RAILWAY SERVICES, MIDLOTHIAN AND PEEBLES (Hansard, 19 October 1950)

§ Mr. Pryde (Midlothian and Peebles)

I should like to draw the attention of the House to a matter which is causing grave concern and a great deal of inconvenience to my constituents in Midlothian and Peebles. The Minister has had a very heavy week, and I am loath to detain him tonight, but the reason is simply the luck of the draw. The fact is that the powers that be that control road transport express a certain vagueness as to the whereabouts of the upper Tweed Valley, the centre of part of the trouble. Although the local authorities both in Peebles-shire and Lanarkshire went to great lengths in order to publicise the grievances which affect these two parts of Scotland, the powers that be that control road passenger transport expressed the view that they could be more clearly dealt with in the columns of the "Scotsman." I raise this matter here to obtain a clear explanation of the position.

We simply request that the policy of Nationalisation shall be implemented and that we shall get service. Our grievance goes back far beyond vesting day. In my lifetime I have seen seven branch-line passenger services withdrawn in Midlothian and Peebles, six under private ownership and one since vesting day. These were services on the L.N.E.R., and the L.M.S., and included the two Dolphinton lines and Lauder line, the Balerno line, the Glencorse line, to which I shall refer later, the Gifford line, and, since vesting day, the Peebles-Symington line.

The Peebles-Symington line, with which I am primarily concerned, is probably the most beautiful stretch of railway line in the whole of Scotland. I was surprised at the controlling interest in Scotland expressing some doubt regarding the whereabouts 2374 of the Upper Tweed Valley. This railway line threads the beautiful valley to the west of Peebles. It is the dollar road, because it is very attractive from the point of view of the tourist trade. Americans come to Prestwick, and they could bring their luggage down this railway. This line connects Peebles to the west with the great railway system which runs from both Edinburgh and Glasgow down to England. Business men in Peebles utilised the line very often because it saved the 25 miles journey to the North to connect with L.N.E.R. trains to the East coast, when possibly their business was on the West coast.

The line also served the great sheep rearing country which lies to the west of Peebles-shire. Possibly the most prominent and lucrative part of the sheep industry in Scotland is situated in this area. Lonely shepherds in the valleys and on the tributaries of the Tweed knew that trains ran on that line at certain times and could allow themselves ample time, even in the most inclement weather, to make their way from their homes to the station knowing that there was always shelter if they arrived too early for the train. There was always a friendly railway servant to take care of a bicycle or motor cycle, or, even a motorcar.

It is a very different matter since the passenger service has been withdrawn. The shepherds now have to make for a bus stop, and the facilities which the railway offered are not at their disposal. There is not a bus shelter in the whole of the two counties of Midlothian and Peebles and that in face of the fact that under private enterprise the Scottish Motor Traction Co. was a power in the City of Edinburgh and outside the city. Today the Opposition are shouting for 300,000 houses against 200,000, when there is a shortage of building materials. We are now faced with the fact that we have to impinge on this shortage with which we are faced to build bus shelters because of the withdrawal of these branch lines.

I think I have demonstrated that the railway line between Peebles and Symington served a very useful purpose. I think that here we have an argument for the contention that while it may not be possible for us to make it a commercially paying proposition, in the national interest this service should be run and I think the 2375 Minister should give due consideration to it. The bus service could not possibly meet the same needs as the railway service. Two years ago I petitioned the road passenger services to institute a service in the Broughton-Biggar area. They persuaded the Ministry that the roads were not "suitable." When I demonstrated that the S.M.T. Group ran bus services on far worse roads, they fell back on the argument that it would not be a paying proposition. I am sure that nationalisation did not imply that every passenger service would be a paying proposition, because if we are to shut down all the branch lines on our railways and only run passenger services on paying routes, then we are only going to run buses between Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Before the war these branch railway lines in Peebles and Midlothian were a great attraction for excursionists from the West of Scotland. Railway servants inform me that on a Saturday evening in the town of Peebles there were nine excursion trains; and, curious to relate, after this branch line was closed to passenger traffic in June this year an excursion travelled up from Wishaw and Motherwell with 300 people on board, proving conclusively that the people from the West of Scotland always regarded Peebles as a magnet.

I think if any initiative had been used at all by this line it could have been made a paying proposition. We are told by some railway officials, "We can save expenses if we withdraw passenger services and only run goods, because the same care is not required." I have consulted platelayers and surface-men on this point, and they tell me that that is all nonsense and that the same care and maintenance must be instituted for the transit of goods as is required for the transit of passengers. I hope that that is a correct statement; otherwise it will be a great reflection on our railway system.

Yesterday this House heard the Minister of Transport give a most masterly exposition of the Report of the Transport Commission. I sensed the glow of satisfaction when he said that 1,000,000,000 people were carried on British Railways last year without the loss of a single life, and I am asking the Minister to see that that policy is instituted in Midlothian and 2376 Peebles. It is a great compliment to our railway service and to the efficiency of our people that 1,000,000,000 people have been carried without loss; but on the other hand, if we are going to dispense with our railway system and fling all the passenger traffic on the roads, then, from the point of view of safety, it is time we were back again with the railway system.

While the argument may be put forward that it is more convenient to travel by bus, at the same time not even the Lord Advocate will deny that it is not so comfortable as by train. Every morning if one travels from the centre of Midlothian to the City of Edinburgh one finds that the bus service cannot lift all the passengers. I suggest that we again revert to endeavouring to stimulate passenger traffic on the railways. Recently we were told that there were to be two extra trains on the old L.N.E.R. line between Edinburgh and Peebles. I went to Waverley station to see the notices and advertisements, and to see if the railway authorities were taking proper care of the system. I saw notices advertising extra trains to Newcastle, York and London, but no mention of the extra trains that were to be run to Galashiels. There was a bald statement in the Press that two trains would be run, commencing on 1st October, as an experiment, and that if they were not a success they would be withdrawn.

I suggest that to introduce a new service in the winter, and to hold a pistol at the heads of the people shows a lack of business acumen on the part of those controlling the railways in Scotland. In Midlothian we have the finest body of anglers in Scotland. Every Saturday during the season they go to the Clyde and Tweed and the tributaries of those rivers to indulge their past-time. If the trains were put on in the summer time there would be a big volume of traffic, because these people prefer to travel by train rather than bus; there is more accommodation, and their equipment does not get broken. The experiment should be made in the summer rather than the winter to get a fair examination of whether the two extra trains are patronised or not.

I want to draw attention to the old line connecting Peebles with Edinburgh. Eight days ago, at a public meeting I addressed in Peebles, I was told by a 2377 member of the audience that there was information to the effect that the branch line between Edinburgh and Galashiels via Peebles would be closed. This would leave Peebles without a railway at all. The train from Edinburgh to Galashiels only stops at the little village of Eddies-ton, five miles north of Peebles, in the morning and at night. My constituents in Eddleston have a difficult job to get to their work. On Saturdays, while they can get a train into Edinburgh, they cannot get one back, and they cannot get a bus either, because the new colonies and townships prevent them boarding a bus which will drop them at Eddleston.

I have a letter from a constituent telling me that there was one variation to that rule. One Saturday they were able to travel from Edinburgh and get off at Eddleston. He tells me it was because a prominent railway executive was going to Eddleston to address a garden fête in the grounds of a local pub—it was a Conservative affair—and that allowed them to get off the train at Eddleston on that particular Saturday. Every other Saturday they have to go five miles beyond their destination to Peebles, and then try to get a bus back to Eddleston. I think I have demonstrated that there is sound ground for the grievances expressed by the people in Peebles.

I want now to turn to Midlothian, and I am going on the attack now. I ask the Minister to see that the passenger service on the Galashiels-Glencorse line runs. It travels by Gilmerton, Loanhead, Roslyn, Glencorse, and the terminus is a mile inside the boundary of Penicuik. There, at the terminus of that line, we have the National Coal Board, and the local authority, building nine hundred houses, and here is the real site of the station for Penicuik; because the other line follows the east bank of the South Esk and strikes Penicuik at its southern point and comes in a great distance from the residential part of the town. Round about the station at Roslin, the county council has built houses, and Loanhead town council has built houses beside the station. This could possibly be re-opened to passenger traffic, but the timing of the trains in this constituency is ridiculous in the extreme.

Prior to 1st October, the last train left Edinburgh for Peebles at about 5 o'clock 2378 —5.5 to be exact—and if one left Glasgow at 4 o'clock the train usually got in just in time for the intending passengers to Peebles to see their train leaving the platform. It was scheduled to enter Waverley station a minute past 5 o'clock, and if it was late passengers just missed the connection. From Inverness, the train arrived at 5 o'clock and if late at all—as was often the case—the Peebles train had gone. In the case of Aberdeen, there were two trains, one arriving forty minutes too quick, and the next, fifty minutes too quick. In Peebles-shire there are industrial firms which find it absolutely necessary to maintain contact, especially by rail, to carry on their business; but we find dislocation of the traffic, and here is a question which the local people in Scotland should not have to ask.

Far be it from me to tell anyone how to do his job, but I must represent my people and I think those people have a very sound grievance in this respect. The alternative to the railway system is an adequate bus service. On the western portion of Peebles-shire we have succeeded in getting two bus services, but the unfortunate feature is that they run at only ten minutes of a difference; and then there is a two hours' wait. If the rural area is to be properly served these services are in need of adjustment and this should be done.

In Peebles-shire we have a diminishing population on the land, and the lack of transport, although not the sole determining factor, is a great contributory factor to this wastage. De-rating is also a great contributory factor, and the two taken together clearly indicate that agriculture in South-East Scotland stands in grave danger unless we, as Parliamentarians, give it the necessary assistance.

The country should see that the rural areas are served as I request, because the young people are not going to do what their grandfathers did. The day has gone when they were content to see the Rangers and Celtic or Hibs. and Hearts on New Year's Day. They want to see these great football combinations every week, the same as the people of the urban areas can. Why should not they? Is there any reason? The people in the rural areas, I think, perform a great task in the economics of this country. We 2379 recognise that especially in Scotland. I suggest that it is our job to see that they get a little compensation for the loneliness which they have to put up with all the year round. We are certainly giving them many benefits which previously under Tory Governments were denied them.

We were the last district in Scotland to commence electrification of our rural areas and I see no reason why transport in Midlothian and Peebles should not be brought up to a standard competent with the requirements of the district. What actually is taking place in this area is this. The powers that be, not only in transport but in other departments, are failing to take cognisance of the fact that in South Scotland, there is a mass movement of population from the West to the East and that the people want amenities.

There is no question about it that the Minister will say that if we are going to open the branch railways, how are we going to make them pay? That is not my job. I am not going to teach any man his business. It is not my job at all. That is the job of the people who are in charge of transport. But I say this in all sincerity. Less than 20 years ago one could get from Bonnyrigg to Edinburgh on a Saturday for eightpence return while the fare now is 1s. 8d. But there was this essential difference. Hundreds of people travel on the railways from Bonnyrigg, Newtongrange, Gorebridge, Roslin and Rosewell, and even if they only get a thousand people it is far better than getting a few dozen people paying 1s. 8d., as they are doing today.

What I firmly believe, and I have preached it for years, is that the wages of railway servants cannot in future be related simply to the goods which they carry, because from my own constituency we can send a vanload of banknotes and a vanload of food-wrapping paper, and they probably get as much for the one as the other. It is not my job to teach the Minister the financial economics of the thing; I want simply to see that under nationalisation we get service. That I think is the aim and object of nationalisation.