Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


'BAA will not lose much sleep over the axing'

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.

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: 27 September 2007
IT will come as no surprise today if the Government finally sounds the death knell to the ambitious plan to create direct rail links to Edinburgh Airport.
The scrapping of the £650 million EARL project has been on the cards ever since the new SNP Government reluctantly gave the go-ahead for the city's tram system. Since it, too, will serve the airport, there was a slim chance of both going ahead at a c
ombined cost of around £1.2 billion.

The recent cautionary note issued by Audit Scotland that the rail project may not have been properly costed proved the final nail in the coffin.

Despite Labour and the Liberal Democrats both still being in favour of the scheme, few others will mourn the decision not to go ahead with direct links from the city centre and central Scotland. While from a passenger point of view it is ideal to have a station within the airport, operator BAA will not lose much sleep over the axing of the project.

It has stated all along that the rail project was desirable rather than necessary, and did not see it as key to the future development of the terminal.

BAA is instead pushing for a direct road link from the M8 to facilitate its expansion plans, and despite the previous administration's apparent indifference to the suggestion last year, the operator has commissioned its own feasibility study into the project.

Nor is any decision to pull the plug on the scheme likely to have a detrimental effect on Edinburgh.

Travellers beginning their journeys in the Capital still have three choices - arrive by car, taxi, or airport bus with trams providing a fourth alternative when they come into service in 2010.

Those who will be put out most are people living in parts of the country with no major airport in close proximity.

To placate them, ministers are expected to announce the creation of at least one new station where passengers from the Dunblane and the Fife lines can alight near Gogar and continue their journeys to the terminal by tram.

Such a move would make sense in that it not only broadens access to the airport but makes trams a more fully integrated part of the public transport network.

But there is still a question mark over how best to serve rail passengers travelling to the airport from the west. Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson is expected to outline the SNP's approach to this later today.

If he should opt for stopping trains on the main Glasgow to Edinburgh line at Edinburgh Park and providing links to the airport terminal, there is a danger that this could have a serious impact on mainline service travel times.

To avoid this, it has been suggested eastbound trains are diverted on to the Fife line to a new station near the airport. But this could have a similar effect on some services.

Perhaps neither should be a priority. The west is already served by an international airport and will soon have a direct rail link of its own. Tram Line 3 or the South Sub would be of more use.



The full article contains 533 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 27 September 2007 9:04 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Edinburgh transport plans
 
1

Road Raga,

27/09/2007 11:37:38

Of course, the BAA make damn sure that it's London airports are properly served by public transport, they don't care a stuff about Edinburgh

2

Saturday,

the fife line 27/09/2007 11:38:46

I am glad someone has seen sense, in its proposed form it is a big mistake.

3

KDSUD,

Edinburgh 27/09/2007 12:17:01

The fact that BAA make a large chunk of their profits from parking charges may have a bearing.

4

eric,

Lothian 27/09/2007 12:35:35

Heathrow isnt linked up to the National network!
Im glad its scrapped .

5

Think Tank,

27/09/2007 12:55:55

#4 Eric

Heathrow has the "Heathrow Express" which runs on network rail and connects to the national rail network.

It is also on the Tube system which again connects seamlessly with the national rail network at multiple sites.

This is going to be the challenge- to seamlessly connect the tram to the national rail network- it's far better to do this at a revamped Haymarket or Waverley than a tiny two platform unmanned station at Gogar.

6

eric,

Lothian 27/09/2007 13:02:35

5 Not directly it doesnt.

7

Dobber,

Under You Bed! 27/09/2007 13:24:19

Bother!!!!

8

Mister Niceguy,

27/09/2007 14:09:28

#5 The time saving of changing at Gogar rather than Haymarket would be considerable. In comparison the delay of stopping some trains from the West at Edinburgh Park would be tiny.

9

Brad,

Glasgow 27/09/2007 14:54:39

#3, I think you've hit the nail there... BAA doesn't make much money from airlines, it's from parking and shopping!

10

Sye,

27/09/2007 14:54:40

not to mention the fact that people coming in from the west would need to head into the city (past the airport) then back out.. seems pointless.

11

truthsleuth,

South of the Border 27/09/2007 16:30:02

NO rail link to any airport should be provided at the taxpayers expense. They serve a PRIVATE organisation and should be paid for by the Airport Authority.
If the GARL was scrapped as well and the funds used toi build Scotlans share of a high speed rail link there would be far more benefit to all .
A good portion of the glasgow/Edinbugh southwards could be built bringing benefits to all.

12

Damian,

Edinburgh 27/09/2007 21:18:01

It is clear that EARL is being dropped because Network Rail was not supportive of it.

13

BobMac,

Edinburgh 28/09/2007 03:25:06

"Tram Line 3 or the South Sub would be of more use." Indeed, but Tram Line 3 should be diverted along the South Sub from Cameron Toll to join Lines 1 and 2 at Roseburn, west of Haymarket. This would:

a) provide a direct link for South Sub resident commuters to Shandwick Place and Princes Street (rather than the depths of Waverley) and also the ERI
b) remove the considerable expense of reconstructing the previous platforms as access is at rail level
c) reduce the need to lower tracks under bridges as the overhead voltage is only 700V DC not 25kV AC
d) take traffic off the roads, particularly the congested Bridges.

The tram route could be extended to Dalkeith, Penicuik, Newcraighall and Musselburgh along former rail lines, providing faster and more comfortable off-road journeys for these commuters as well.

This would solve both the South Sub restoration and Tram Line 3 provision problems at considerably lower cost and provide a far more useful outcome.

The existing South Sub freight rail line is very little used. Ouside Britain there are several locations where trams and freight trains share the same track.

14

Andy,

28/09/2007 07:25:52

#13 Low platforms would never be permitted while heavy freight runs along the sub so there would need to be the requirement for high-door trams like those in Manchester.

The onboard kit would also have to comply to main line standard which would add substantially to the cost. There's also the issue of adding in six unscheduled tram movements an hour onto a line with slow freight. Please don't underestimate how important the sub is just now to relieving almost all of this traffic from Waverley.

15

Miss Jean Brodie,

28/09/2007 14:22:05

comments, comments, comments and everyone an expert

’. . . operator BAA will not lose much sleep over the axing of the project.’

unlike the surrounding residents who have to put up with late night/early morning increase in flights - 24 hour major construction work on and around their properties - and comments from Joe airport fan boy and Rod the Kirkliston village idiot!


 

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.