AN ENGLISH body has been accused of behaving like the Chuckle Brothers with regard to its responsibilities over old rail bridges in Scotland.
Highways England (HE) caused an outcry at the turn of this year when it announced it was going to infill or demolish over 100 bridges in the UK, including some in Scotland earmarked for sustainable travel.
Following inquiries by the Sunday National this week, HE has now made an apparent U-turn over its infilling plans but protestors have warned the reprieve may be only temporary.
They have called on the Scottish Government to act in the “face of a threat by the UK Government” to infrastructure that could well have value, is in reasonable condition and does not need to be put beyond use instead of being repaired.
The Historical Railways Estate (HRE) Group says that even though work on some of the threatened bridges has been paused, others are still in danger, including one in Dumfries and Galloway where a proposed infill would cut off a smallholder from a chunk of his land as well as destroy a wildlife corridor. Tilkins bridge also has the potential to host an extension of the Annan-Chapelcross rail trail.
Others that were under threat include three bridges over a former railway line in East Renfrewshire, needed for the proposed Neilston-Uplawmoor Community Link and Lochanhead bridge on the Dumfries/Stranraer line which may be brought back into use as an operational railway to improve freight connectivity.
Also on the list was the Grade C listed Pugeston Bridge in Angus, which the HRE Group say is needed for a planned extension of the Caledonian heritage railway, and a bridge in north Glasgow which spans a route identified by the city council as having strategic potential for active travel.
However HE’s Historical Railways Estate Director, Richard Marshall, said: “In Scotland, we have paused all infilling schemes where we have been made aware of future potential walking, cycling or heritage rail plans. We recognise these structures have a wider social value, and as we’re not funded to repurpose them, we welcome the opportunity to transfer these structures to other parties who are better placed to finance or rekindle the routes.
“We are finishing one partial infilling scheme where access has been retained to accommodate Route 73 of the National Cycle Network at Knockentiber, with Ayrshire Roads Alliance engineers inputted into the design that has been taken forward.
“We are currently looking to transfer three bridges on the former Lanarkshire and Ayrshire railway line, as well as the Grade-C listed Pugeston Bridge on the former Aberdeen railway in Angus, to use as future walking and cycling routes.”
However Graeme Bickerdike (below) of the HRE Group said he thought the reprieve was “a lot of fog” and would only be temporary.
“HE have been saying for six months they need to be infilled for safety reasons yet suddenly they are able to pause the majority of them,” he said.
“What that says to me is that for the last six months all they have been doing is perpetuating deceit. The bridges are either safe or they’re not – carrying out a review or transferring them to some other body doesn’t change that. They have handled this like the Chuckle Brothers – it is just incompetence.”
Bickerdie added: “It is not driven by engineering need, it is not driven by public safety, it is their policy because they are risk averse and would rather spend £145,000 infilling a bridge with tonnes of concrete and putting it beyond use than repair it for £20,000.
“Everything they are saying seems to pose more questions about their competence. It’s a shambles.”
Bickerdike called on the Scottish Government to ask more “robust” questions of HE, which is owned by the UK Government and manages the Historical Railways Estate on behalf of the Department of Transport (DfT). Of the 3100 historic structures in the UK around 600 bridges, viaducts and tunnels are in Scotland.
“The decisions made by HE have the potential to impact on the ability of people in Scotland to deliver a better future,” he said. “The Scottish Government has been leading the way when it comes to promoting the green agenda but there is a body in England making decisions that could affect their plans. You would expect this matter to be devolved and I am sure the Scottish Government would manage these structures in a much more pragmatic way.
“It is remarkable that HE is allowed to determine the future of structures in Scotland that have value for sustainable transport provision.”
Bickerdike added: “I don’t think for the moment the bridges are being reprieved. What they are saying is they are pausing them while they look again at what the options are but that doesn’t change their policy which is to rid themselves of the liability and any assessment they make will be made with that policy in mind.
“I think they are buying themselves time to turn the heat down. Then in a few months’ time they will come back and say we have looked again and we think our infilling decisions are absolutely right and we are going to move forward with those.”
A spokesperson for the Scottish Government said: “It is Highway’s England/DfT responsibility as the bridges concerned are not part of the live railway estate.
“The bridges form part of disused elements of the railway estate that weren’t transferred to Scotland at the time rail powers were conferred. The DfT retained responsibility for their upkeep and this then passed to Highways England. Scotland has never held responsibility for them.
“We do know, however, that Highways England consult the relevant local authority before infilling any bridges.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel