The Cairngorm funicular has been saved, but is it worth the £16 million bill?

Almost exactly two years ago, it emerged that something was very wrong with the supports holding up the funicular railway at Cairngorm Mountain ski area, and since then a debate has raged over what should be done about it: spend millions of pounds fixing it, or spend roughly as many millions removing it. Because Natural Retreats, the last company to have a shot at running the resort, walked away whistling in 2018, this wasn't a question of private finance, as it would have been at most ski hills elsewhere in the world, but a question of public funding, to be resolved by Highlands and Islands Enterprise ( HIE), who took over the running of the resort following Natural Retreats' hasty departure, and, ultimately, by the Scottish Government.

Two thorny questions lie at the heart of the decision- making process: what is the cash value of a functioning funicular to the local economy? And what would be the extent of the economic damage if the funicular were to be ripped up and replaced with a selection of native shrubs?

Finally, earlier this month, smoke billowed from the chimney of the Scottish Parliament and it was announced that the struggling resort was to benefit from a financial shot in the arm worth £ 20.5 million, £ 16 million of which would go on fixing the funicular. Part of this money is to come from HIE "disposals" ( chiefly the £ 8.5 million sale of the Centre for Health Science in Inverness to the University of the Highlands of Islands) and the rest will be provided by Holyrood. Simultaneously, HIE released a copy of their business case for repair as opposed to removal. As Last Words pointed out a few weeks back, it would perhaps have been sensible to have had this document debated properly in the public domain before a decision had been reached, not least to guard against accusations that the whole process was a foregone conclusion. Still, now that it’s been made available for public consumption, it would seem a bit churlish not to give it a read.

Before getting into the small print, however, Last Words should declare an interest: although it is deeply unfashionable to say so these days, from a user perspective I quite like the big blue ski train. Yes, it gets insanely busy at peak times, and yes, the fact that snow can sometimes block the tunnel at the top is a pretty monumental design flaw, but on a quiet day mid- week it's a great way to pack in lots of high- speed laps. I have some very happy funicular-based memories, so I can't claim to be impartial when it comes to looking at the business case. Still, for all that my inner snowboarder might want the numbers to stack up, even blinded as I am by my very obvious biases, I still have a few issues with the logic on which this decision has been based.

There seems to be no suggestion now, as there was when Natural Retreats took over, that the Cairngorm Mountain ski area is an economically viable business proposition in itself - as outlined above, the real crux of the matter is whether government subsidy to cover the cost of the repairs to the funicular will be offset by the benefit to the wider economy, ie. is the funicular such an important visitor attraction that its presence, both in winter and in summer, could materially affect people's decisions to spend time and money in the area? And, well, according to the business case, people really, really love the funicular. In scenario 1b), in which the funicular is removed and remaining ski lifts are either replaced or brought up to scratch, it is envisaged that there would be a total of 12,142 non-skiing visitors to the mountain per winter, and a total of 26,197 visitors in summer; in "preferred" scenario 3a) though, in which the funicular is repaired and "additional capital investments" are made, it is expected the resort would attract 45,075 non-skiing visitors in winter and 162,789 non- skiing visitors in summer.

To put this another way, the business case assumes that a fully-operational funicular would be enough to convince an additional 32,933 non- skiers to visit the mountain each winter, and an additional 136,592 non- skiers to visit in the summer. Now, as I say, I've got a bit of a soft spot for the ski train, in so far as it allows me to clock up lots of vertical before lunch, but as an attraction in itself, to be brutally honest... it's not all that. Don't get me wrong: as a way for the elderly or disabled to gain easy access to a high mountain environment, it's a wonderful thing, but is it so desperately exciting that every summer, 136,592 holidaymakers trying to decide between, say, Cornwall, the Lake District and the Cairngorms will say "You know what hon? A summer holiday isn't really a summer holiday without a ride on the funicular - let's make it the Cairngorms this year, shall we?" I've no doubt that the numbers in the business case were arrived at using unimpeachable methodology; I'd be curious to know, though, whether the people who did the calculations have ever been for a ride on the funicular.

There seems to be no suggestion Cairngorm Mountain ski area is a viable business itself