benefits include no need for railway-height platforms (only paving slabs), no raised bridges (as only 700 volts DC not 25kV AC), no use of congeted Waverley or Haymarket (Shandwick Place and Princes Street is where passengers wish to go).

Tram-trains are common in continental Europe and a two-year trial of five of them will start in 2010 on the busy 37-mile Penistone Line between Huddersfield, Barnsley and Sheffield. There is an option for a second phase which would allow them to run on Sheffield streets on the Supertram lines. Details on (http://www.ciltuk.org.uk/pages/cabnews33)

The answer for the South Sub.


11

Shaun McDonald,

Edinburgh 28/03/2008 22:45:03
stop talking about it and just get the line opened.
12

Andrew,

01/04/2008 21:07:49
The person who recently posted "A consultant is someone who borrows your watch then charges you to ask the time" has it in ONE!! THE SHEER TRUTH!!!!
13

sjs,

Edinburgh 07/04/2008 13:32:35
The main problem is newspapers like the Scotsman printing negative articles like "lack of support" and "concern" about the costs. Instead of spear-heading campaigns that benefit people, the paper appears to prefer glorifying in failure!

You might well think papers were always like this, but the Scotsman once had a reputation of supporting such projects. Shame on you.

Anyone interested should join http://www.reopenthesouthsub.org.uk/ . There's a similar project at http://www.kylemore.btinternet.co.uk/rages.htm RAGES .

The real problem , as hinted at in this paper is that Waverley is at full capacity and they won't extend it. Thus no room for trains from there to the South Sub. If the South Sub is your dream... join a campaign to have Waverley extended.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



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.