Perth to Edinburgh Direct Rail Link
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-07166, in the name of Liz Smith, on a direct rail link between Perth and Edinburgh. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes calls to investigate the possibility of reopening of the direct rail link between Perth and Edinburgh; understands that the 22-mile link was closed in the 1970s to make way for the M90 but that a large section of the original line remains largely intact; believes that reopening a direct rail link would provide additional capacity; further believes that it would reduce journey times between Edinburgh and Perth by around 35 minutes, reduce onward travel times to Aberdeen and Inverness and be of service to what it sees as the growing communities in Perthshire and Kinross-shire and in Fife; notes that, in 2009, Transport Scotland included the construction of a railway line between Inverkeithing and Halbeath as one of the 29 transport projects and programmes identified in its strategic transport projects review as possible investment priorities; notes the calls for a new feasibility study for these services to be commissioned, and believes that a direct rail link between Perth and Edinburgh would help deliver a transport system that works for the 21st century with the modern infrastructure that it considers essential to help improve people’s lives and support businesses.
17:04
First, I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me the parliamentary time to debate this important matter. I say at the outset that the Scottish Conservatives are very conscious indeed of the likely financial and construction implications of such a project. They are significant, but so too are the substantial costs of not upgrading one of the main rail arteries in the United Kingdom, never mind in Scotland.
The direct rail route from Edinburgh to Perth via Dunfermline, Kinross and Glenfarg was closed in 1970 to make way for the M90 motorway. At the time, many saw that as a short-sighted decision because it meant that inter-city rail travellers would face journey times that were significantly longer than the road alternative, and longer than comparable inter-city routes elsewhere. Originally, most of the Edinburgh to Perth and Inverness trains were diverted via Stirling, but now most run via Ladybank. That situation has seen rail travel become increasingly uncompetitive with road, and left the rail journey from Edinburgh to Perth slower than it was 100 years ago.
The AA’s route planner estimates a car journey time of just 59 minutes, compared to a 2013 rail average of 1 hour 22 minutes. It does not compare favourably with similar routes. For example, Swansea to Cardiff by rail, which is an identical distance, takes less than one hour and a similar journey on the continent, such as that between Ghent and Brussels, takes just 30 minutes.
It has been estimated that the reinstatement of a direct link would reduce journey times from Edinburgh to Perth and onward journeys to Inverness and Aberdeen by up to 35 minutes. The re-opening of a direct line would not only allow the creation of a key hub on the inter-city network at Perth and its iconic station, it would also provide the opportunity for the creation of new stations to better serve the kingdom of Fife and Perthshire and Kinross-shire, where there is to be very considerable population growth. Indeed, it was partly for that reason that Transport Scotland in 2009 included the possible construction of a railway link between Inverkeithing and Halbeath as one of the 29 transport projects and programmes identified in its strategic transport projects review.
The history surrounding the closure of the line is well documented. However, like the recent success of re-opened lines such as the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine rail link and the soon to be reopened Borders rail link, a direct link to Perth would provide many benefits for modern Scottish infrastructure.
Since I was elected as an MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife in 2007, the reopening of a direct line has been raised with me many times. On the back of a number of local surveys—the most recent one has attracted hundreds of supporters—I approached Transform Scotland and the Scottish Government to ask for a new feasibility study to weigh up the costs and benefits. I am conscious that I lack the technical and engineering expertise that is required to examine in detail what might be built and where, but I am extremely grateful to the Transform Scotland consultants who have advised on certain key issues. Their deliberations were based upon the very detailed discussions that they had with Transport Scotland civil servants, and the pressing need, they believe, to develop more scope and ambition within the strategic transport review.
It is not as though the Scottish Government has not considered the issue. When the Minister for Transport and Veterans was the Scottish National Party candidate in Ochil, he was a keen supporter of the reopening of Kinross station. Within the 2009 strategic transport projects review, the Scottish Government undertook to look at the possibility of building a new railway between Inverkeithing and Bridge of Earn. At the time, the Government concluded that the cost was too great, but clearly the demographic, social and economic profile of the region has continued to change, and Transform Scotland points out that the 2009 review did not properly analyse the benefits of an electrified railway, assess the merits of a new railway from Halbeath to Bridge of Earn, which would allow Dunfermline to benefit from the project, evaluate the full benefits of the park-and-ride station at Kinross, which now serves a much wider catchment, or undertake sufficient analysis of the benefits to Dundee, Aberdeen and the north-east, as well as the potential better connectivity to Inverness.
I mentioned that there has been very considerable public support for this project for a number of years, including from many businesses who are firm in their belief in the potential economic boost from improved connectivity. Perthshire Chamber of Commerce has consistently put on the record its support for the proposal, arguing that it could be one of the single biggest benefits to the local economy. The areas of Scotland that will have the fastest-growing populations over the next three decades include Perthshire, Kinross-shire and Fife. Indeed, the population in Perthshire is predicted to increase by 27 per cent over the next 20 years. Meanwhile, the commuter influence on Edinburgh continues to grow at a fast rate, especially among those who work on the western edges around the Gyle and who are very likely indeed to make maximum use of train transport.
Notwithstanding that there will be a new Forth crossing, there are already pressures on roads from increasing car and HGV traffic, and some major businesses in central Scotland have raised concerns that a relatively weak inter-city rail network hampers on-going freight journeys. That is not good and it goes against the commitment that the First Minister gave in The Herald in August 2008 when he said, rightly, that
“railways must at least compete with roads.”
He was adamant then that top-quality rail transport links were essential to a modern Scotland that will also deliver on its green credentials.
As Scotland’s newest city, Perth is very much looking to the future to secure new investment and re-establish its historic place at the centre of Scottish trading routes. I understand that the minister might, indeed, be considering the possibility of a new feasibility study to establish the true costs and benefits of a new route. I hope that such a study can be as comprehensive as possible when it comes to overall strategic transport planning and that it would specifically examine the possible effects of the electrification of a new direct line from Inverkeithing to Perth, the benefits of shorter journey times and the possible economic and social benefits to the north-east and the Highlands.
The Scottish Government has a good record of looking at new rail developments in the central belt, but I would argue strongly, particularly given the very strong public support that we have received and the technical expertise provided by Transform Scotland, that a new feasibility study is the best way forward to establish what I believe would be a very strong outcome that would prove that the benefits would considerably outweigh the costs, for not just Mid Scotland and Fife, but the rest of Scotland.
I thank members for their support in signing the motion and I thank you again, Presiding Officer, for affording me the time to address the motion. I look forward to hearing what members have to say.
17:11
First, I thank Liz Smith for securing the debate and giving us the opportunity to discuss a direct rail link between Perth and Edinburgh. Liz Smith has, not unexpectedly, made a powerful case for a new direct link.
I, for one, am not surprised that the mere hint of the reopening of a railway line proves to be popular with local communities. Rail services play a vital role in connecting people and businesses across the whole of Scotland. We all know that rail travel is an excellent way for communities to reduce their carbon footprint. We also all know that many journeys are being made by car because there is a lack of alternative or more sustainable options. It is clear from the growth in passenger numbers on railways across Scotland that there is strong demand, which can only increase with the expansion of our rail network.
I believe that the reinstatement and creation of rail lines, when coupled with an enhanced station network, can provide valuable economic and social benefits to all. Investment in the rail infrastructure of Mid Scotland and Fife is therefore to be welcomed. Clearly, however, we need to ensure that Scotland’s railways are able to compete with the parallel road routes. I know that there are a number of worthy initiatives to improve rail links in the central belt, but we need to ensure that such ambition is shown for routes beyond the central belt, which, when compared with other parts of Scotland, seems already to be well served and connected.
Nevertheless, I have some concerns about the potential implications for north-east Fife of a new direct link between Edinburgh and Perth that would bypass Ladybank and Markinch—in the neighbouring constituency—which are both popular commuter hubs for onward travel to Edinburgh and Perth for residents in my constituency. Such a route would undoubtedly have a knock-on effect on the communities that the stations in Ladybank and Markinch serve. Those two stations play a vital role that is clearly valued by those who live in the area. That is evidenced by the volume of commuters who use both stations, which benefit from being on the Aberdeen to Edinburgh and Inverness-Perth-Edinburgh lines.
We need to ensure that supporting transport infrastructure in one part of the country is not detrimental to those living in another part of the country, because the purpose of public transport is to connect communities, rather than bypass them completely. I am concerned that if there is a new link between Perth and Edinburgh, residents of north-east Fife could miss out if appropriate investment is not made in the rail infrastructure in my part of the world.
I draw members’ attention to the work undertaken by the Newburgh train station campaign and Starlink in St Andrews as examples of the demand for new stations and investment in public transport. Both are very worthy campaigns to establish rail links to Newburgh and St Andrews and both campaign groups are working tirelessly to try to achieve their aims. They have shown great initiative in engaging with transport experts to assess the possibilities of reopening and re-establishing railway links to those communities, as well as in lobbying various public bodies. I acknowledge their efforts and I urge both Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government to give appropriate consideration to their cases.
As I said, I recognise Liz Smith’s case, but I believe that the Scottish Government has a strong record in investing in rail so that communities are supported and connected, as well as in aiding them to reduce car use. I hope that the Government will fully assess the potential of rail links that could be created that would benefit all.
I thank Liz Smith once again for the opportunity to discuss the matter, and I welcome the debate.
17:15
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on a potential rail link connecting Perth with Edinburgh. I congratulate Liz Smith on securing the debate, which is clearly on a matter of concern to her constituents.
In the 21st century, it is vital that people throughout Scotland benefit from a modern and efficient rail service that links cities such as Perth with the capital in the timeliest manner possible. Labour has argued that the upgrading of our rail network is vital not only to provide jobs, to support businesses and to pursue economic expansion, but to improve the vital links that Edinburgh and Glasgow have with smaller cities and towns, and to reduce the number of people who feel that it is necessary consistently to choose their car rather than the train or other forms of public transport.
With those objectives in mind, it is of concern that the transport alliance Transform Scotland highlights that journey times by train from Perth to Edinburgh are longer now than they were 100 years ago, with journeys between the two cities averaging about 80 minutes.
The loss of the direct link in 1970 must have been a blow to the local area, and if it was reinstated it would certainly reduce journey times considerably. As the motion states, a direct link would be likely to provide improved services for people who live in places such as Kinross, Dunfermline, Cowdenbeath and Rosyth—places where, as in Perth, population growth is predicted over the next 25 years, as was mentioned earlier.
I remind Mark Griffin that it is not just people in Kinross and Dunfermline, or indeed Markinch and Ladybank, who would benefit, because the train from Inverness goes all the way round the Fife loop. Only one train a day goes via Stirling and Falkirk, and journeys on that train are 25 minutes quicker than journeys on the trains that go round Fife. The proposal would benefit travellers from Inverness, too.
I take that on board. I recognise that population growth is expected in the Inverness area as well, which will only increase demand for services.
It is important that the Scottish Government does all that it can do to improve our rail network, but I have been concerned about its commitment to doing that in recent years. Having initially welcomed the roll-out of the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme across central Scotland, I was left disappointed—along with the Confederation of British Industry and transport organisations—when the Scottish Government slashed the ambitious programme by £350 million under the guise of phasing. The proposed increase in trains per hour was stopped, improvements to Croy station were rejected, the important plans for the Garngad chord were scrapped, and the Dalmeny chord was cancelled, which could lead to significant costs to the taxpayer and disruption to the travelling public across central Scotland when the Winchburgh tunnel closes for electrification work.
I congratulate Liz Smith again on bringing her motion to the chamber for debate. It is clear that people in Mid Scotland and Fife and further afield would benefit from a direct rail link between Perth and Edinburgh, and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.
17:19
I, too, begin by congratulating Liz Smith on securing the debate. She has successfully identified a frustration that is felt by many of us who travel, or have attempted to travel, by rail between Perth and Edinburgh—a frustration that has been experienced through many decades.
I say at the outset that there would be clear benefits for commuters, business travellers and tourists in more effectively connecting the capital city with the fair city of Perth and points north. Ms Smith has been successful in securing for herself a number of headlines on the issue in the local press, but I have to say that they have not all been positive. Indeed, two days ago, a story appeared in The Courier under the banner:
“‘Completely mad’ rail call slated”.
I note that Willie Rennie has signed the motion that we are debating. It is sad, therefore, that no Liberals are in the chamber to participate in the debate. I mention that because “Completely mad” is a quotation from his party’s Kinross-shire councillor and Liberal candidate in the Perthshire South and Kinross-shire constituency in the most recent Scottish Parliament elections, Willie Robertson.
I mention the apparent divergence of view in the coalition parties to highlight that restoration of a direct link, however desirable, is not at all straightforward. As we heard, the line was closed in the 1970s, but it is not like the many lines that fell victim to Dr Beeching’s mad-axe policy; it is not lying dormant, just waiting to be reopened. Rather, much of the route now lies beneath the M90 motorway, and other parts have been built on. People’s homes are a reality on not-insignificant sections of the route. Therefore, we are talking not about a direct route, but a circuitous route. That is an important point to bear in mind as we debate this important subject.
The motion claims:
“a large section of the original line remains largely intact”.
That might be true. I simply do not have the evidence and the hard facts to make such a judgment. However, even if we assume that that is the case, we nonetheless need a clear idea of how that section will link to the rest of the network.
I thank Annabelle Ewing for her comments. She is quite right to point to the issue. What I am asking for is a feasibility study, which would weigh up the respective costs and benefits. I am not specifying exactly where the line should be.
I thank Liz Smith; I heard her make that plea in her speech. I think that an appraisal was carried out in the not-too-distant past.
Liz Smith raised the important issue of cost, to which I was about to turn. The forging of better links is not impossible or undesirable, but elected representatives—particularly those who have the privilege of representing constituencies in Mid Scotland and Fife—must be realistic about the possibilities. We should not talk about opening a “direct link”, because the link has gone; we should talk about investigating ways of making concrete progress on all the important issues that have been raised, in the short and medium terms.
Of course, cost is an important issue. It appears that the project could cost between £500 million and £1 billion. Where would the money come from? The Tory-Liberal coalition in London has cut Scotland’s capital budget by some 26 per cent. If we are to talk about the project, we must say where the money would come from. I hope that it would not be a question of taking money away from the important A9 dualling project.
In that context, I will mention the Edinburgh trams project. The SNP Government, in minority in 2007, was voted down on the issue. We did not want to waste £500 million of taxpayers’ hard-earned money on the trams project. However, we are where we are.
I would like the minister to acknowledge that the Government is conscious of the demand for improved journey times, particularly on the Edinburgh to Perth route, and that it will consider ways of improving connectivity.
We have to be realistic about what we can do in this Parliament, in terms of finance and logistics. Of course, if we were an independent country with control over all our resources, we could proceed in a much more feasible way with complex capital infrastructure projects of the type that we are debating.
17:24
Presiding Officer, thank you for the opportunity to close the debate.
We have heard members’ views on the high-level benefits of a direct rail link between Perth and Inverkeithing, but it is important to bear in mind that more than a quarter of our capital budget has been cut since 2010-11, as the previous speaker said. It must be recognised that such a cut impacts on what the Government can do through capital investment, particularly under the current devolution settlement.
In spite of that cut, the Scottish Government is committed to delivering the recommendations of the 2008 strategic transport projects review, including the Inverkeithing to Halbeath line, which Liz Smith mentioned. That will deliver journey time savings for the Edinburgh to Perth route, albeit to a lesser degree but for a fraction of the cost of a direct link between Perth and Inverkeithing.
On the cost, I note that Liz Smith acknowledged the high financial and construction cost at the start of her speech. The estimates that I have seen suggest a cost of anything between £0.5 billion and £1 billion for the project.
It is a fact that the 2008 strategic transport projects review undertook a study into the matter and found that the Perth to Inverkeithing proposal did not represent the best value for the taxpayer. That said, ministers are always willing to consider rail interventions outwith the STPR recommendations where a positive case can be made and, of course, if they follow the Scottish transport appraisal guidance.
I was happy to discuss the proposal with Transform Scotland in March this year. As Liz Smith mentioned, officials have discussed Transform Scotland’s proposal with it, and will continue to do so. Officials have also recommended to Transform Scotland that it should approach the relevant regional transport partnerships—the south east of Scotland transport partnership and the Tayside and central Scotland transport partnership, with interest from the Highlands and Islands transport partnership and the north east of Scotland transport partnership, obviously—to discuss a new study that incorporates all possible transport solutions, not just rail, in line with the Scottish transport appraisal guidance process.
Generally, our commitment to our railways is reflected in the ambitious £5 billion package of funding and investment until 2019, which will support improvements to the infrastructure and services right across the network, including substantial improvements to the Highland main line and the Aberdeen to Inverness line.
We have heard that the Government has been instrumental in reversing a number of the Beeching-era cuts and has moved Scotland back to something approaching a golden age of rail. Last year, there were 83 million rail journeys in Scotland, which is a record high. Since 2007, we have invested more than £8.3 billion in transport. We have reopened the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line, which Liz Smith mentioned and which I was involved in proposing as the council leader in Clackmannanshire at the time. We have also reopened the Airdrie to Bathgate line. Both lines have been a great success. As has been said, the Borders railway will restore the link between our capital and the Borders by 2015. Furthermore, phase 1 of the Highland main line project provided two additional services daily as well as journey time savings of up to 18 minutes, which have directly benefited the people of Perth.
Timetable improvements in 2008, 2011 and 2012 have delivered additional calls and services on the Edinburgh-Perth-Aberdeen corridor. That shows our commitment to delivering improved journey times and connections, as I specified in last year’s high-level output specification.
Will the minister give way?
If I have time at the end of my speech, I will come back to Mary Scanlon.
Those improvements have helped us to deliver sustainable economic growth. Obviously, having those connections is vital to the economy.
As members may know, work is under way on refurbishing the rolling stock on the Edinburgh via Fife to Dundee, Perth and Aberdeen routes to make passenger journeys more comfortable. Wi-fi and appropriate modern facilities will be available on all the class 170 trains that are used to connect Scotland’s cities.
On Mark Griffin’s point about journey times being longer than they were 100 years ago, quite a lot has happened in those 100 years, including the Beeching cuts, which we have talked about. I certainly know that cities in the north of England in particular are very envious of the Scottish Government’s record in reversing some of the Beeching cuts. However, we must have an eye on the moneys that are available.
The STPR was the right way to go about assessing the proposal. There was a nationwide, multimodal and evidence-based review that ruled it out on the ground of poor value to the taxpayer, as I have said. Therefore, we have had the feasibility study that Liz Smith calls for. It is there and it is evidence based; I have also mentioned that there is another route through the regional transport partnerships to have further work done.
We are as committed to improving services for the people of Perth and Fife as we are to improving services across the network. Phase 2 of the improvements to the Highland main line will deliver greater capacity and faster journey times. That will help to improve connectivity for passengers and businesses.
Network Rail is developing proposals for the Aberdeen to central belt rail enhancements project for future delivery. That project could increase capacity and produce further journey time savings in the Perth and Fife area.
We have announced the £60 million network improvement fund, which will be available to support the funding of infrastructure works across the network, in line with the Scottish ministers’ strategic priorities, which include improved journey times, connectivity and resilience. Liz Smith mentioned the possibility of taking traffic from road to rail. The study that was done showed that that would amount to a shift of 1 per cent of current traffic. That is not insignificant, but perhaps it does not represent the savings or the modal shift that we would want.
In addition, future phases of our electrification programme will include electrification of routes between Edinburgh, Perth and Dundee, Dunblane to Aberdeen, and Perth to Inverness. We also have the specification for the next ScotRail franchise, which will come in the next 18 months or so. The specification underlines the Government’s commitment to providing enhanced rail services across Scotland, which will perhaps be more obvious when we issue it and the invitation to tender. By providing the longer franchise, which we asked for, we will look for bidders to provide innovative enhancements to train services that could be of benefit to passengers in the Perth and Fife area, although that is clearly a matter for bidders.
As part of those innovative enhancements, while all those people in England sit and look enviously at our record and at the millions that are going into rail investment, why is it that my train journey from Inverness to Edinburgh is three hours and 40 minutes each way—exactly the same as it was when I came to the Parliament in May 1999?
I have answered that question by pointing to some of the cuts that we have seen. However, we have reversed many of the cuts. The Borders rail link is a classic example, and the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line was closed for 40 years. We have to deal with the railways that we inherited from previous Administrations.
Perhaps Mary Scanlon should ask those who represented the previous Administration in Scotland—she could also formally ask the UK Government—why further improvements have not been made. We have to have regard to the moneys that are available. If she was serious about the issue, she could perhaps identify where the £0.5 billion to £1 billion would come from to do the project. It is not credible to make demands without saying where the money would come from.
Despite what some say, we are rising to the challenge of those budgetary constraints, which have been imposed by the Government that Mary Scanlon supports. Does she support the 26 per cent cut in our capital budget? If so, how does she square that with the ever-increasing demands that she makes on services provided by the Scottish Government?
We have demonstrated that we are committed to improving Scotland’s railways for the benefit of people across Scotland. I again thank Liz Smith for bringing the debate to the chamber.
Meeting closed at 17:32.