Most funicular railways across the world are supported by steel rather than concrete structures. Following my series of posts in 2021 asking if the repairs to the funicular would work (see here), I decided to investigate further the reasons why the funicular was constructed out of concrete to understand the repair work better and the likely future costs.

I will set out what I have found over three separate posts:

• the first on how the decision was taken to use concrete;
• the second a detailed examination of the costs of steel compared to the costs of concrete;
• the third on the real reasons why HIE chose concrete over steel and the implications for the future

Why steel – what HIE told the Public Audit Committee

Prior to producing their report into the funicular controversy in 2010, members of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Audit Committee met with three representatives of Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE):

Mr Keith Bryers, Head of Property and Infrastructure, and Mr Sandy Brady, acting Chief Executive Officer Director of Strategic Planning, went on to claim that the construction materials used to build the Cairngorm funicular had been changed from steel to concrete as part of a cost – cutting exercise (”It” refers to Morrison Construction):

Note:

• the third sentence from Keith Bryers, which states the change from steel to concrete caused a “major difficulty”
• how he confirmed George Foulkes’ understanding this proposal came from Morrisons, and
• the following sentence by Sandy Brady which stated it was part of a “cost-saving exercise

A very interesting and pertinent question from Cathie Craigie but unfortunately what no one asked was:

(1) Was the original design specification, used to obtain tenders from companies, for steel rather than concrete ?

(2) If so, when the specification was changed from steel to concrete were any other tenders sought?, and,

(3) Were A. F. Crudens paid first to design in steel and then again to change the specifications to concrete? !

The Public Audit Committee Report suggests no-one actually saw any documentation to prove the cost saving. It has always been accepted as being a fact, something which prompted me to investigate.

Note the concrete “I” beam is being lowered into place using the aerial cableway.

In the exchange Mr K. Bryers said helicopters had to be used to carry concrete up the mountain as the aerial cableway couldn’t carry the weight and yet this second photo clearly shows a concrete “I” beam suspended below the cableway. That is also confirmed by the following screenshots from the Health and Safety file compiled by Morrison Construction:-

Machinery was also delivered using the cableway to wherever it was needed.

It doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in what the Committee were told when the Head of Infrastructure for HIE, the people paying the bills on behalf of the taxpayer, appears not to have known what was going on!

Part 2 of concrete v steel, a detailed examination of the respect costs, will follow on Wednesday.