MAYBE the Central Railway controversy can now be settled logically.

Let us not be beastly to one another in your columns. Consider the two contrasting philosophies. I understand the feelings of Mr Hoyle (February 8) and his fellow thinkers who wish to retain the status quo. It is natural to fear change and the unknown.

On the other hand we have to consider that long distance heavy goods vehicles are becoming a primitive relic of the last century. It churns up roads, is noisy, inefficient in energy consumption, spews out filth, is a hazard to domestic traffic and major cause of accidents.

Yet lorries are flexible and needed for the distribution of goods locally. So, logically, why not combine that arrangement with the environmentally friendly mode, rail, for most of the journey?

Put lorries on trains. That is what Central Railway proposes. Follow the lead of countries more advanced than we are as far as transport is concerned.

In his saying that there is now no growth in traffic I think that Mr Hoyle will find that this refers to sea crossings, omitting consideration of the Channel Tunnel.

The wise nation prepares for the worst scenario just as the wise man takes out insurance against calamity. Responsible government should take out "insurance" against future road gridlock with proposals like that offered by Central.

I put this to Mr Hoyle. Predictions of any kind are difficult. If he and I were expert forecasters we should raid our piggybanks and be off to the races.

But we are not and advocate different policies. I respect his "build a fortress and repel all boarders" outlook but I think it lacks initiative. I believe that the majority of people would prefer to accommodate progress.

Discard the obsolete. Acknowledge the threats of pollution and global warming and help tame our highways from the chaotic mess they are in. Central Railway wants to play its part in helping us to do just that.

Alastair Dyer

Holtspur Top Lane

Beaconsfield