I REFER to the letter from Brian Lamb (April 22) regarding the so-called sustainable railway. Whilst I am not opposed to the principle of the railway project, I think there are several problems in its execution — the devil is in the detail, as they say.

Firstly, travelling from Tavistock to Plymouth (as most commuters would probably like to do) is likely to be very expensive and slow.

Most people already know that we have the most expensive rail network in Europe. I heard that the Tavistock-Bere Alston line is likely to have a separate rail operator to that used from Bere Alston to Plymouth. I also heard that you will have to change at Bere Alston if you want to get from Tavistock to Plymouth by rail.

Unless I have managed to get my facts completely wrong (perhaps someone can enlighten me), this will mean that most commuters will find it cheaper and quicker to travel to Plymouth by car.

The current 'anytime' one-way fare costs between £3.80 and £4.20 from Bere Alston to Plymouth alone, let alone the link to Tavistock.

Secondly, I feel that this rail link will not be sustainable. Industry and most importantly, employment, has developed in our area around the current road network. Imagine the scenario of a commuter arriving in Plymouth train station and having to travel by bus to the outskirts of Plymouth — not at all practical.

I know there are other travellers apart from commuters to consider, but they will be the main money earners for the rail operators.

Whilst I would love for there to be a decent rail link into Plymouth, sadly I think it's doomed to fail. For me, it would be far better to invest in our unreliable and expensive bus network than to spend on something that may become a white elephant. Improving the bus network would have the same net effect on the environment as the train.

Phil Perkin

Tavistock

YOUR correspondents taking issue with me over my reference to the need for a credible business plan for a restored rail connection from Tavistock to Bere Alston have been bedazzled by the heavy propaganda put out by the would-be developers, seeking a potentially valuable planning consent. Let's have a reality check.

1: There is no necessary connection between building 750 houses in appropriate places and the provision of a renewed rail link.

If we need either or both, then a proper business plan/social case should be made for either or both separately.  Mixing them up merely confuses the issue, and raises doubts as to the motivation of both. (Occam's Razor law applies — two bad arguments do not make one good one).

Rail proposals should be made by Network Rail and a service operator willing to take on the responsibility of building and operating the system, and housing by the local authority (whoever it's going to be)  and contracts awarded following open tendering.

Private deals with a favoured developer are, in the light of the policy of openness emerging in such matters, now taboo.

2: Kilbride's proposal to fund the initial £18-million from the build means that on average each house would have to contribute £25,000 over and above the  real cost plus profit. Let the buyers beware!

The timing and availability of money, houses and railway is to say the least obscure. Powerful and enforceable guarantees are needed to ensure it all happens.

3: The service so far offered by the scheme is inadequate to suggest that enough new business could be generated to meet its cost. Those who say it would 'of course' need subsidising must just look at the bankrupt state of the national finances — largely caused by a spendthrift Government happiy lashing out borrowed money on a large range of ill-thought- out and badly managed projects.

I could develop this discussion much further, including more realistic proposals for a Tavistock link, but space does not permit here.

Geoffrey M Stowell