New Glasgow Queen Street images

[Murph]

Having only just looked at this thread in any detail, it is a mistake to build on the old goods yard. There is room here for additional platforms that are needed now and will be even more in the future.

Even if additional platforms are not built, space is needed here for future growth and should not be built over. Do people in authority never learn through past mistakes? Have they lost all common sense?

I'm not sure that it would be practical to build platforms there with the highly constricted station throat. I do, however, agree with the general sentiment, and think that the correct approach would be to build in such a way that platforms could run under those buildings in the future. I.e. have the floor structural support at a level which allowed future tracks, and an appropriately high ceiling to allow for trains + OHLE, with other structural elements positioned in a way that allowed it.

 

[clc]

They are future proofing the redevelopment for a potential new platform. There's a buffer zone where no structural work will take place to allow for platform 8 to be built. Network Rail say this platform is not needed at the moment but may be required under certain projected growth scenarios.

 

[Grumpy]

Well you're clearly a pleasant human being. Insulting and arrogant - not a great mix!

You're possibly right. But did I say anything that wasn't true?

 

[ADRboy]

Station does get busy but is generally OK with crowds. Remember there are two low level platforms which probably account for a fair number of people, has it's own exits etc with 8tph at peak through it.

Main thing it needs is escalators to LL. Stairs are some climb!

 

[deltic08]

They are future proofing the redevelopment for a potential new platform. There's a buffer zone where no structural work will take place to allow for platform 8 to be built. Network Rail say this platform is not needed at the moment but may be required under certain projected growth scenarios.

Only one? That won't be enough in10-15 years time and then what will they do. QS LL can't take every service that has insufficient room upstairs.

 

[clc]

Only one? That won't be enough in10-15 years time and then what will they do. QS LL can't take every service that has insufficient room upstairs.

Probably build a tunnel linking the north and south networks.

 

[Altnabreac]

Only one? That won't be enough in10-15 years time and then what will they do. QS LL can't take every service that has insufficient room upstairs.

Remember the main constraints are the throat and 2 track approach.

There's only so much capacity to be gained by adding extra platforms.

Also in 10 years or so the majority of Edinburgh - Glasgow traffic will have transferred to the new High Speed Line to Central so the capacity problems at Queen St will be eased.

 

[fgwrich]

They are future proofing the redevelopment for a potential new platform. There's a buffer zone where no structural work will take place to allow for platform 8 to be built. Network Rail say this platform is not needed at the moment but may be required under certain projected growth scenarios.

Remember the main constraints are the throat and 2 track approach.

There's only so much capacity to be gained by adding extra platforms.

Also in 10 years or so the majority of Edinburgh - Glasgow traffic will have transferred to the new High Speed Line to Central so the capacity problems at Queen St will be eased.

Agreed, but I really hope this doesn't end up as another Birmingham New Street whereby the then Railtrack were offered up space for another track into New Street, sat on it for a while before letting it go again for the Bullring expansion to take over the foundations. If it's going to be saved, then I'd say it's better to get on with it than sit on it and potentially allow a similar scenario.

Also a little disappointed to see Queen Street just become a hole in the ground with the open remaining space over the throat covered over. Just a terminating New Street with a nicer roof.

And is it me or Is the new architecture NR proposing similar to that recently constructed at Haymarket?

 

[clc]

And is it me or Is the new architecture NR proposing similar to that recently constructed at Haymarket?

The new facade planned for QS is much higher quality than Haymarket going by the renders.

 

[adrock1976]

Remember the main constraints are the throat and 2 track approach.

There's only so much capacity to be gained by adding extra platforms.

Also in 10 years or so the majority of Edinburgh - Glasgow traffic will have transferred to the new High Speed Line to Central so the capacity problems at Queen St will be eased.

The site for the Glasgow HS station should ideally be in the vicinity of the former College Goods Yard near High Street and Bellgrove stations. The route would go east to the vicinity of the Newbridge area of Edinburgh, then continuing south to Newcastle.

This would then provide connectivity with local Glasgow suburban services, Edinburgh Trams and the airport, perhaps the Tyne & Wear Metro, and the long - awaited Glasgow Crossrail project.

Cheers

Adam

 

[Altnabreac]

The site for the Glasgow HS station should ideally be in the vicinity of the former College Goods Yard near High Street and Bellgrove stations. The route would go east to the vicinity of the Newbridge area of Edinburgh, then continuing south to Newcastle.

This would then provide connectivity with local Glasgow suburban services, Edinburgh Trams and the airport, perhaps the Tyne & Wear Metro, and the long - awaited Glasgow Crossrail project.

Cheers

Adam

Hi Adam,

There are 2 phases of High Speed Rail in Scotland. The first one under development at the moment is the line between Edinburgh and Glasgow but that doesn't include new city centre stations as it will use existing tracks to access the cities.

That doesn't prevent new stations as part of a full second phase.

 

[170401]

Yes. The only services that could be freed up from Queen Street High Level by any form of light rail would be the 2tph Anniesland DMUs, which isn't really that much in the grand scheme of things.

I don't know so much. Looking ahead with a little vision and bearing in mind much E&G traffic will move elsewhere in a decade or 2, the tram-train concept might be worth looking at.

Cumbernauld/Falkirk Grahamston services could probably go over to this type of operation quite easily and new opportunities such as expansion from Lenzie through Kirkintilloch to the Campsie towns such as Lennoxtown or Kilsyth.

On the Cumbernauld line Grahamstons could become a semi fast with additional Cumbernauld services leaving the route and continuing by road to a terminus nearer the town centre.

Once they reach Queen st high level, they could continue on street with a stop at Central station and then on to a suitable point to reconnect with heavy rail and then onto the Cathcart circle/Neilston/Barrhead/ new alignment to Renfrew or wherever else you wanted them to go.

That would give you a crossrail people could use with a cross city connection between the 2 main terminii without the need to resort to expensive tunnelling or taking people away from where they want to go.

 

[Murph]

Once they reach Queen st high level, they could continue on street with a stop at Central station and then on to a suitable point to reconnect with heavy rail and then onto the Cathcart circle/Neilston/Barrhead/ new alignment to Renfrew or wherever else you wanted them to go.

A tram line running out of QS high level sounds a bit unrealistic to me. The southern end of the QS platforms is a good bit above the level of streets to the south, and you'll have a big shiny new building across the end of the platforms. Those streets are also pretty congested, so you're possibly going to have some interesting timing/pathing issues trying to run as heavy-tram-heavy.

Frankly, I just don't see it as a sane or practical plan. Better to just keep the redeveloped QS high level as a heavy rail commuter terminus.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I don't know so much. Looking ahead with a little vision and bearing in mind much E&G traffic will move elsewhere in a decade or 2, the tram-train concept might be worth looking at.

Cumbernauld/Falkirk Grahamston services could probably go over to this type of operation quite easily and new opportunities such as expansion from Lenzie through Kirkintilloch to the Campsie towns such as Lennoxtown or Kilsyth.

On the Cumbernauld line Grahamstons could become a semi fast with additional Cumbernauld services leaving the route and continuing by road to a terminus nearer the town centre.

Once they reach Queen st high level, they could continue on street with a stop at Central station and then on to a suitable point to reconnect with heavy rail and then onto the Cathcart circle/Neilston/Barrhead/ new alignment to Renfrew or wherever else you wanted them to go.

That would give you a crossrail people could use with a cross city connection between the 2 main terminii without the need to resort to expensive tunnelling or taking people away from where they want to go.

Any relief from an E&G HSR would just be for city centre to city centre passengers. The same number of tph would be necessary to provide intermediate passengers with a more regular stopping service, so there's no real relief through Cowlairs tunnel which is the main pinch point.

Cumbernauld is too far for any form of light rail/tram-train to work. It isn't absolutely necessary to pair up every light rail/tram-train service that makes sense on the south side with one on the north side. Neilston or Newton tram-trains could just terminate somewhere in Springburn or Bishopbriggs or wherever.

Tunnelling isn't really expensive in the grand scheme of things, especially compared to the cost of HS2 in Scotland. Glasgow city and the Central Belt is definitely large enough for that spend to be worth it, and building that tunnel would solve most of the north-south rail capacity issues for decades to come. Solving the Hyndland-Partick bottleneck would likewise solve the east-west rail capacity issues for decades to come. It's not like London where a never-ending stream of projects is necessary for the city to continue functioning.

 

[adrock1976]

Hi Adam,

There are 2 phases of High Speed Rail in Scotland. The first one under development at the moment is the line between Edinburgh and Glasgow but that doesn't include new city centre stations as it will use existing tracks to access the cities.

That doesn't prevent new stations as part of a full second phase.

Many thanks for mentioning this - I probably missed this version being in the local news, but do remember the Bellgrove option mentioned locally in a big fanfare within the last five years.

I do feel it would be crazy for the Scottish Government/Transport Scotland/etc to dismiss the Bellgrove option, as mentioned in a later post, it would just transfer passengers at the end points from one route to another, with little scope for connectivity on a local suburban level citywide.

Any relief from an E&G HSR would just be for city centre to city centre passengers. The same number of tph would be necessary to provide intermediate passengers with a more regular stopping service, so there's no real relief through Cowlairs tunnel which is the main pinch point.

Cumbernauld is too far for any form of light rail/tram-train to work. It isn't absolutely necessary to pair up every light rail/tram-train service that makes sense on the south side with one on the north side. Neilston or Newton tram-trains could just terminate somewhere in Springburn or Bishopbriggs or wherever.

Tunnelling isn't really expensive in the grand scheme of things, especially compared to the cost of HS2 in Scotland. Glasgow city and the Central Belt is definitely large enough for that spend to be worth it, and building that tunnel would solve most of the north-south rail capacity issues for decades to come. Solving the Hyndland-Partick bottleneck would likewise solve the east-west rail capacity issues for decades to come. It's not like London where a never-ending stream of projects is necessary for the city to continue functioning.

Regarding tunnelling: there may be a potential big problem for a north - south alignment. it needs to go underneath the mighty Clyde!

In peace

Adam

 

[donald2007]

Are there plans for a 1st Class Lounge here?

 

[najaB]

Regarding tunnelling: there may be a potential big problem for a north - south alignment. it needs to go underneath the mighty Clyde!

I know it's only a weak southern river but they managed to tunnel under the Thames. Speaking of which, it's half French but they managed the Channel Tunnel as well - 50km of English/French tunnel has to be about the same as the mighty Clyde!

 

[matchmaker]

Regarding tunnelling: there may be a potential big problem for a north - south alignment. it needs to go underneath the mighty Clyde!

Cheers

Adam

The Victorians managed it several times! There's also the Clyde Tunnel...

 

[NotATrainspott]

Many thanks for mentioning this - I probably missed this version being in the local news, but do remember the Bellgrove option mentioned locally in a big fanfare within the last five years.

I do feel it would be crazy for the Scottish Government/Transport Scotland/etc to dismiss the Bellgrove option, as mentioned in a later post, it would just transfer passengers at the end points from one route to another, with little scope for connectivity on a local suburban level citywide.

I do recall a document from one of the Scottish transport campaigning organisations said Network Rail would prefer for the Glasgow terminus to be at Central. If you look at how the other HS2 termini have come about, you'll see a recurring pattern where regeneration is a factor but isn't as important as the need to connect into existing transport hubs. That's why even Salford Council supported the Manchester terminus being at Piccadilly rather than in their own territory, despite the location being served by Northern Hub trains.

Similarly, the idea of Newbridge being the main station for HS2 in Edinburgh is a non-starter. Waverley is pretty much the best situated central station in the UK and the cost saving from avoiding it would be dwarfed by the resulting losses in ticket revenue and other connectivity. If HSR ever goes north of the Forth then Newbridge/Edinburgh Gateway isn't half bad as an 'Edinburgh Parkway' station given that HS2 will approach Edinburgh from the west.

Regarding tunnelling: there may be a potential big problem for a north - south alignment. it needs to go underneath the mighty Clyde!

Cheers

Adam

Tunnelling under the Clyde would be trivial for a modern construction team with TBMs. A north-south city tunnel would only be on the same order of size as the M74 completion or the Queensferry Crossing, and with all the HS2 and London tunnelling projects the facilities do exist for tunnelling workers to be trained or redeployed to Glasgow.

The reason the tunnel hasn't been built yet is because it is entirely dependent upon EGIP, and combining the two of them into one (like how Crossrail is paying for electrification to Maidenhead) would make the project more difficult for no real overall gain. Once the new trains are in service at their maximum length, they will fill up and something new will need to be done. Around the same time, the lines to Barrhead and East Kilbride will be electrified, so that's another set of services that could be sent into the future tunnel and likely extra services needing accommodated at Central. Combine these together and the only realistic answer is the tunnel.

 

[clc]

TAWS order has been submitted and the EGIP website has been refreshed. . The interactive map states they are currently evaluating what the pausing of the Buchanan Galleries shopping centre extension means for the QS redevelopment project: http://www.egip.info/