Leven to Thornton Rail Link
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-1539, in the name of Tricia Marwick, on the Leven to Thornton rail link. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that the South-East Scotland Transport Partnership commissioned a feasibility study into the reopening of the Leven to Thornton rail link; believes that the reopening of this line to passengers and freight is vital to the regeneration of the Levenmouth area; notes that the reopening of the Leven to Thornton rail link is one of Fife Council's top transport priorities, and believes that those most interested in the regeneration of Levenmouth should contribute to the feasibility study now being carried out.
I am pleased to be able to open this debate on the reopening of the Leven to Thornton rail link, a matter that I have pushed for more than 10 years. I know that Ted Brocklebank and Iain Smith also support the reopening of the line to passengers.
I am grateful to Tricia Marwick for giving way. As she is aware, I need to leave before the end of the debate to attend a previously arranged constituency engagement: my departure has been hastened by the extension to today's business.
I thank Tricia Marwick for securing this evening's important debate on reinstating a much-needed rail link. Does she agree that it is crucial that the much-needed improvements to the Redhouse roundabout are implemented with equal urgency, as part of the overall mid-Fife transport strategy, to ensure that some of the major inhibitors to economic regeneration in our local communities are addressed?
I thank Marilyn Livingstone for her intervention and support. She knows full well that I both support the reopening of the Leven to Thornton rail link and think that work to improve the Redhouse link is essential. I have no hesitation in supporting that project. However, the two issues need not be taken together.
The proposal to reopen the Leven to Thornton junction branch line to passengers would allow a link to the Fife circle at Kirkcaldy. I welcome people from the Levenmouth area who have joined us in the public gallery to hear tonight's debate. In all my years as an MSP, I have never encountered such a spontaneous response to an issue. I hope that the minister will take note.
For too long, we in Levenmouth have campaigned against things—against pit closures, against job losses and against ship-to-ship oil transfers. By contrast, the campaign to reopen the Leven to Thornton link is a campaign for something.
I am indebted to Jim Corstorphine, who has kindly given me a copy of his book "East of Thornton Junction", which has helped to fill in some of the gaps in my knowledge of the line's history. The line from Leven to Thornton junction was part of the Fife coast line, which stretched around the Fife coast from Thornton to Leuchars. The Thornton to Leven railway was opened in 1854 and was closed to passengers as part of the Beeching cuts, after a long campaign that included a public inquiry at Scoonie hall in Leven. That campaign was in vain, and on 4 October 1969 the line was finally closed.
However, although the rest of the Fife coast line was ripped up and built over, the Leven to Thornton track remained. Until a few years ago, it was used regularly for freight, mostly from the now defunct Methil power station. Importantly, the line has never been decommissioned by Network Rail.
Levenmouth is the largest urban conurbation in Scotland without access to a railway station. It also has poor connections to the road network. The main road through Fife bypasses the area completely, and access to Kirkcaldy is by way of the A915—Standingstane Road—which is notoriously ill-equipped to cope.
Levenmouth was devastated by pit closures, the rundown of Methil docks and the loss of Kvaerner, all of which contributed to its economic depression. The tragedy is that, until fairly recently, no steps were taken to address that economic disadvantage. The results of that long neglect are clear: 41 per cent of the area's population is economically inactive, compared with a Fife average of 34 per cent and a Scottish average of 35 per cent.
The opening of the Leven to Thornton line to passengers would enable people to get to jobs elsewhere in Fife, in Edinburgh and in Dundee, and would attract new businesses into the area. It would also enable people in the east neuk of Fife, in Iain Smith's constituency, to access a train from Leven. Reopening the line is essential for the regeneration of the Levenmouth area.
We also need the line to be upgraded for freight transport. We have long argued that we need to get freight off the roads and on to rail. Diageo, which has a plant at Cameron Bridge, is negotiating with Network Rail on a development that will allow Diageo's products to travel by rail again. However, the negotiations have been protracted. I urge Network Rail to find an acceptable solution.
In addition to Diageo, we have Fife energy park in Methil, which is one of the Government's top strategic priorities for Scotland. It is essential that, as well as upskilling the workforce in Levenmouth, we attract people with the necessary skills to Methil. To do that, we need transport links. It is self-evident that I also expect the line to be used for freight to and from the energy park.
There have been many campaigns to reopen the line. In 1999, Scott Wilson carried out a feasibility study for Fife Council, which concluded:
"It would be feasible to introduce a passenger train service over this existing single track branch line with a new station constructed at Leven."
The cost at the time would have been between £1.7 million and £3.3 million. The tragedy is that the then Labour-controlled Fife Council refused to support the reopening, and since then Levenmouth has declined even further economically.
What has changed? The Scottish National Party and Liberal-controlled Fife Council has made reopening the line one of its top priorities. The south east of Scotland transport partnership is carrying out a feasibility study. Fife energy park is creating new jobs and Diageo is expanding its operation. The threat remains that the Forth road bridge could be closed to freight before the new bridge is built. In any case, freight needs to find another way in and out of Fife. Most important, the community wants the project to go ahead.
I understand that to make the line fit for passengers it needs to be rerailed, signalling needs to be installed and drainage and telecom issues need to be addressed—that is all. There is no need for the compulsory purchase of land and no need for legislation, unlike with many other rail projects in Scotland since 1999. However, we need the will for the project to happen.
I do not expect a decision from the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change today—SEStran is still carrying out its survey—but I would like him to confirm that this financially modest scheme, which would help the whole of Levenmouth and the east neuk, will be given a fair wind by his department.
I thank Tricia Marwick for securing this evening's debate. I am happy to add my support to the call to reopen the Leven to Thornton rail link. Local community groups and representatives—some of whom I, too, welcome to the chamber this evening—have long recognised the need for better links to the Levenmouth area. I hope that the time has come for those links to be realised.
There are challenges in introducing a Leven to Thornton rail link into the Fife rail network, but I hope that SEStran's feasibility study will examine those challenges and explore ways to overcome them. The Government needs to strike the right balance between the two priorities for Fife—the need for quick, major connections between towns and cities on the east coast line and the need to extend the local rail network that operates close to where people live.
Work and leisure possibilities have changed dramatically in recent years, and our transport systems often struggle to adapt to our changing needs. Unless people have a car, Fife can be a difficult place to get around quickly. Recently, I opened an office in Methil. For my staff, travelling to Methil from Kelty, Glenrothes or Edinburgh by public transport is not really an option if they need to get to work on time. A Leven to Thornton rail link, along with investment in other public transport infrastructure, would make commuting to and from Levenmouth much more possible and could open up much-needed employment opportunities. If jobs are to be created, the conditions must be right.
Those are the key arguments in favour of reopening the line. Many of them are made by the Levenmouth communities regeneration group in its well-named five miles and five arguments statement, which I fully support.
Previous Administrations and councils have long recognised the benefits of reopening the rail link, but recently the need for it has become all the more pressing. We all recognise that the predicted expansion in housing in the area will place greater demand on public transport. Reopening the line would give us the opportunity to move not just passengers but freight, as Tricia Marwick said. The likely closure of the Forth road bridge to heavy goods vehicles, the increased cost of moving freight by road, and our increased awareness of the environmental impact of our transport decisions all add further weight to the argument.
The importance to national and international companies such as Diageo of having rail links close by should not be underestimated. Equally, improved links could encourage other businesses to relocate to the Levenmouth area and provide a key link for the energy park and, potentially, the Westfield site.
The local transport strategy for Fife identifies a new Leven to Thornton rail link as a priority, but it should not be provided in isolation. It is clear to me that, as Marilyn Livingstone highlighted, Levenmouth and central Fife more generally need improvements to the key linkages to town centres and to the public transport network as a whole.
The minister has a strategic role and is rightly interested in the national picture, but I hope that, as was the case under the previous Administration, there will be opportunities for a number of more local improvements to take place, such as the reopening of the Leven to Thorton rail link. Such improvements would considerably enhance social mobility and access to employment, reduce traffic congestion and promote sustainable travel as a positive alternative.
Levenmouth needs everyone to work together to continue to promote its regeneration and development. I would greatly welcome the reopening of the Leven to Thornton rail link as part of a package of investment in public and private transport for Levenmouth, and I am more than happy to have been able to help to promote that aim in this evening's debate.
Ted Bracklebonk—my apologies. Ted Brocklebank, to be followed by Iain Smith.
I, too, congratulate Tricia Marwick on securing the debate. She has worked hard to keep the issue in the public eye, and I hope that she manages to persuade her colleague the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change of the many merits of reopening the Leven to Thornton rail link.
Tricia Marwick and I gained a certain experience in rail matters when we sat on the committee that considered the reopening of the railway between Waverley and Galashiels. Although that committee decided that there were sound social reasons for reopening the line to the Borders, it is true to say that it was less convinced of the economic case. However, the case for reopening the Levenmouth to Thornton link has a much sounder economic basis. First, we are talking about a line that is only five miles long. Secondly, the alignment and freight rail track are still largely intact. I welcome the feasibility study that SEStran is carrying out in conjunction with Fife Council, the public consultation aspect of which is to be completed by the end of this month.
Passengers in the Levenmouth area would obviously benefit from the reopening of the line, but the industrial revitalisation of the whole area that might result from it is every bit as important. We are all having to relearn a lesson that our forebears understood well—that the ports and harbours around Scotland are seriously undermined if the rail links to them are removed.
Earlier this week, I met officials of Forth Ports, which owns the port of Methil. I was left in no doubt that reopening the rail link to Levenmouth would vastly improve the versatility of Methil, not only as the hub for the energy park but as a niche port for smaller freight vessels. As we have heard, companies such as Diageo, Tullis Russell and the Earlseat coal company could all benefit from fast, efficient rail links to Methil docks. The local road is not good, as has been said, and it would benefit other road users, as well as the companies themselves, if raw materials could be imported and end products exported by means of a direct rail link to and from Levenmouth, which would also provide access to the Fife central line via Thornton junction.
As we have heard, estimates suggest that the main costs involved would relate to signalling and the upgrading of the track, the price of which is estimated to be about £28 million. Unlike with the Waverley to Galashiels line, there do not appear to be housing developments or other encumbrances that require negotiation and compensation—matters that continue to dog the Borders project with ever-spiralling costs.
Perhaps it is too much to hope that one day a restored Levenmouth station might be linked by rail right through the east neuk villages to St Andrews, as it once was, which would provide opportunities for people to stop off and savour fresh fish in places such as St Monans, Pittenweem, Anstruther and Crail, which all had local stations. Sadly, the miners and their families who once came by train to holiday along that coastal strip are no more. One wonders how much longer it will be before the east neuk fishermen and their families follow in their wake—but that is an auld sang of mine and one best left for another day.
Stewart Stevenson is a minister who likes to travel by public transport. He will recall his recent visit to meet me in St Andrews; he might also recall that the seat of Scotland's oldest and, some would argue, best university is still the only university city in the whole of the UK that does not have a direct rail link. It should not be impossible for a man as ingenious and multiskilled as the minister to envisage an appropriate rail solution—such as the development of an electric monorail system, which would cost a fraction of the cost of establishing a traditional rail system—to link St Andrews to the national rail network.
However, first things first: I accept that the immediate priority is restoring the Levenmouth to Thornton rail link and helping to end decades of neglect for the whole mid-Fife area. I am delighted to support Tricia Marwick's motion.
It is always a problem to follow Mr Bracklebonk; he tries to steal most of my lines on matters relating to our area. I add my congratulations to Tricia Marwick on securing the debate. I am pleased to put on record my support for the reopening of the Thornton to Leven line for passengers and freight.
Leven borders my constituency, although it is not in it. I am well aware of the problems that the Levenmouth area has faced over recent decades as a result of the decline in its traditional industries. It remains an area of significant social problems, including, as it does, pockets of generational unemployment. Lack of opportunity in the local economy has been compounded by low levels of mobility. Job opportunities outwith the immediate area are often not seen as attractive or viable options, despite Levenmouth being just a few miles from Glenrothes, within reasonable travel distance of St Andrews, and having access to the rail network at Markinch.
I have no doubt that the reopening of the rail link would produce a significant economic boost for the whole area. It would make the area more attractive to potential investors and to people seeking to escape property hotspots. The area offers a viable commuting destination for people with jobs in Kirkcaldy, Dunfermline, Edinburgh and—northwards—Dundee. Of course, the line would also open up the most isolated part of Fife—the east neuk—which is in my constituency. Provided that the new station at Leven came with effective park-and-ride facilities and good integrated bus links, it would provide an alternative to my constituents who seek access to the rail network. It would provide a significant boost for the economy of the east neuk and better access to employment and education, and it would open up the east neuk to tourists who do not have a car.
My example—opening up access to the Fife coastal path—is slightly more realistic than the example that Ted Brocklebank used. The rail link would make the coastal path more accessible to walkers and cyclists, who could join it at Leven, and make their way round the east neuk—stopping at all the places that Ted Brocklebank mentioned—before returning by train from Leuchars. Of course they could do it the other way round, if they preferred.
I, too, would like to see other enhancements to the rail network in Fife, such as a rail halt at Newburgh on the Perth to Edinburgh line and a park-and-ride halt at Wormit. As Ted Brocklebank mentioned, we should not forget the desire to see the re-establishment of a rail link to St Andrews, which would serve not only the student population but tourists. I support the need for full feasibility studies into those projects.
In addition to the economic arguments in favour of those projects that need to be considered, the strong environmental case needs to be examined. We need urgently to invest in our public transport network to reduce the need for people to use private cars—if people can get petrol to use their car in North East Fife. According to my studies today, that is not all that easy.
Representing a rural constituency, I know that there will always be a need for the car. It will never be possible to provide public transport solutions that meet all the transport needs of local people. However, we must seek to increase the available public transport options for some journeys, and for parts of other journeys. The Leven to Thornton line would do just that. We must also acknowledge that it will not be straightforward to re-link Leven to the rail network. Some technical track and signalling issues need to be resolved. The need to provide rolling stock must also be considered, along with the impact on the timetable, particularly given the already crowded Fife to Edinburgh network.
Sadly, the Government has shown a lack of will to make the big decisions to invest in our network and it is not providing the additional capacity that will be needed to allow enhancements such as Leven to Thornton to proceed. In responding to the debate, perhaps the minister will say what the impact of his decision to scrap the Edinburgh airport rail link will have on the future capacity of the Fife to Edinburgh line. EARL would have created more capacity; no EARL means no more capacity. The extra stops and extra station that are required under the Government's alternative will cut capacity on a line that is already congested, particularly at peak times. The decision will also make it more difficult to deliver the necessary reopening of the Leven to Thornton line.
I hope that the minister will reassure us on those points. I hope that he will also make a commitment at least to consider favourably the reopening of the Leven to Thornton line.
I remember the glory days of the Levenmouth line. Back in 1952, my family had a holiday at Leven. I remember seeing vast quantities of coal pouring down from the collieries into trains and off down to London or Denmark.
Even today, the strongest case for the reopening of the line is the freight case. That is not to say that one should not pursue the passenger case. However, there is a remarkable redevelopment of freight in Britain, which had dwindled to the point that there was hardly any north of the Forth bridge. I am thinking not only of Diageo at Cameron Bridge, but the possibilities that arise in terms of opencast coal traffic.
From talking to fruit importers in Fife, I know that, if rail services were accurate and timely enough, international fruit traffic from Spain could come to a depot along the line. Most important of all, with the development of new renewables technology, we have the linkage between firms such as Siemens in Germany, with its factories and electric works, and the energy park in Methil. A flow of dedicated wagonload traffic across Europe, keeping to careful schedules, would develop that linkage.
We must remember that, in Germany, since 2005, rail freight has staged a remarkable recovery and that the amount carried is advancing at more than 10 per cent a year. Next to Germany, in Austria, the railways carry 35 per cent of the country's total freight, compared with the minor amount of less than 12 per cent that is carried in Britain. However, that figure is expected to rise dramatically, given that, in June last year, most railway freight services in Britain were taken over by the German state railway company, when English Welsh & Scottish Railway was bought up by Deutsche Bahn.
We must think about rather more than just the terminal line in Fife; we must also think about having facilities between Fife and the channel tunnel that will enable our freight to move smoothly, so that we do not get those terrible periods of being diverted all over the place because of supposed improvements that are being made to the line somewhere in England. If we get a dedicated and, preferably, Berne gauge—a continental loading gauge—line through England, we could have a real renaissance of rail traffic to Scotland and the Thornton to Leven line would become one of the major terminal areas for international freight into what will be, I trust, a booming Fife.
I welcome the debate and congratulate Tricia Marwick on securing it. It is good to see so many people in the public gallery from the community in the Levenmouth area. It adds to the Scottish Parliament's relevance that people can come along and hear at first hand, on issues that are close to their hearts, that politicians are taking those issues seriously and trying to make progress on them. I am also pleased to see the minister and I have noticed that he has listened carefully to members' speeches. I am pleased to be involved in the debate and to give my support to the motion.
When I was thinking about the situation in Fife, a story came to mind about the new town of Dalgety Bay. I read some background on the development of the town and found that, at that time, one of its plus points was its close proximity to the new Forth road bridge, which was important because the Fife to Edinburgh rail line was under threat of closure. It is a frightening thought that, only 40 years ago, we were considering that. That story tells us that we should consider future needs much more carefully.
The debate is relevant, as it is about the importance of modal shift. As well as a modal shift for freight, we need to get people out of their cars—not only those who travel from Fife to Edinburgh, but those who travel around Fife. We have had recent success in that with the reopening of parts of the Dunfermline-Alloa-Stirling line. That proves that the Scottish Government can achieve such projects. We can take heart from that project, but there is frustration that much of the original infrastructure of the rail network no longer exists. I am pleased that we have an opportunity to build on the service in Fife.
Ted Brocklebank introduced skilfully the idea that we might want to extend the rail network to St Andrews, so I will indulge myself for a moment and talk about the importance of getting a rail link to the port of Rosyth. At some time, I would like people to be able to travel from the continent on the ferry service to Rosyth and then back home by rail to the Levenmouth area. That would be great. I am hopeful, given the debate that we are having, that that might happen in the not-too-distant future.
I join others in thanking Tricia Marwick for securing the debate, which recognises the important role that transport plays in facilitating regeneration and sustainable economic growth.
I found the contributions of all members interesting. As I was brought up in Fife, albeit a wee bit further east, at Cupar, I echo many of the reminiscences of colleagues. My favourite line was when we went to Dundee. We would change at Leuchars and take the Tentsmuir train, which was a little tank engine with two wee coaches. However, enough of the past and more of the future.
I understand Fife Council's aspiration to reopen the Leven to Thornton rail link to and from Levenmouth, to provide travel opportunities for employment, business, leisure and tourism. The line first opened in 1854 and helped Leven to become a tourist resort popular with visitors from the west of Scotland, particularly Glasgow. The benefits of good transport links are anything but new. I note that the reopening of the Leven to Thornton rail link is one of Fife Council's top transport priorities and is considered to be vital to the regeneration of the Levenmouth area.
Claire Baker commented on housing. I spoke at a transport research conference in Glasgow this morning. One of the professors who spoke suggested that the value of housing that is adjacent to good transport links, particularly rail, can be as much as 20 per cent higher. That shows that there is a valuable link between housing and rail links.
Ted Brocklebank said that St Andrews is the only university city that is without a rail link. I find it slightly ironic that when the Borders rail link opens I will represent the only parliamentary constituency in Scotland that has neither a railway nor an airport. The package of additional money that we receive from the First ScotRail franchise renegotiation will enable us to provide, in the first instance, a virtual rail link to St Andrews from Leuchars. Such a link will be of value to that part of the country.
Iain Smith referred to the Newburgh rail halt. The station is still there, although it is derelict and incapable of use. I recall seeing it as I went past. When the Wormit station was still open, with the little branch up to Tayport, there was a park and ride that many people used. I used it, and I always felt that it was a short-sighted decision, when the main line finally came, not to move the station on to it.
Iain Smith referred to signalling, which is one of the big inhibitions to faster development of the rail network. Signal engineers are booked up throughout Europe. It is not a question of money—it is simply that there are too few signal engineers. Members can be sure that for the many developments that the Government is backing we will ensure that we have the right resources in place.
Fife Council and SEStran are working with Transport Scotland to take the Leven to Thornton proposal forward. It will be assessed using the Scottish transport appraisal guidance methodology. I welcome that approach and look forward with interest to the completion of the Levenmouth sustainable transport study. I commend the partnership working involved and the commissioning and funding of the study by SEStran. Rail developments will have a positive knock-on effect on the people of Fife.
Iain Smith mistakenly referred to the deleterious effects of opening a station at Gogar. The station at Gogar merely replaces the one that would have been underneath Edinburgh airport. Exactly the same number of additional stations are being provided for the network to Fife.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will in a minute.
The mileage between Edinburgh and Fife via the Gogar station is slightly less than the mileage via Edinburgh airport.
The Edinburgh airport rail link proposal, which the Government scrapped, would have created additional lines. Trains that stopped at the Edinburgh airport station would have been on a different line from trains that stopped at the Gogar station. The minister's position is therefore incorrect.
Members can be absolutely sure that I am well aware of the capacity issues. There is capacity on the rail link, and the provision of an additional signal in the middle of the Forth rail crossing will double the number of blocks that are available. That will not double capacity, but it will increase it.
The Leven to Thornton rail link will be a branch line that starts at Leven, comes in through the Thornton junction and goes on to Kirkcaldy. There is no need for additional capacity; there is plenty capacity and it will do the job.
Let us coalesce—I think that we are capable of doing so—around the idea that continued expansion of the rail network is a good idea. I use rail more frequently than I use any other mode of travel; members therefore have an enthusiast in the minister.
Achieving modal shift of freight is very important, as Chris Harvie said. The opening of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine route on 19 May will deliver the benefit of a reduction in rail congestion on the Forth bridge. That will free up paths, making them available for Fife services. Should we find ourselves proceeding with the Leven to Thornton link, the paths would be available.
John Park mentioned the Rosyth rail link. Of course, there is a rail link into Rosyth that goes very close to the ferry terminal. I see the merit in what Mr Park said, and I acknowledge that additional work would have to be done, but the basic infrastructure is present.
In the proposal for the Leven to Thornton link, we have a great advantage: we have a railway that has never been closed in legal terms. The proposal may therefore have particular benefits.
The challenge will be to ensure that the Office of Rail Regulation deals robustly with Network Rail's plans so that, at tier 3 and the high-level output specifications, the money is available for interesting and engaging projects. I look forward to seeing the results of the studies. On behalf of the people of Fife, I hope that they will show that the link is economically viable. If so, I will consider it with considerable interest.
Meeting closed at 18:07.