 Yn ymgyrch, o'r ffordd yn ddymarfod y cyfnod ar y cyfnod 14678, yn y maen nhw Jim Eadie, yn rhan i ddweud o'r edrych yng Nghyrch yn South Suburban Railway. Mae cyfnod o'r ffordd yn yn dangos i ddweud, rwy'n gweld arwinell ydi, ond mae'n digwydd i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud, ond mae'n ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud, команд Welshers who are leaving the debating chamber to do so quickly and quietly. Mr Edie, if you are ready, seven minutes are there by please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will move from the controversy of the budget debate to what I hope will be the consensus of this debate, which I am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the debate before Parliament this evening and thank members from across the chamber for supporting the motion in my name. I pay tribute to all of those people who have been involved in the campaign to reinstate the Edinburgh South Suburban Railway over many years. In particular, I would like to thank Lawrence Marshall of the Capital Rail Action Group, Crag, a constant and consistent advocate for the reinstatement of the South Sub, along with Paul Tetlaw and Colin Howden of Transform Scotland. It is their commitment and their dedication, which has kept this issue alive. The South Sub route has endless possibilities and potential. Reinstating the South Sub could act as a catalyst for an integrated transport plan for Edinburgh, one that is truly fit for the 21st century, one that our capital city both needs and deserves. The station at Gorgay could serve the heart of the Midlodian Football Club, Craig Lockhart could serve Napier University, Blackford and Newington, the University of Edinburgh and a new link to the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, stemming from the current South Sub station at Cameron Toll, would vastly improve the transport options for both patients and NHS staff and would serve the ever-expanding bio-quarter. Politicians calling for the reinstatement of the South Sub have come and gone. Indeed, I am reminded of the train journey on the South Sub line that was organised by Lawrence Marshall in 2000, which included former MSPs Margo MacDonald, David McClechey and Robin Harper. I can be alone in thinking what a fantastic journey that must have been in the company of three of the best politicians this Parliament has produced. Who knows if their journey that day was on track or whether it went off the rails. However, I am pleased that the cross-party consensus that was alive that day has continued to the present day. I have always been convinced that there has been a good case for reopening the line. After meeting last week with leading officials from Sheffield City Council and the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive to learn about the UK's first tram train development, I believe that there has never been a better time to look again at this issue. Edinburgh is set to experience an exponential growth in its population over the next 20 years, with studies showing that it will increase by almost 30 per cent if current trends continue. Those figures clearly show that we cannot continue with the current transport infrastructure in place and that new plans are needed to be brought forward. I am reminded of the words of Enrique Pena-Losa, former mayor of Bogwata, who states that a developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It is where the rich use public transport. This is where the south sub can play its part. The existing infrastructure is already there and is currently used to carry freight through the city. Previous studies have shown that if trains were to be reinstated, it could attract over 10,000 passengers every day. Consistently and without fail, our roads are congested during peak times and this option could help to drastically cut both congestion and travel time, taking more people off the road with undoubtedly help with meeting our carbon emission targets too. Of course, a business case needs to be made before we can start thinking about a functioning south sub. For this proposal to be successful, I believe that it has to be put into the wider context of what is best for the people, the environment and the economy of our capital city. However, we know from previous studies that the business case does exist. Journey times from Haymarket to Cameron Toll is, according to Travel Line Scotland, between 25 to 32 minutes. The south sub could do it in 15 minutes. The Atkins feasibility study of 2004 concluded that the south sub had the potential to have a benefit cost ratio of well over 1, 1.64, to be precise. I have met a number of key stakeholders, all of whom have expressed an interest in this project. Now is the time to revisit a feasibility study to see if the south sub is still viable, which I and countless others firmly believe it to be. I was pleased to have had a positive meeting with the leader of the City of Edinburgh Council, Andrew Burns, just before Christmas last year. I hope that the minister will agree to meet me and the leaders of the council to discuss the potential for a new feasibility study. However, before we get too far ahead of ourselves, it is necessary to address the logistical and other practical hurdles that would need to be overcome before this can become a reality. Reinstating the line using traditional heavy rail may be difficult given that Waverly is almost at full capacity, something that the minister has confirmed in correspondence to me. However, using a tram train that would use both rail lines and the tram network may and I stress may be the best way forward. Tram trains would be technically feasible, the technology is not new and has a proven track record in Europe and will be trialled for the first time in the UK in Sheffield from 2017. However, there are issues with the solution. Platforms, as we know, trains have high platforms and trams of low platforms. If the south sub was to run on both rail and tram lines, the tram train would need to be able to lower itself so that vehicles are accessible for disabled people. Voltage is another issue, just yesterday I was emailed by a constituent to remind me of this point. I won't get too technical here, but suffice to say, heavy and light rail run in two different types of voltage, 750V DC and 25K AC. However, the tram trains being built for the Sheffield programme are dual voltage and can change through the flick of a switch. I am also aware of issues surrounding the existing infrastructure, signalling capacity, electrification and the need for refurbishment of existing stations for passenger use. In particular, the needs of disabled passengers would have to be accommodated. One of those challenges, that of electrification, is set to be addressed as the south sub line will be future proofed as part of Network Rail's control period 5 plan, which is currently under way. The other issues are not impossible to resolve but would have a cost attached to them. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Germany has used this model with some success, showing that a mix of heavy and light rail can utilise a city's infrastructure so new public transport links are available. What would a reinstated south sub look like? With capacity stretched at Haymarket and Waverley, the south sub could be reinstated fully, serving all the old stations between our two main hubs without having to enter into them. We could incorporate the current tram network into the existing south sub and also offer innovative expansion plans for our current tram network to enable the two links to meet and create a loop. A different phased approach is also possible with the introduction of a rail link between Waverley and Morningside via Portobello, then moving to tram trains with the introduction of a new light rail link to the ERI stemming from the opening of the south sub. We could see the south sub taking on a number of different forms over the coming decades, utilising the existing tram network or integrating with future tram extensions. The possibilities are endless if we think creatively. We have a massive opportunity over the coming months with talks on going over a city deal for Edinburgh and the wider city region. It is envisaged that the UK and Scottish Governments could commit £1 billion of investment, unlocking the potential for new and sustainable transport links. That could well be the answer for extending the transport network without having to raid the funds needed for other vital services while ensuring that, as the economic opportunities expand at the bio-quarter and King's buildings, that there is the light rail infrastructure to match. In conclusion, in reinstating the south sub, we have the opportunity to think big for Edinburgh and Scotland. Given the challenges facing Edinburgh over the next 20 years, I firmly believe that this is an idea whose time has finally come. Many thanks. I now call on Sarah Boyack to be followed by Cameron Buchanan. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I also intimate to colleagues that I have given notice to the Presiding Officer that I will leave early, but I promise to look at the official report afterwards, particularly the comments of the minister. I very much want to welcome Jimmy D's debate today and congratulate him for securing this debate. I also want to join with him in thanking the Capital Rail Action Group for their lobbying, their research and for keeping the flame alive of the south suburban route. It is potentially a transformative piece of infrastructure, and it is a huge shame that Edinburgh's suburban railway was closed to passengers in the 1960s. I know that my school driveway was the south sub. I know that there is a fantastic north Edinburgh cycle route that was our suburban railway network. If you think about the congestion and air quality problems that we have in the city and you compare us with other cities, it is a huge missed opportunity. The lack of access to rail is something that we need to think about. As Jim Meadius said, there are issues of adding capacity, issues of adding connectivity and the description of the loop that linked the university, Hart's football ground in Gorgie and the hospital. I would like to add on the issue of urban regeneration, in particular the issue of Craig Miller, an area that successive Governments have been looking to invest in. There is a real social justice and economic opportunity that would come from adding a new railway station in Craig Miller. Jimmy D was right to point to the work that has been done in Germany and Sheffield. The idea of tram train, I would also add the issue that Chris Harvey, a former colleague in this Parliament, used to talk about, of train bus. There are opportunities that are being looked at. It happens in Germany, it is being looked at in other cities in the UK, but this is a project that needs a champion or rather it needs a variety of champions in different organisations across the parties because the south sub has never been the top priority. It has never been straightforward as Jimmy D outlined tonight. I believe that it could be a game changer. If we have a partnership between Cestrans, we look at the city deal options, we bring the rail partners into play and we look at the connections between tram, bus, rail and active travel. It needs all those things to fit together, it needs us to have that vision but it needs more than cross-party support because I was the transport minister in the year 2000. I did not know about that historic trip on the south sub. We need all of us to work together and, crucially, we need the minister. I will miss his comments tonight, but I do hope that the minister will be looking at bringing people together, will play a part as the Scottish Government. It needs all of us to make this happen and the benefits would be for the citizens of Edinburgh. In my view what is good for the citizens of Edinburgh is good for the Lothian economy and it is good for the Scottish economy. For all those reasons and for green transport, this is a project whose time has come but it will not be easy and therefore we need everybody's support but, crucially, the minister's support. It is certainly welcome that we have this chance to discuss the reinstatement of the Edinburgh Southern Railway, submitted by my friend Jim Eadie. An upgraded transport infrastructure in the region I represent would be most welcome. This service could bring many benefits not just in Edinburgh South but across the Lothian region and even further afield. Furthermore, it is possible that the reinstatement could come at the cost that is eminently affordable when compared to other transport alternatives. Having said that, it is important that we do more than just talk about this Edinburgh Southern suburban railway if we are to establish the facts and make genuine progress. We need to aim towards concrete measures that represent an actual step forward. With this in mind, I suggest that we focus our effort on securing funding for a much needed feasibility study for the railway. The reinstatement of the Edinburgh Southern South suburban railway could bring a whole range of economic and social environmental benefits that some of the MSPs have already touched on. These could include a boost to employment, reduce journey times when travelling across the city and, of course, environment benefits from the decreased use of cars, not to mention the welcome implications for reduced traffic levels in our city and less dependence on expensive city centre parking spaces. I would also like to touch on the possible benefit that my Conservative colleague Myles Briggs has been raising awareness of, that this is the potential for an Edinburgh South suburban railway to serve as a university line. Fasting, as we have already heard, between the universities of Edinburgh, Napier and Queen Margaret would be a great boost for our city students, staff, businesses and other in the wider education sector. To date, this has not been mentioned cost benefits debate around the ESSR, so we should certainly continue to raise awareness of this positive aspect in partnership with the relevant stakeholders. It is rather a new line to take. As for the cost, this most recent study suggested that the reinstatement of passenger services could cost somewhere in the region of £18 million to £30 million. This is a large amount of money in itself, but we must remember to consider it in context. That context should be the wide range of both direct and indirect benefits that the railway would bring, as well as an understanding of the scale of recent budgets for transport projects. Given the scale of the reinstatement, though, I will reiterate my point that this must be crystal clear of the facts of the situation. This means that we must need a new comprehensive feasibility study. It is indeed useful to debate the ESSR here in Parliament, but we have talked about this for long enough, so we must make real progress and cross-party progress, too, in funding the new feasibility study. If only the Scottish Ministers were to allocate funding for a study, we would gain a fuller understanding of the services that could be gained and who would benefit, how they would benefit, and how much they would all cost. It is welcome that we have a cross-party agreement for the moment, anyway, on the potential of the railway, but let us take today's agreement and use it to make genuine progress. If the Scottish Government could commit to a funding study, we would see a genuine step forward towards the reinstatement of the railway, and I sincerely hope that the minister will step up to the plate. I, too, would like to congratulate Jim Eadie for securing this debate this evening. I would also like to thank the Capital Rail Action Group and Transformed Scotland colleagues for their right to point out the tremendous contribution that Lawrence Marshall, in particular, has made to the subject and Colin Howden and Paul Tetlaw. I sincerely hope that they are involved as we progress on this important issue. I think that this is a subject that is really close to my heart. It has been Edinburgh Green's policy for as long as I can remember. When I was looking back at the archives, if you have a quiet moment and you look on the Edinburgh Green's website, on 11 April 2007, we announced that reopening the south suburban railway line was a priority for local greens, but it is not just a priority for local greens. This is a project that attracted massive input from business and support. Back in 2007, almost half of the then £15 million anticipated cost was pledged from local businesses and including Edinburgh University. There is real support for this proposal, and I do not think that it would be difficult at all to gather that again. As we have heard, reopening the south sub would have multiple benefits for local people, for local business and for the environment. It would help us to tackle congestion, it is a convenient alternative to the car and taking buses. If you look at the route of the south sub, Waverly, Haymarket, Gorgie, Craiglock, Morningside, Blackford, Hill, Cameron, Toll, Craig Miller and Adrian Portobello, you are currently looking at taking buses into the centre in a lot of instances and then out again. That adds another dimension to Edinburgh's transport offering. A really important one is that Jim Eadie has highlighted the kind of locations and the impact that it would have on people travelling to see hearts and all the students who are currently using Napier University. I am not terribly surprised that the Atkins feasibility study pointed out a £1.6 benefit cost ratio. That is certainly an idea whose time has come and it is well worth another look. If the city continues to grow at its current pace, it is going to become essential. I am Edinburgh born and bred. I have spent my life in this city and there is no doubt at all that it is becoming increasingly gridlocked, so we do have to look at opportunities and alternatives. We also have to look at issues such as climate change, which is affecting us on a daily basis. There are benefits to looking at this scheme, too. We will not be starting from a standing start, as we have heard. Robin Harper, Margot Mcdonald, David McLeachie used the train not that long ago. I have visited the Morningside station myself in the not-too-distant past and the reason why I was visiting it is that people had been using the land beside what would have been the platform as an allotment. They were using that for some months and they were producing quite a lot of food, but Network Rail was concerned about the health and safety implications. That scheme came to a halt, but I think that it is important to suggest that it would be a far better use if that station was to reopen. Jimmy Dee who represents Edinburgh Sun will be only too well aware of what traffic is like on Morningside road. We are talking about nose-to-tail crawling along and people trying to reach various destinations from that neck of the woods. Jimmy Dee has also spoken about the developments in Sheffield. Technology is moving on all the time. It is fair to suggest that, in the 21st century, it is not beyond the wit of any progressive nation to make the most of an opportunity like this and to reopen the south sub. I am very pleased to work with anyone who is looking into this issue in the weeks, months and years ahead. I draw members' attention to my being the honorary president of the Scottish Association for Public Transport and honorary vice president of Rail Future UK. The light of that will be no surprise that I would always wish to engage in efforts to increase the availability and use of public transport. I, like others, congratulate Jim Eadie on giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject for Edinburgh. When I was Transport Minister I responded to a Gavin Brown debate on 3 December 2008 on the subject. At that time, I encouraged the City of Edinburgh Council to meet with me as Minister to discuss the issues around what were largely freight lines, although probably, if not less now, less shortly for passenger traffic. I do not recall that happening, so I am very much welcome hearing from Jim Eadie that the council is engaged in the issue. Jim Eadie referred properly to the issues of capacity and technical issues at our major stations. In particular, we ought to think too about the issues for those stations of our connecting them to a high-speed rail network that may have different technical standards and will certainly have issues for platform length and capacity. We need to make sure that we work hand in glove to make sure that, if we do something on the suburban rail network, we do not compromise our ability to connect to a high-speed rail network in the future. Would South Suburban rail network line be of our? Yes, of course it would. Can it be done easily? No, it cannot, for many of the reasons that Jim Eadie referred to. It is worth saying on platforms that the issues are perhaps not quite as big as it has been suggested. In most cases, it has simply been a question of putting a low platform at the end of the heavy rail high platform. That is the solution that has been adopted elsewhere, because that depends on the being land available at the stations concerned. The motion says that we should explore the viability of reopening the line for passenger use. We certainly should do that. I absolutely agree with that. There has always been a need in Edinburgh for an inner or perhaps middle circle around Edinburgh so that people, precisely as Alison Johnstone referred to, do not have to come into the middle to just get in another bus to go back to the outside. I think that that has always been the missing link. That is why, in many ways, we were uncomfortable as a political party with the trams proposal that ultimately got implemented. Not because trams are a bad idea, but the route was not the one that perhaps was most urgently needed. Perhaps the route of the suburban railway is the one that we need most urgently. The one thing that we know is that when you put rails down in your untrends on them, people come and use them. There is not a single development in the last couple of decades that has not significantly exceeded estimations. Of course, that is in part because the model that estimates passenger usage is not a good model, so it is a GB network model and it is an issue that we need to deal with. I was delighted as ministers to be photographed with Madge Elliot down in the borders in my time. Of course, that single individual saw from the last train that ran to the reopening recently of the borders realm. I cannot talk about railways in Edinburgh without making the point that none of my communities in my constituency are anything less than one and a half hours bus ride away from a railhead. My support for the proposal is entirely conditional on you also talking about and thinking about the Buckton rail link. I conclude by saying that my enthusiasm for railways is substantial. My wife's Christmas present to me this year was David Spavin's railway act less of Scotland. I commend it to you all. It shows what railways used to be like. Let's try and get some of the way back to where we were. Not all the old railways were worth restoring, but many of them are Edinburgh, South Suburban, but even more important, Buckton rail. Wonderful. Mr Stewart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like other members, I congratulate Jim Eadie and his initiative in gaining today's debate. I welcome the opportunity to speak in debate, brought forward by Jim Eadie. As other members have done, I want to thank the Capital Rail Action Group and Transform Scotland for their on-going campaign work, aiming to reinstate the Edinburgh, South Suburban railway, which I strongly support. It seemed to me when I was thinking about today that what we've got here is really a beaching in reverse. I think that some members were hinting that it was actually beaching that it was responsible for closing the original rail link, but here we go. Last week, I had the opportunity to speak to Transform Scotland's first of their transport hosting meetings. At that time, I talked about the importance of looking at reinstating previous lines. Obviously, Borders rail was one that flagged up and I think that's been a great initiative. I also want to note the timing of this debate in light of the national transport statutory support that was published just two weeks ago, which revealed that the use of public transport in Scotland is down 6 per cent since 2006, while traffic on our roads is up 2 per cent. Although I do note that rail was up 29 per cent, which is something that I'll be speaking to some of the rail players tonight about. That's something that's very positive. Within Edinburgh, the Capital Rail Action Group cites data from the Tom Tom Traffic Index, which was a new index to me, which measures the impact of congestion in a city's travel times by road. That shows Edinburgh to be the world's fifth most congested small city, and it defines small cities as population under 800,000. When you take into count cities of all sizes, Edinburgh is actually the third most congested in the UK and only London in Belfast of worst levels of congestion, and it's the twelfth most congested city in Europe. Edinburgh must be one of the only capital cities in Europe that doesn't have the model of suburban rail system that we have talked about. Clearly that would have a big effect upon congestion. I don't have time, Presiding Officer, to talk about low-emission zones, but I think I can see how that can relate in while proceeds from that can go to local authorities to help to look at sustainable transport. The last feasibility study undertaken looked at reinstating the passenger service on the ESSR suggested that if trains were to run every 15 minutes, as the infrastructure currently remains, and allows for up to 60 freight trains per day, the line could attract up to 13,500 people daily. I would strongly agree with Jimmy D's estimation that south sub would do dramatically cat congestion and travel times within Edinburgh by helping to meet with our carbon emission ambitions. Transport Scotland has previously stated that it must wait for an official business case and structure before it can take the project forward. It is not that it can deny the success of the hybrid tram train models in other European countries. I think that most members have mentioned the great practice across the world on that. If we look at Bordersrail reopening, which I touched on earlier, it has already reached 650,000 annual passengers, which is fantastic. We must give praise about that new issue. I touch on the point that Stuart Stevenson made about looking at the methodology for predicting passenger numbers. That is something that we have to look at in the longer term. Germany is one of the best examples of tram train operations. It has seen a tremendous influx in patronage. Before tram trains in Germany, there were around 2,000 daily trips, and that is currently 18,000 monitoring along the same corridor. Best practice is there. It is a great initiative, and I would wholeheartedly support the initiative in providing relief to congestion in Edinburgh and tackling our climate change issues that we have to address. I, too, would congratulate Jimmy Day on securing this debate. It raises issues that are important to communities in and around Edinburgh. His fundamental ask, apart from his reinstatement of totally of the south sub rail connections, was for a meeting that I am happily minded to agree to a date in my diary to take that issue forward by way of discussion. However, I would stress that it would be important to bring the council leader as well, because it is very important to have that local engagement. What would detect in the chamber that cross-party consensus that this is an idea that is worth taking forward? Frankly, there must be clear evidence support locally and a willingness to see where that would go next. A feasibility study for its own sake is worthwhile, but there is, of course. I understand that the Scottish Government has to operate within the constraints of feasibility and affordability, but the Scottish Government has been ambitious with other transport infrastructure projects. All that the Lothians MSPs are asking is that the Government keep an open mind on the issue that it thinks outside the box, that it is prepared to look at innovative ideas that will contribute to the success not only of Edinburgh but of Scotland. I agree to have a meeting that shows that I am indeed open minded, although we have no plans to fund the project at the moment. That is the point that I want to return to, but it is certainly worth considering the information that is there. The willingness from both the transport partnership and the council—indeed, if there is any willingness to take that forward, I need to hear that from those organisations. I believe that Jim Eadie is very passionate about the project, which is probably the number one issue that he raises with me regularly. He explained that it is about the opportunity, the economic and environmental connections that could be made. In fairness, he identified some of the challenges and how people may be able to think creatively about how they can be overcome. Sarah Boyack is not here to hear that I have agreed to have a meeting, but it does have the potential to be transformative and it will require a variety of champions and then said over to you minister. I like the plurality of that position that it will need a number of people to support if it is to go any further forward. Cameron Buchanan talked about the affordable nature of the project, but I can already identify that the costs that you have identified are different to the figures that I have. He immediately raised his questions about the cost of the scheme, hence I suppose a request for a feasibility study. Alison Johnstone spoke about the Edinburgh Green website. It is not a website that I am regularly on, but I am happy to have a look to understand more of the local support. For the issue that has been expressed by members from across the political spectrum, and indeed there are issues around land use and localism. Even if that is not going to be progressed with any speed not to be prejudiced against it, at least there is protection for the land and the halls to ensure that the option is there for the future, even if not now. Stuart Stevenson spoke about his ministerial experience, the importance of council engagement or, in a way, lack of it that it was not deemed by the local authority to be their number one priority. All I can say is, in the discussions that have been had around transport strategies and potentially a city deal or a deal for this part of the country, it has not been raised with something that is seen as a priority for that authority. I think that if it is a priority, it will certainly have to say so, and maybe that is why the meeting will be of assistance with the local authority. Of course, many members have touched on the popularity of rail, not least Stuart Stevenson, as well as David Stewart, who I have spoken about the success story that is real right now. That is very accurate. The patronage has increased and border rail is one of many success stories in terms of investment. Curiously, this is the first time that David Stewart has not mentioned the Highland Main line when it comes to investment in rail, which just goes to show that everyone has their own interests and can put them to one side, apart from Stuart Stevenson, who, of course, managed to get in the Bucking rail connection. I know that there are demands from across the country to invest in rail, that is because of the popularity of it, because it is more sustainable. It delivers that modal shift that we all want to see and indeed can be affordable, but it does come at a cost. There are huge subsidies to rail, but still with electrification, a form of transport that we absolutely support and have invested in, to the tune of £5 billion, of course, with more to come. There is work on going and looking at the potential of electrification of that route, albeit for potentially freight at the moment. Jamidy's interest in freight is well established through the committee work and is aware of freight use on the line as well. All members have spoken very highly about rail, and I would agree with that as transport minister. There are other investments that will benefit Edinburgh, such as the Edinburgh and Glasgow improvement project, which is a substantial investment that will enhance the rail provision for the city and indeed the central belt. You know when those new… My apologies. The minister may recall the very ingenious engineering solution that was associated with electrification at Paisley canal, where the price was brought down to about a third of the original budget, by putting a dead section in which it was unpowered. Does the minister agree with me that there is a lot of great engineering out there waiting to be applied to getting a price of some of our infrastructure developments down to affordable levels, while not in and of itself being a magic wand? Stuart Stevenson is absolutely right, but with the 42 seconds that I have left, I do not think that I can cover that. Take as long as you want, minister. Well, thanks for that. I do not think that you really want me to go on at great length. What I will say is that there are on-going reviews into the operation of network rail, how it does its business, engineering costs and potential further devolution of rail to Scotland and in all of that, including the costs of network rail and the alliance that we have in Scotland. There is certainly much more that I would like to see us do in terms of challenging cost and rolling out the good work that was established in the Paisley canal connection and further rolling out the investments in infrastructure in rail in Scotland. However, if I can return to rolling stock, when we have the new trains, the electric trains, the Hattachi trains coming to Scotland and the further use of the high speed rail within Scotland, those routes are already established, we will have more trains in Scotland than ever before. I think that that is a great investment and the biggest ever investment in new rolling stock is being delivered at the same time, so there is massive investment in rail. It is a success story. There is also on-going work at the moment in terms of cross-boundary transport studies, in terms of current and projected future travel demand in the south-east of Scotland, of course, including Edinburgh. I think that that can help to inform some of that work potentially too. However, as I say, it will require the local authority and the transport partnership to reflect the consensus that I have heard in the chamber today, and they have to say that this is a priority for them to have any realistic prospect of moving on beyond a feasibility study for its own sake. However, I have committed to discussing that in detail with partners in the spirit that has been raised in this chamber. We are actively looking at our investment options for the future in terms of rail beyond the control period of 2019. I have touched upon the planning process and the electrification options before in the chamber that we are looking at for the country's rail infrastructure. The location is a potential for electrification, but it is for the freight use at the moment, and we can have further discussions around passenger use, even though we have no immediate plans. I think that there is certainly scope to have that more detailed conversation in view of the variety of transport conversations and dialogue that is happening at the moment, be it city deal aspirations, be it the wider transport study that I have suggested and the next control period. To be as constructive as I can be, I am happy to meet and take the issue further, but I give a very strong message as Minister. I would want to see clear evidence from the transport partnership and the city council that this is a priority for them in that it can be taken seriously and not just seen as a nice to do a wish list from members. However, my sense is certainly from Jim Eadie that it is a priority for Jim Eadie and his constituency that other parties have joined in on that. Therefore, I will give it further attention within the limitations that all members have very fairly reflected on this evening. Very good. Many thanks. Thank you all for taking part in this important debate.