4. The Funicular Railway
4.1 The Proposal
Faced with declining income from skiing, the Cairngorm Chairlift Company has devised a development
plan for the ski area. In August 1994 they submitted an application for planning permission to replace the Coire
Cas chairlifts with a single-track funicular railway which formed the centrepiece of their plan. The proposed railway
runs from the Day Lodge to the Ptarmigan restaurant via the Shieling complex on a concrete viaduct, operated by
a new company known as the Cairngorm Mountain Railway Company (CMRC). At a point 250m from the top it enters a
tunnel, from which the railway will arrive at the Ptarmigan. Figure 5. illustrates the funiculars' route and the
location of the 'cut and cover' tunnel.
Figure 5. The Ski Lifts & the Funicular Route
A stationary engine operates a funicular railway with the carriages driven by a continuous
chain or cable. They are common in the Alpine areas of Europe, but the only existing funiculars in this country
were built by the Victorians, such as the one found in Bridgnorth, Shropshire or the three remaining in Scarborough,
North Yorkshire. The proposed Cairngorm funicular would be the UK's first modern funicular, taking less than 5
minutes to complete the journey over a distance of 2km. In summer it would be able to carry 500 seated passengers
per hour, whilst in the winter the seats would be removed so that 1,200 skiers could then be carried every hour
(The Scotsman 1997). A funicular was proposed instead of a cable car system (or gondola) due to its ability to
operate in windspeeds more than 100mph. Modern cable cars are limited to wind speeds below 80mph, although whether
anybody would wish to ski or walk in these excessive winds in a matter of conjecture.
The construction of the funicular necessitates development of the associated buildings. The
day lodge would be transformed into the focal point for the resort. "A new entrance concourse on two levels
will provide access to ticket sales, shopping, ski hire, first aid station, educational facilities, restaurant
and bar areas, and of course the mountain railway" (CMRC 1996). The existing middle station, the Shieling
was designed to be built in two stages although only the first part was completed in 1985. The new plan is to complete
the second phase, including a 250-seat restaurant. Today the Ptarmigan restaurant is a small igloo-shaped building
adjacent to the top station that can cater for 50 people. The new building will be 4-5 times that size, consisting
of a 250-seat restaurant and a Cairngorms interpretation centre, intended to be the focus of the summer operation.
"The station will have two levels, in the skiing season only the upper level will be used and skiers will
disembark at the restaurant level, and then move onto the snow. In summer, the lower platform will be used, and
people will move into the interpretative centre" (Simpson 1998). CCC estimate that summer trade will increase
from approximately 50,000 to 225,000, with increases also occurring during the skiing season due to the "increased
passenger comfort, catering facilities and speed of access" (Simpson 1998). Whilst improvements will probably
halt the declining winter trade the large increase in projected summer visitors are more contentious, although
an immediate if temporary increase in tourists is almost guaranteed due to the funiculars unique nature. CCC also
hopes to attract corporate and private sector events.
The estimated cost of the whole project is around £15m, with funding coming from the
public purse, the EU and private investment. Whilst the public money has already been guaranteed the funding from
the EC has not yet being secured. This is due to a number of legal objections raised by WWF-Scotland and the RSPB,
which is discussed later.
4.2 The Impact of the Proposed Funicular Railway
It is anticipated that the funicular will have a substantial impact on the Cairngorms and
the surrounding Spey Valley. Whilst this dissertation considers the visual impact and access onto the plateau these
are not the only effects that will occur.
The Spey Valley is already one of Scotland's most popular tourist destinations and unlike
other areas this attraction is a year round industry due to skiing. Estimates of numbers vary between 675,000 and
1 million per year and consequently a large sector of the local economy is dependent upon tourism. Whilst an increase
in visitors would benefit the valley's other attractions the funicular's impact is "…somewhat double-edged.
If it damages the environment, then in the long-term fewer people may visit the area as a whole" (Simpson
1998). Naturally the other Scottish ski resorts have expressed concerns about the increased year-round competition,
but they have every right to feel aggrieved due to the large public grant CCC are to receive. Westbrook (1994,
1996) has undertaken detailed analysis into the economic impact of the proposal, although it must be noted that
on both occasions he was commissioned by supporters of the 'no' campaign. He estimates that there would be 87 full
time jobs created by the funicular at a cost-per-job of £138,851, against the 103 estimated by CCC at a cost-per-job
of £117,282. Both cost-per-job figures are considered high, and by comparison in 1992-93 the average cost
of tourism related jobs created by Highlands and Islands Enterprise was just £6,068.
Whether this represents value for money or not there is a feeling that the public money could
be used to benefit other more 'sustainable' tourism projects in the Highlands. Another £8m of public funds
has been allocated towards the £50m regeneration of Aviemore and the government sees the funicular proposal
as complementary to this (Scottish Office 1997). Simpson (1998) sees it differently, "…if so much is being
spent on redeveloping a Highland village, then people might as well be given a reason to go there."
The question of the funiculars economic viability has being raised. There is doubt amongst
the 'no' campaign that the railway will be able to match the visitor numbers predicted, thereby making it economically
unviable. The 200,000 visitors that CCC expect is higher than any other individual attraction in Scotland and many
fear "…that if given the go-ahead, this scheme would rapidly prove to be a white elephant" (WWF 1998).
In addition to the economic impact the funicular will have a number of environmental impacts.
Any construction or development in a delicate ecosystem such as the Cairngorms is going to have some sort of impact
on the environment, which is likely to be negative, whatever steps are taken to minimise the impact. Simpson (1998)
raised concern over the possible effects on the vegetation, the hydrology, and the wildlife caused by the construction
process and the increase in visitor numbers. Concern over the environmental impact is the basis for several of
the objections that have been raised and these are discussed below.
4.3 The Campaign against the Funicular
Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) objected to the original planning application. As a result
of discussions between CCC, the Highland Council and SNH a Tourism Management Plan (TMP) was created, known as
a Section 50 Planning Agreement. This gives SNH the right to veto any unforeseen developments that may threaten
the areas' ecology and with its implementation SNH withdrew their objection.
The TMP means visitors will be managed to a greater extent than CCC envisaged. Originally
it was planned for people to be able to walk back down the hill and further onto the plateau or participate in
ranger-led walks but the Section 50 agreement requires the top station to operate as a closed system outside the
skiing season, with the outside access restricted to an observation deck. Additionally, a sliding scale of car
parking charges will be introduced, with the intention of discouraging walkers from parking at Corie Cas and then
walking directly onto the mountains. The charges at Corie Cas will be prohibitively expensive for those wishing
to park for long periods, with cheaper parking available further back along the road at Glen More. With the TMP
in place Highland Council granted planning Permission for the Funicular on the 27 March 1997 but this was not the
end of the campaign against the funicular.
In November 1997 WWF-Scotland and the RSPB sought a judicial review from the High Court in
Edinburgh that if successful will prevent the funicular development. Their objections surround the 1992 EC Habitats
and Species Directive designed to protect and restore the most important natural habitats in Europe. The legal
action is based on the conjecture that the boundaries demarking the SPA are illegal. WWF (1998) commissioned Dr
Adam Watson "to survey the ski area with specific reference to the habitats listed in the Special Area of
Conservation citation for the Cairngorms.... His report gave rise to grave concern that the basis for deciding
boundaries under the European Habitats and Birds Directives was non-scientific, and therefore probably unlawful,
and that planning permission for the funicular prejudiced any future options to rectify this." In light of
this the RSPB and WWF took the matter to court on the basis that the omission of the ski area from the SAC was
on economic grounds and is thus illegal. These proceeding were adjourned in April and the judge has yet to make
a ruling.
It is important to state at this point that although the WWF and RSPB oppose the funicular,
neither is against economic development or skiing in the area, but "believe that both should be developed
and managed in a way that capitalises upon and supports the natural environment rather than undermines it"
(WWF 1998).
Last Updated 22-03-99