JANE Ann Liston (Letters, October 30) says providing more train services will "get people out of their cars ". That is unlikely.

The Glasgow region has the best rail network in the UK outside London yet far more trips are by car than by train. It is estimated that only about 30% of people ever use the latter and most are in the higher income brackets. Their fares are heavily subsidised by people who rarely use trains and are poorer than they are.

Coatbridge is served by six rail stations, more than any other place in Scotland other than Glasgow and Edinburgh, but most trips are by car.

Most train journeys involve getting to a station by car or bus and then from it to a destination. Where these are "commuter trips" they number 10 per week. That takes much time, cost and effort, so many decide that it is far easier, quicker and cheaper to drive straight to and from their workplace. Any delays due to traffic are far shorter than the times needed to travel by train. In truth few work trips can easily be made by train or even bus.

No large suburban shopping centres, for example Braehead, Silverburn and The Fort have rail access and even if they had few would use it.

Many trips include children. These cannot easily be taken on trains and doing so hugely increase costs.

The only train services which are profitable are those connecting large cities. Suburban and rural ones require large subsidies. The idea that trains are "energy-efficient" is often wrong if one thinks in terms of passenger miles rather than seat miles.

It is noteworthy that in the USA, Canada and Australia, despite huge increases in population over the last 70 years, the number of passenger train routes has declined by about 80%. Mexico, with 130 million people and over 3,000 miles of track, has hardly any passenger trains. Neither has New Zealand.

Building new rail track is hugely expensive and takes many years. There are far better uses for public money, for example filling potholes and building social housing.

I invite Ms Liston to say where she thinks new lines should be built and why.

John Munro, Bishopbriggs.

Read more letters

The principles of ethical debate

THE public debate concerning assisted dying is now at least a decade old.

Those against a change in the law seem fixated on two issues. First, that interested parties (in particular close relatives) will be motivated to induce in the dying person the feeling that they are are in some sense no longer wanted. Such a viewpoint surely casts empathy, trust and loyalty in (family) relations in a very poor light.

Second, the slippery slope argument. This says little for one’s faith in the democratic process. As Thomas Jefferson put it: ‘‘Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?’’ When confronted with any ethical problem, if you think in terms of four over-riding principles: Autonomy (the right of the individual to determine his or her own fate), Beneficence (the obligation to help others achieve their potential), Justice (the fair allocation of resources) and Non-malfeasance (do no harm), then you can handle most ethical problems.

Doug Clark, Currie.

Strange design of wind turbines

I SHARE George Herraghty’s dislike of the despoiling effect on the countryside of the proliferation of giant industrial wind machines and all their accoutrements (Letters, October 31). Whilst the rotors on these huge machines are there to catch the wind on order for them to revolve when it blows, why is their design so very different from other wind-powered structures such as traditional windmills, sailing ships and the fast yachts of very modern design seen recently competing in the America’s Cup, all of which present large-area wind-catching sails to maximise the powering effect of the wind?

In contrast, these machines have elongated spindly rotors which don’t appear very effective as normally they only revolve lazily, if at all. Are they of a dumbed-down deliberately inefficient design to try to limit their ability to catch the wind and thus avoid spinning fast and bursting into flames or even breaking off when the wind blows strongly, as I believe has happened despite their design, or am I missing something?

Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop.

Why are wind turbines so designed?Why are wind turbines so designed? (Image: PA)

Lamentable rise of robots

WELL, I thought nothing could be easier than to close my bank account; how wrong I was.

My nearest bank is 15 miles away, so I made the decision to phone online banking to get my account closed.

The phone was answered by a robot and I gave the details required. I was told I could be waiting at least five minutes to speak with an advisor. The advisor answered and attempted to close the account; no luck, I was told there was a glitch in the system, whatever that was, and was asked to phone back,which I did two hours later.

This time the advisor confirmed there was a problem, but she would seek assistance from another advisor. I stayed on the line for 15 minutes, gave up and hung up.

On my third attempt my call was answered after five minutes and five minutes later my account was closed.

It used to be so much easier when you went to a bank and spoke directly to a person who knew you by name and in our bank before its closure you could also have a cup of coffee.

Sadly these times are long gone, never to return in favour of computers and robots.

Neil Stewart, Balfron.

The climate cost of tech

DR Andrew Hawkins Letters, October 30) has belatedly realised that war and the reconstruction after war result in CO2 emissions. Many of us realised this years ago. He should also look at tech (smartphones, data banks and so on) and space launches and investigate how much CO2 comes from them.

Geoff Moore, Alness.

Artificial boulevard

A STREET named after Billy Connolly (Letters, October 31)? How about "Big Yin Boulevard"? At least the name is alliterative. My idea? No, Chat GPT's.

David Miller, Milngavie.