Expansions for Scotland's rail network proposed

[Altnabreac]

It appears Keith Brown is still going to be calling the shots as Infrastructure is still in his brief.

It's a little unclear exactly what "Infrastructure" means in this context but it is certain that Transport is part of Fergus Ewing's brief and not Keith Brown's. http://www.gov.scot/About/People/Ministers

It is also clear that the Transport Minister reports to the Rural and Connectivity Cabinet Secretary.

"Humza Yousaf will take up the significant responsibilities of Minister for Transport and the Islands, acting as junior minister to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity and reporting to the Economy and Climate Change Secretaries as appropriate."

 

[clc]

Any thoughts on how to connect the largest hospital in Europe to the heavy rail network - anyone?

So the Scottish Government spent £850m on a new mega-hospital in the Govan area of Glasgow. Services were transferred to the new QE Hospital (previously Southern General) from other hospitals in the city which had good public transport links including The Victoria which was close to a heavy rail station and The Western which had a subway station nearby.

The new hospital has 10,000 employees and 725,000 patients per year plus their visitors. However, unlike the hospitals which closed the new facility has no rail links despite being within spitting distance of a freight line which connects to the main Paisley-Glasgow line.

So, what would be the best realistic solution for connecting the hospital to the rail network?

The STPR Final Report suggested a light rail link could serve the hospital:
"A.247 A Metro/Light Rapid Transit system could include new stations, improved service frequencies and improved access to and across central Glasgow. The system would be rolled out on a phased basis. The operational concept for the system using proven technology could be expanded to include a new crossing of the Clyde to around the Southern General Hospital and other lines to link areas not currently served by the heavy rail network."
http://www.transport.gov.scot/report/j11260a-05.htm#a24

There was also a heavy rail option considered during the STPR:-

""New River Clyde Rail Crossing and Glasgow Outer-Suburban Circular Rail Service
This intervention would involve a number of new and upgraded rail links in Glasgow. A new crossing of the River Clyde would be provided, connecting the line to and from Paisley Gilmour Street with the line between Jordanhill and Yoker. A new chord would be provided at Anniesland to connect the North Electric Line with the branch from Maryhill. A number of lines and junctions would be upgraded, such as the City Union Line and Bellgrove Junction. Starting at Maryhill and working clockwise, a new outer-suburban service would use the existing Maryhill Branch to Cowlairs, the City Union to Shields and the new link under the Clyde to Jordanhill and onwards to Maryhill. Services would also operate from west or south of Paisley (e.g. Gourock or Ayr), across the river to communities such as Airdrie, Dalmuir and Milngavie."
Glasgow Intervention 175:
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk...ports/uploaded_reports/j10194a/j10194a-01.pdf

I would have thought if a tunnel was to be built under the Clyde it would have a better business case if it was heavy rail gauge. You could then connect the hospital to Renfrewshire, Ayrshire, Inverclyde, PGS/airport in one direction and to one or both of the city centre termini and Edinburgh via Airdrie/Bathgate in the other direction. There is an aspiration to increase frequency on the A2B line to 6tph but demand on the western sections (City centre to Helensburgh/Milngavie) wouldn't warrant 6tph so running the extra 2tph fasts through the tunnel to Ayrshire or Inverclyde would be a logical move.

And there'd be nothing to prevent the tunnel being shared by tram-trains if a light rail route could be developed north of the river.

 

[JohnR]

My personal opinion is that a heavy rail link into Renfrew could also serve the hospital. Rather than run these services into Central, I'd use them for Glasgow cross-rail.

 

[MarkyT]

Any thoughts on how to connect the largest hospital in Europe to the heavy rail network - anyone?

How about a subway extension via the Broomloan depot access ramp and alongside heavy rail, via Cardonald, then following the freight branch towards a new hospital site terminus. A one way loop route around the outer track of the city circle would need no track changes and a small add on order to the new fleet could provide the stock. A more ambitious scheme could put in an extra grade separation to allow all trains to run in both directions under the Clyde via Partick to the city centre, but you'd then need a terminus turnback somewhere or anoher branch to turn off onto, perhaps a short spur to a terminal platform right under the main concourse at Central allowing the new route to also function as a reliable Central - Queen Street shuttle. Interchange would be available at Cardonald for Ayrshire routes, Partick, Buchanon/Queen Street and St Enoch/Central for other Scottish destinations. Further opportunities could be for an extension beyond Cardonald alongside the M8 to the airport.

 

[route:oxford]

Any thoughts on how to connect the largest hospital in Europe to the heavy rail network - anyone?

Why? It's the most successful unwritten, but universally implemented, Scottish Goverment policy to ensure that new hospitals are built without convenient rail access.

ERI
FVRH
QEH

 

[NotATrainspott]

Why? It's the most successful unwritten, but universally implemented, Scottish Goverment policy to ensure that new hospitals are built without convenient rail access.

ERI
FVRH
QEH

How important is rail access in the grand scheme of things? Of course if it can be provided cheaply, then that's something worth doing, but it alone won't be enough to justify choosing one site over another.

The nature of hospitals is that their visitors will tend to prefer a slower but more direct bus service or door-to-door transfer than a train that would require a walk at either end. Unlike city centre offices with their 9-5 working hours which tie in well with rail services, hospitals are 24/7 workplaces and the lack of overnight rail services means that for many of their staff, even if a train service were available most of the day it wouldn't actually help them. Therefore, the case to build heavy rail links will be much weaker than it might appear on the surface.

Trams and other bus-like solutions fit in much better, especially for somewhere like the NSGH. Trams can be run during the day when the roads are busy and then at night, when there is no road traffic, buses can carry the reduced passenger numbers just as quickly on the same route with reduced operating costs.

 

[clc]

How about utilising the solum of the old Shieldhall Goods branch? Railscot has a photograph of it in 1987: https://www.railscot.co.uk/imageenlarge/imagecomplete.php?id=32392

From Google Satellite it appears the trackbed is still unobstructed and by my rough estimate its within 200m of the hospital entrance.

 

[NotATrainspott]

How about utilising the solum of the old Shieldhall Goods branch? Railscot has a photograph of it in 1987: https://www.railscot.co.uk/imageenlarge/imagecomplete.php?id=32392

From Google Satellite it appears the trackbed is still unobstructed and by my rough estimate its within 200m of the hospital entrance.

That would have the same problem as GARL - a shuttle to Central isn't a very useful way of using a path on this congested rail corridor.

The tracked solution for the NSGH is a tram line from the city centre to the Airport via Renfrew, Braehead and taking over the complete failure that is Fastlink.

 

[adrock1976]

Why? It's the most successful unwritten, but universally implemented, Scottish Goverment policy to ensure that new hospitals are built without convenient rail access.

ERI
FVRH
QEH

I take it that is the third abbreviation meant to be interpreted as Queen Elizabeth Hospital?

If so, I was unaware that the Scottish Parliament had any input into that hospital, as it is in Birmingham.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That would have the same problem as GARL - a shuttle to Central isn't a very useful way of using a path on this congested rail corridor.

The tracked solution for the NSGH is a tram line from the city centre to the Airport via Renfrew, Braehead and taking over the complete failure that is Fastlink.

Converting the all singing and all dancing Slowlink [sic] into a tramway is a good idea. This could also be done as an additional phase to converting the Cathcart District Railway into tram operation, but with the Neilston route leaving the formation at Whitecraigs to run along Ayr Road to Mearns Cross, swing down Barrhead Road to Crookfur, then rejoin the original formation at Patterton.

With a bit of thought and imagination, this is where Glasgow could take the initiative and take the lead from Sheffield, Manchester, Croydon, and Nottingham to bring back trams.

PS I've deliberately not made reference to Auld Reekie, as that was a New Labour vanity project under the Jack McConnell led Coalition Government at the time. Of which they were not new at all, and they were most certainly not Labour, as the Blairite careerists abandoned the original founding principles of the Labour Party.

 

[Difflam]

I take it that is the third abbreviation meant to be interpreted as Queen Elizabeth Hospital?

If so, I was unaware that the Scottish Parliament had any input into that hospital, as it is in Birmingham.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_University_Hospital

"The Queen Elizabeth University Hospital (QEUH) is a 1,677 bed acute hospital located in Govan in the south-west of Glasgow"

 

[Altnabreac]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_University_Hospital

"The Queen Elizabeth University Hospital (QEUH) is a 1,677 bed acute hospital located in Govan in the south-west of Glasgow"

Betty's as it's known locally.

My preference is still for an extended cross city tunnel from Arkleston to Cowlairs with stops at Southern, Govan, Hydro, Central and Cathedral.

Bit more expensive than a Shields Road tunnel but much more transformative.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I take it that is the third abbreviation meant to be interpreted as Queen Elizabeth Hospital?

If so, I was unaware that the Scottish Parliament had any input into that hospital, as it is in Birmingham.

It's in Woolwich as well.

And Kings Lynn.

Apart from the one that's been mentioned in Glasgow.

Evidently a very mobile hospital

 

[clc]

That would have the same problem as GARL - a shuttle to Central isn't a very useful way of using a path on this congested rail corridor.

The tracked solution for the NSGH is a tram line from the city centre to the Airport via Renfrew, Braehead and taking over the complete failure that is Fastlink.

It wasn't a shuttle to Central I had in mind, I was thinking more of what I posted earlier (this time I've edited out references to the Outer-Suburban Circular Rail Service as I'm not sure if that would be viable):

There was also a heavy rail option considered during the STPR:-

""New River Clyde Rail Crossing...
This intervention would involve a number of new and upgraded rail links in Glasgow. A new crossing of the River Clyde would be provided, connecting the line to and from Paisley Gilmour Street with the line between Jordanhill and Yoker.... Services would also operate from west or south of Paisley (e.g. Gourock or Ayr), across the river to communities such as Airdrie..."
Glasgow Intervention 175:
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk...ports/uploaded_reports/j10194a/j10194a-01.pdf

I would have thought if a tunnel was to be built under the Clyde it would have a better business case if it was heavy rail gauge. You could then connect the hospital to Renfrewshire, Ayrshire, Inverclyde, PGS/airport in one direction and to one or both of the city centre termini and Edinburgh via Airdrie/Bathgate in the other direction. There is an aspiration to increase frequency on the A2B line to 6tph but demand on the western sections (City centre to Helensburgh/Milngavie) wouldn't warrant 6tph so running the extra 2tph fasts through the tunnel to Ayrshire or Inverclyde would be a logical move.

And there'd be nothing to prevent the tunnel being shared by tram-trains if a light rail route could be developed north of the river.

You'd also have to upgrade Hyndland-Partick to get capacity up to 20tph. Total cost overall might be around £600m?

My preference is still for an extended cross city tunnel from Arkleston to Cowlairs with stops at Southern, Govan, Hydro, Central and Cathedral.

Bit more expensive than a Shields Road tunnel but much more transformative.

I agree, but it would cost £4 billion and we know from the STPR that the Scottish Govt is planning to spend £1.5 billion - £3 billion on the Glasgow Terminal Stations project.

However, we could build the Shields Road tunnel with stations at Central and Cathedral plus the shorter tunnel with a station at the hospital for around £3 billion. Divert 6tph from Ayrshire/Inverclyde to the North Electrics line via the short tunnel for the hospital, subway and Argyle Line interchange at Partick, the expanding business district around Charing Cross, Queen St station and High St; and the remaining services via Shields Rd tunnel for Central and Cathedral.

This would give you more capacity than the Arkleston to Cowlairs tunnel and much of the connectivity benefits but at less cost.

 

[kylemore]

Has anyone proposed re-opening the Kilmarnock to Dalry road?

It looks to have been a fast route and electrified (including down to Cumnock?) and with a flyover junction at Dalry journey times to Paisley would be around 20-25mins and Glasgow 30-35mins.

It would open up a great deal of commuting possibilities from Cumnock/Kilmarnock/Crosshouse etc. to Paisley, the Airport, Hillington and via a cross platform interchange down to Inverclyde.

A better option than doubling/electrifying from Barrhead?

There of course may be capacity constraints in the Garnock Valley but perhaps an opportunity to re-open the Loop?

 

[och aye]

It'll be interesting what the new Scot. Gov. proposals (if any) are for this parliamentary session.

Hopefully, at the very least, we'll get some more electrification of trunk routes speeded up.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
South Sub back up and running by 2021...

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...-could-carry-passengers-by-2021-msp-1-4142198

 

[najaB]

South Sub back up and running by 2021...

That will be believed when it is seen.

 

[backontrack]

Why? It's the most successful unwritten, but universally implemented, Scottish Goverment policy to ensure that new hospitals are built without convenient rail access.

ERI
FVRH
QEH

Carstairs??????

Just kidding, obviously - it's probably not even a new hospital. But it does have very convenient rail access...

 

[Altnabreac]

Carstairs??????

Just kidding, obviously - it's probably not even a new hospital. But it does have very convenient rail access...

The State Hospital for Scotland and Northern Ireland is the official title.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It'll be interesting what the new Scot. Gov. proposals (if any) are for this parliamentary session.

Hopefully, at the very least, we'll get some more electrification of trunk routes speeded up.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
South Sub back up and running by 2021...

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...-could-carry-passengers-by-2021-msp-1-4142198

I suspect the recent numbers from the Borders Railway showing that passenger number in Midlothian are poor where the railway is competing with Lothian Buses even though the train is quicker will put the brakes on any South Sub passenger services where the train is likely to be slower than buses or a similar speed.

Ditto any business case for Penicuik is likely to suffer from these numbers.

Levenmouth and Hawick on the other hand should be buoyed by the fact that longer distance commuting to Edinburgh seems to be underestimated by the existing modelling so I suspect they will be the 2 schemes most likely to progress.

 

[SouthSub]

The State Hospital for Scotland and Northern Ireland is the official title.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I suspect the recent numbers from the Borders Railway showing that passenger number in Midlothian are poor where the railway is competing with Lothian Buses even though the train is quicker will put the brakes on any South Sub passenger services where the train is likely to be slower than buses or a similar speed.

Ditto any business case for Penicuik is likely to suffer from these numbers.

Levenmouth and Hawick on the other hand should be buoyed by the fact that longer distance commuting to Edinburgh seems to be underestimated by the existing modelling so I suspect they will be the 2 schemes most likely to progress.

I agree about Penicuik, but the South Sub doesn't have many equivalent routes on Lothian Buses - the vast majority of buses go through the city centre (a constant bugbear of mine when I commuted from near Cameron Toll to Corstorphine). A train connecting the south and west of the city would prove popular IMHO.

 

[Altnabreac]

I agree about Penicuik, but the South Sub doesn't have many equivalent routes on Lothian Buses - the vast majority of buses go through the city centre (a constant bugbear of mine when I commuted from near Cameron Toll to Corstorphine). A train connecting the south and west of the city would prove popular IMHO.

Conversely you could argue if EW routes can't support a bus service is there enough demand for a rail line?

I personally don't think the south sub is a good use of limited capacity at Waverley. Could maybe work running into a new platform 5 at Haymarket but demand may not be there.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . the South Sub doesn't have many equivalent routes on Lothian Buses - the vast majority of buses go through the city centre (a constant bugbear of mine when I commuted from near Cameron Toll to Corstorphine). . . . .

There used to be a circular bus route, which followed a loop right round the city centre; it was the number 1 I think, and it went through Corstorphine. Not heavily used, though if it ran now and included some of the hospitals, colleges, retail parks and office complexes then it might be of value again. The south sub only passes a very few of these.

 

[overthewater]

There used to be a circular bus route, which followed a loop right round the city centre; it was the number 1 I think, and it went through Corstorphine. Not heavily used, though if it ran now and included some of the hospitals, colleges, retail parks and office complexes then it might be of value again. The south sub only passes a very few of these.

Old No1/6 is what is the current No1 and 21 are.

 

[clc]

We've discussed previously the possibility of a Glasgow north-south cross city tunnel with an underground city centre station (which probably wouldn't connect to Queen St), how much it would cost (£2-3 billion) and how much capacity it would create. However, I've been wondering how much capacity could be squeezed out of the Queen St low level line? Could we run 18tph through it if we:-

- built a new line between the Paisley and north electrics lines, with a station at the QE Hospital and a tunnel under the Clyde; and
- four tracked between Hyndland and Finnieston; and
- reopened Finnieston Station (for SECC/Hydro); and
- built the Garngad Chord; and
- diverted the majority of Ayrshire, Inverclyde, Edinburgh, Cumbernauld, Falkirk and Dunblane/Alloa services through the tunnels.

All the main employment sites would be served (CBD/City Centre, Charing Cross, QE Hospital, University (via subway),SECC/Hydro).

Ayrshire and Inverclyde passengers would have subway interchange at Partick for the West End.

With the Hyndland-Finnieston section four tracked could we also run 18tph through Central Low Level? Airport tram trains could run through Central Low Level providing an easy transfer to Edinburgh/Dunblane/Cumbernauld services at Hyndland or Partick.

Any merit in this as an alternative option?

 

[Chrism20]

There used to be a circular bus route, which followed a loop right round the city centre; it was the number 1 I think, and it went through Corstorphine. Not heavily used, though if it ran now and included some of the hospitals, colleges, retail parks and office complexes then it might be of value again. The south sub only passes a very few of these.

Yeah there were quite a few back about 15/20 years ago.

1&6 as someone mentioned

Also

34/35
32/52 - which avoided the city centre altogether, I think the nearest it got to town was leith.

Lothian buses cited failure to maintain timings as the reason for stopping them.

There was also the 7&11 which weren't circular but at gilmerton one became the other rather than turn back.

I can't see the south sub coming to fruition personally as others have said competing with Lothian is no mean feat. First Bus etc have tried before and failed miserably every time.

 

[ian1944]

If a South Sub service ran between Niddrie and Haymarket (no need to go to and add to the congestion at Waverley, given the huge number of connecting trains at present), with intermediate stations at Craigmillar, Cameron Toll/Newington, Blackford and Morningside (or maybe only as far round as Craigmillar, given Niddrie's proximity to Brunstane), the journey time to the city centre would, I think, beat the bus time for all stations. But it would have to be on something like a 15-minute frequency readily to be seen as an attractive alternative, and I'm not sure that the demand would justify two EMUs (ideally) shuttling to and fro.

 

[AngusH]

There may be some technical problem preventing it, but it seems an obvious place to use a tram-train and connect the tram network to the hospital.


(Assuming the tram-train idea makes some progress)

 

[route:oxford]

If a South Sub service ran between Niddrie and Haymarket (no need to go to and add to the congestion at Waverley, given the huge number of connecting trains at present), with intermediate stations at Craigmillar, Cameron Toll/Newington, Blackford and Morningside (or maybe only as far round as Craigmillar, given Niddrie's proximity to Brunstane), the journey time to the city centre would, I think, beat the bus time for all stations. But it would have to be on something like a 15-minute frequency readily to be seen as an attractive alternative, and I'm not sure that the demand would justify two EMUs (ideally) shuttling to and fro.

Haymarket is rammed as it is.

It could probably do with a pair of platforms being carved out underneath the current station - along with a new tunnel and similar platforms under Waverley for WCML and potential south circular services..

 

[Buttsy]

Why not run the south suburban service out of the east side to Waverley and terminate it at Wester Hailes rather than run into Haymarket?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Why not run the south suburban service out of the east side to Waverley and terminate it at Wester Hailes rather than run into Haymarket?

The eastern approach to Waverley isn't much less congested than the west.

Trying to compete against Lothian Buses for transport into Edinburgh city centre is a losing battle. Real people don't use trains which are slower, more expensive and less frequent than the equivalent bus service. The only scheduled passenger use for the South Sub would be to do something that buses couldn't do, which is to connect the eastern suburbs to the business areas of the west. At the moment, that means either going into the centre and dealing with traffic there or going out and along the City Bypass, which isn't pretty either.

Tram-trains would be the most effective way to do this, as they bring the advantage of getting people closer to their destination while making higher frequencies feasible. A heavy rail service could be 2tph at most and would do a poor job of getting people out of their cars. Tram-trains could run at a basic turn-up-and-go 4tph frequency and get people to their offices in Edinburgh Park, Gogarburn or the future Edinburgh International Gateway near the airport.

 

[AngusH]

Do you think it would be possible to link the existing tram system to the railway at the Waverley end, or would this be a link west of Haymarket only?

I can imagine a circular loop running with tram trains, north half on the tram line, south half on the south-sub heavy rail line.

While I'm being optimistic maybe link in via the line that (I think) goes to the Powderhall waste depot?

Why not build a new station and serve Portobello too.


Edit: I've changed the punctuation, I'm in favour of this scheme, if it can be made to work and my symbols suggested I wasn't.