Glasgow - Why Hasn't a Rail/Subway Interchange Been Built at West St?

[clc]

Perhaps if the local Councils gave up their current Tram/train ideas of a Airport service using already overloaded heavy Rail to the City. Then a conventional tram line could be built from Paisley/Airport/Braehead/QEUH/Fastlink/Clyde Arc/City Centre.

Probably would be substantially cheaper too.

Would have been more of a vote winner than the tram train for sure though probably more expensive.

Glasgow is short of terminal capacity and councillors want to run trams, which are designed to run on street, into our busiest terminal station. It's daft.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The best argument against Rail to Renfrew is that NR are at the point of needing serious investment to add capacity into Central. While a tram-train line along the Deanside branch and then on the road to Renfrew would look cheap on the surface, it would mean that some very expensive infrastructure changes at Central wouldn't be available for use by other, more worthwhile schemes. For a similar amount of money it should be possible to convert Fastlink (which has been a truly monumental failure) to a tram terminating at Broomielaw and running to Renfrew and then the Airport. This would be significantly more useful to the people of Renfrew and Glasgow as a whole than a tram-train line, as it can also interchange with the Subway, serve the hospital and have a much, much higher frequency service than would ever be possible using NR's rails. Even if the end-to-end journey times were a bit slower a consistent >8tph service would be faster and more convenient than a 2-3tph service. With the interchange at Govan it would enable a fast link to the west end too, which no tram-train could match.

 

[najaB]

Glasgow is short of terminal capacity and councillors want to run trams, which are designed to run on street, into our busiest terminal station. It's daft.

Ahem.
[youtube]mSoa1b-yBUY[/youtube]

 

[clc]

The best argument against Rail to Renfrew is that NR are at the point of needing serious investment to add capacity into Central. While a tram-train line along the Deanside branch and then on the road to Renfrew would look cheap on the surface, it would mean that some very expensive infrastructure changes at Central wouldn't be available for use by other, more worthwhile schemes. For a similar amount of money it should be possible to convert Fastlink (which has been a truly monumental failure) to a tram terminating at Broomielaw and running to Renfrew and then the Airport. This would be significantly more useful to the people of Renfrew and Glasgow as a whole than a tram-train line, as it can also interchange with the Subway, serve the hospital and have a much, much higher frequency service than would ever be possible using NR's rails. Even if the end-to-end journey times were a bit slower a consistent >8tph service would be faster and more convenient than a 2-3tph service. With the interchange at Govan it would enable a fast link to the west end too, which no tram-train could match.

I'd suggest extending the tram line from the airport to Paisley Gilmour St to connect the airport to the heavy rail network as an alternative to the mooted PRT system. A heavy rail airport link would be essential should a cross city tunnel ever come to pass.

 

[clc]

Regarding your point about Rail to Renfrew not being the best use of capacity at Central, there's always the option of using the City Union Line.

A few options:-

- heavy rail to Charing Cross via the St John's Link. New stations at Gorbals and Glasgow Cross;
- as above but tram train;
- tram train which leaves the CU line in the St Enoch area and runs on street through the city centre. Potentially stopping at Argyle St Station and terminating at Queen St Station.

As all options have subway interchange at Queen St you wouldn't need an interchange at West St.

 

[Dryce]

The best argument against Rail to Renfrew is that NR are at the point of needing serious investment to add capacity into Central.

GLC had two platforms added in anticipation of GARL - which never happened.

So presumably there is some planned capacity for GARL which could be reallocated.

I don't think GARL was really any more worthwhile than Renfrew.

Moot point anyway I guess - the opportunity to sort this out should have been dealt with when Braehead and the development between it and Renfrew were being planned. It seems to have passed.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Regarding your point about Rail to Renfrew not being the best use of capacity at Central, there's always the option of using the City Union Line.

A few options:-

- heavy rail to Charing Cross via the St John's Link. New stations at Gorbals and Glasgow Cross;
- as above but tram train;
- tram train which leaves the CU line in the St Enoch area and runs on street through the city centre. Potentially stopping at Argyle St Station and terminating at Queen St Station.

As all options have subway interchange at Queen St you wouldn't need an interchange at West St.

All three options involve sharing tracks with Paisley heavy rail services. This would limit the number of paths to well below what would be required to justify ripping up roads. A bog-standard five-segment low-floor tram line (like Nottingham's) is all that is needed for Renfrew. It would be easy to phase construction by building the Airport-Broomielaw section first, and so avoiding most major roads while having access to a depot site near the Airport. Extensions through Paisley (ideally to Paisley Canal as well for interchange) and beyond Broomielaw could happen later. Going beyond Broomielaw would mean heading up and along Argyle Street, through the Cross and then out along London Road via Glasgow Green (effectively replacing the old railway line, albeit running on the street).

 

[NotATrainspott]

GLC had two platforms added in anticipation of GARL - which never happened.

So presumably there is some planned capacity for GARL which could be reallocated.

I don't think GARL was really any more worthwhile than Renfrew.

Moot point anyway I guess - the opportunity to sort this out should have been dealt with when Braehead and the development between it and Renfrew were being planned. It seems to have passed.

The capacity works on existing railway infrastructure needed for GARL all went ahead as part of the Paisley Corridor Improvements. However, the capacity (and trains) have been used instead to improve services beyond Paisley. It's far harder to make a case for a GARL project if it would require that capacity to removed from existing services.

 

[tbtc]

It seems like an obvious and relatively cheap way to improve integration between rail and subway for Ayrshire/Inverclyde passengers yet it's only ever mentioned in the context of Crossrail. What factors do people think are stopping it happening as a stand alone project?

My personal take on it is that an interchange is necessary for Crossrail (as you would be diverting existing Inverclyde/ Ayrshire services away from central Glasgow, so need some connection for inconvenienced passengers), beauty wouldn't need one for other reasons.

A Crossrail station there seems a way of acknowledging the major weakness with Crossrail (that it doesn't serve central Glasgow), so connecting people to the Subway which does - rather than any major market around West Street.

Major housing and industrial development is planned for the surrounding area which has no transport options apart from the Subway

It's surely only a couple of minutes walk to/from Ellington Street, not that far from the city centre (and the Subway penetrates the city centre than a train terminating at Central).

It's not perfectly served, but there are much more deserving areas in Scotland to have a heavy rail link.

Glasgow is short of terminal capacity and councillors want to run trams, which are designed to run on street, into our busiest terminal station. It's daft.

The best argument against Rail to Renfrew is that NR are at the point of needing serious investment to add capacity into Central

1. Another thread saw people complaining that the Patrick bottleneck means that services through Queen Street Low Level (and also Central Low Level) aren't making the most of line capacity (since the flat junctions plus the two platforms at Patrick restrict the number of services at the Low Level stations).

2. Recent developments on the south bank of the Clyde mean that there are "destinations" built with no rail access (the new hospital with the name that everyone wants to argue about, Braehead).

3. Renfrew is a big place to have no rail services (albeit not as "romantic" as the case for heavy rail to some rural place, so doesn't have the backing it ought to)

4. Funding has never been found for an Airport station (partly because it'd mean paths through Cardonald used for an Airport service can't be used for Ayrshire/ Inverclyde)

5. There's no spare capacity at the High Level platforms for Queen Street/ Central - so if we want to provide additional services then we need something clever.

6. London Crossrail is good because it provides a link through the centre of the city. Glasgow Crossrail feels like a solution in need of a problem because it takes trains away from the city centre - if you want to provide heavy rail then you need to be giving people a link into the centre of Glasgow (rather than dumping them elsewhere).

...it's almost enough to get my packet of Crayola out and draw a heavy rail route that roughly follows the First 77 bus route (direct services from Paisley - Airport - Renfrew - Braehead - QEII - Govan/Partick - Exhibition Centre - Charing Cross - Queen Street - beyond

 

[Altnabreac]

GLC had two platforms added in anticipation of GARL - which never happened.

So presumably there is some planned capacity for GARL which could be reallocated.

I don't think GARL was really any more worthwhile than Renfrew.

Moot point anyway I guess - the opportunity to sort this out should have been dealt with when Braehead and the development between it and Renfrew were being planned. It seems to have passed.

The short version is:
GARL Paisley Corridor.Improvements created about 4tph extra capacity.
Extra services to Ayrshire have used 3tph of that capacity.

GARL tram train is 4tph though so the capacity doesn't exist.

However in the peak 8am-9am hour in Glasgow there are 3tph peak extras arriving from Ayrshire and Inverclyde.

So the Tram train business case reckons that those 3tph combined with the spare 1tph from GARL can be used to provide a 4tph service in the off peak with a peak service terminating at Gilnour St.

This still leaves several unanswered questions:
Is it wise to run a peak extra service level all day?
Are peak extras only possible due to lack of freight paths?
Is capacity at Central available as well?
If extra capacity is available is there a better business case for.extra services to Largs / Wemyss Bay / Somewhere else.
Is there capacity at Gilmour St to reverse the peak services?

Other than that GARL tram train is a great idea...

 

[clc]

All three options involve sharing tracks with Paisley heavy rail services. This would limit the number of paths to well below what would be required to justify ripping up roads. A bog-standard five-segment low-floor tram line (like Nottingham's) is all that is needed for Renfrew. It would be easy to phase construction by building the Airport-Broomielaw section first, and so avoiding most major roads while having access to a depot site near the Airport. Extensions through Paisley (ideally to Paisley Canal as well for interchange) and beyond Broomielaw could happen later. Going beyond Broomielaw would mean heading up and along Argyle Street, through the Cross and then out along London Road via Glasgow Green (effectively replacing the old railway line, albeit running on the street).

Four-tracking the Paisley line would create 4 paths per hour and there's 1 path already available. That would allow 3tph to Renfrew and an extra 1tph to both Largs and Wemys Bay. Ayrshire and Inverclyde services would then be at the highest possible frequency I think.

Tram train to Charing Cross is quite appealing as the tram aspect would give you good penetration of Renfrew and the High St Curve could be built to tram spec which would cut costs; and there'd by no need to dig up city centre streets.

It would be interesting to see an appraisal of costs and benefits for each option.

 

[clc]

Was thinking about the capital costs of connecting Renfrew to Glasgow via tram train using the City Union Line versus a fully on street tram line.

A tram from Renfrew to Glasgow City Centre terminating at Central Station would be around 7 miles. Does £350-£400 million sound like a reasonable estimate?

Tram train from Renfrew to Charing Cross would require slightly less new infrastructure. You would have to four-track the Paisley line; upgrade the City Union Line including new stations at Gorbals and Glasgow Cross; build a very short chord at High St on undeveloped land plus a turn back at Kelvinhaugh; and construct around a mile of on street tram track from Deanside to Braehead and Renfrew town centre. Total cost perhaps in the £250m-£300m range?

 

[MadCommuter]

I would guess at those estimates being vastly too low.

A big issue is that Renfrew is in a different local authority to Glasgow. Why would any local authority want to invest money taking people away from their area? If SPT were to fund it, that is essentially LA money anyway.

It's all a nice idea though...

 

[NotATrainspott]

Was thinking about the capital costs of connecting Renfrew to Glasgow via tram train using the City Union Line versus a fully on street tram line.

A tram from Renfrew to Glasgow City Centre terminating at Central Station would be around 7 miles. Does £350-£400 million sound like a reasonable estimate?

Tram train from Renfrew to Charing Cross would require slightly less new infrastructure. You would have to four-track the Paisley line; upgrade the City Union Line including new stations at Gorbals and Glasgow Cross; build a very short chord at High St on undeveloped land plus a turn back at Kelvinhaugh; and construct around a mile of on street tram track from Deanside to Braehead and Renfrew town centre. Total cost perhaps in the £250m-£300m range?

Four-tracking the Paisley corridor alone would probably cost more than that. As far as I'm aware, the alignment is no longer wide enough for modern four-track standards, so you would have to rebuild all of it. This would be an incredibly disruptive project happening only a few years after the last upgrade. You would probably have to redouble and reconnect the Paisley Canal line first, as a cheaper way to provide a few paths first and/or as a diversionary route during the reconstruction process.

Again, it's important to remember that heavy rail is not the be-all and end-all of transport planning. Rail to Renfrew doesn't do much more than what it says on the tin, when there are quite a few different transport needs in the city which would deserve some investment. The main reason why I advocate a tram rather than having a longer diagonally-aligned cross-city tunnel is that the tram could plausibly turn an operational profit, meaning that it will be much easier to get the capital funded in the first place. Transport Scotland, or indeed any reasonable government, simply does not want to fund the construction of a scheme which will then require more subsidy that it provides benefits.

The other (loosely related) reason is that after construction, it is far easier to extend and modify a tram scheme to meet modern requirements than it is to change a tunnelled metro line. Unless you have the foresight to include run-off tunnels and junction caverns it's expensive to add extra branches, which then need to be built to the same expensive standards as the rest of the route. A tram line is much easier to modify and it's much easier to justify more extensions to more marginal locations. This has been proven by Metrolink in Manchester, as the use of a tram system has made it cheap and easy to extend and redirect trams into the places where people actually live, work and shop rather than where the infrastructure allows. Had the Picc-Vic tunnel gone ahead it would have been totally uneconomic to do things like building extensions from Rochdale station into the town centre, or re-routing through Oldham town centre rather than staying in the Oldham Mumps tunnel.

These cheap modifications then have a major effect upon the profitability of the route, as the line then becomes useful for more than just commuter railway use. Heavy rail does a great job of getting people from across Strathclyde into Glasgow city centre for 9-5 office work and destination leisure and shopping, but it isn't very useful for taking you to the high street to do your weekly grocery shop or to take you to work in a town. This means that the heavy rail infrastructure sits underused most of the time even when there are plenty of people needing to be moved around the city. Counter-flow trains in peak periods generate almost no revenue, causing a drag on profits and making it harder to raise money for improvements. The Airport-Broomielaw tram, on the other hand, would be just as useful for a someone living in Govan and going to work in a shop in Renfrew High Street as it would for someone in Renfrew going to work in the city centre. Extending the line to Paisley Gilmour Street or Canal stations would be much easier to justify too when the number of journeys that people can actually make using the infrastructure goes up. Instead of simply being to allow people to interchange from ScotRail services to the airport, the extension would also allow someone living nearby to get to the Airport, Renfrew, Braehead or the hospital site. Someone living in Paisley would still prefer to use the express rail service to get into the city centre, but now they have good links to a much wider area of the city region.

 

[clc]

Four-tracking the Paisley corridor alone would probably cost more than that. As far as I'm aware, the alignment is no longer wide enough for modern four-track standards, so you would have to rebuild all of it. This would be an incredibly disruptive project happening only a few years after the last upgrade.
.

I think I was mistaken about the need for four-tracking. I was re-reading Transport Scotland's Tram-Train Feasibility Study which stated that the critical pinch points between the airport and Glasgow were at Arkleston and Wallneuk Junctions; the approaches into Glasgow from Shields Junction; and platforming at Glasgow Central. There was no mention of any requirement to four-track the Paisley line in order to create capacity for tram trains.

Routing via the City Union Line would require some upgrading at Shields Junction as line speeds were low and the Burma Road dive under does not link into the City Union line at present. Grade separation would be required as crossing the Ayrshire services at grade wouldn't be acceptable due to the performance risk.

So for Rail to Renfrew via the CU Line perhaps £100m would be enough for the capacity works?

 

[farci]

'...A big issue is that Renfrew is in a different local authority to Glasgow. Why would any local authority want to invest money taking people away from their area? If SPT were to fund it, that is essentially LA money anyway....

Glasgow Airport Tram Train - if it ever gets built - is being funded by the Glasgow (Region) City Deal which involves more than one Cooncil, so there's your precedent.

As a long-time campaigner for better public transport in Glasgow Southside this thread has produced more useful commentary than we were able to extract from Transport Scotland, who cannot even find the area on a map, and Network Rail whose brief seems only to extend to making best use of existing heavy rail infrastucture.

Once again - we need a powerful strategic public transport authority which starts with what communities need and building from there rather than the current one that simply plays a game of On the Buses and fails at that.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I think I was mistaken about the need for four-tracking. I was re-reading Transport Scotland's Tram-Train Feasibility Study which stated that the critical pinch points between the airport and Glasgow were at Arkleston and Wallneuk Junctions; the approaches into Glasgow from Shields Junction; and platforming at Glasgow Central. There was no mention of any requirement to four-track the Paisley line in order to create capacity for tram trains.

Routing via the City Union Line would require some upgrading at Shields Junction as line speeds were low and the Burma Road dive under does not link into the City Union line at present. Grade separation would be required as crossing the Ayrshire services at grade wouldn't be acceptable due to the performance risk.

So for Rail to Renfrew via the CU Line perhaps £100m would be enough for the capacity works?

Using the City Union line would mean a longer journey time and a need to build an on-street section along Argyle Street. While you might be able to get ~3tph capacity on the Paisley corridor for the services this would be a hard limit, and your expensive and disruptive street running sections at either end would be woefully underused. It also would not address the crux of my argument, that a dedicated shuttle service simply isn't the best use of limited capital funding to solve the problems faced by the normal people of Glasgow in getting around their city.

 

[clc]

Using the City Union line would mean a longer journey time and a need to build an on-street section along Argyle Street. While you might be able to get ~3tph capacity on the Paisley corridor for the services this would be a hard limit, and your expensive and disruptive street running sections at either end would be woefully underused. It also would not address the crux of my argument, that a dedicated shuttle service simply isn't the best use of limited capital funding to solve the problems faced by the normal people of Glasgow in getting around their city.

I appreciate what you are saying about the benefits of a tram line on that route, I could certainly support it. I'm just trying to establish if it's likely the business case would compare favourably with the alternative options via the CU Line.

I take the point that a 3tph Renfrew-Glasgow tram-train service would not be sufficient to justify the cost and disruption of digging up Glasgow city centre, so let's forget that idea. I still think some on street tram tracks at the other end could be merited, certainly into Braehead at least.

That leaves the option of a tram-train service to Charing Cross via CU Line and High St chord. The chord would be tram spec so could be built further east than would be necessary if it were heavy rail standard, reducing the cost quite considerably I'd imagine.

So you'd have a section tram track from Deanside to Braehead and possibly further into Renfrew; upgrading of the Deanside freight line; the capacity works at Shields; upgrading of the CU Line; new stations at Gorbals and Glasgow Cross; the High St chord and the Kelvinhaugh turn back. Ballpark cost estimate, say £300m.

For me the main advantage of your preferred option is it would provide the new hospital with a rail connection to the city centre. I do think the line would have to interchange at Central rather than terminate at the Broomielaw though. What do you estimate it would cost?

 

[NotATrainspott]

I appreciate what you are saying about the benefits of a tram line on that route, I could certainly support it. I'm just trying to establish if it's likely the business case would compare favourably with the alternative options via the CU Line.

I take the point that a 3tph Renfrew-Glasgow tram-train service would not be sufficient to justify the cost and disruption of digging up Glasgow city centre, so let's forget that idea. I still think some on street tram tracks at the other end could be merited, certainly into Braehead at least.

That leaves the option of a tram-train service to Charing Cross via CU Line and High St chord. The chord would be tram spec so could be built further east than would be necessary if it were heavy rail standard, reducing the cost quite considerably I'd imagine.

So you'd have a section tram track from Deanside to Braehead and possibly further into Renfrew; upgrading of the Deanside freight line; the capacity works at Shields; upgrading of the CU Line; new stations at Gorbals and Glasgow Cross; the High St chord and the Kelvinhaugh turn back. Ballpark cost estimate, say £300m.

For me the main advantage of your preferred option is it would provide the new hospital with a rail connection to the city centre. I do think the line would have to interchange at Central rather than terminate at the Broomielaw though. What do you estimate it would cost?

I think the business case would be stronger, even if the upfront capital cost were higher. As with general Crossrail discussions, a lower upfront cost doesn't matter if the scheme still wouldn't be any good. This is particularly so if it would then mean indefinite ongoing subsidy from the government. I have my doubts that any tram-train scheme of this nature would really be able to turn a profit, especially when considering the impact that it would inevitably have on ScotRail services. Consider the need for a turnback west of Charing Cross for this tram-train service. Providing one turnback might be feasible, but providing two might not be. If so, building one for the tram-train service effectively prevents there being one for the ScotRail service. With the Partick bottleneck being expensive to fix, not being able to have a Kelvinhaugh turnback means that you can't run more services east of the city centre. These services will probably be significantly more useful for the city, the country and the amount of ScotRail subsidy than an ineffective shuttle service that has to enter the city centre from the wrong direction.

I suggest Broomielaw as the terminus as it would allow construction of the tram to go ahead sooner without causing too major a reduction in profitability. A terminus on the car park next to the Bingo hall would be just about as far away from most of the Glasgow destinations as the former Platform 11a at Central, so it's not going to turn prospective passengers away. Almost the entire route to Renfrew is either already Fastlink or is a relatively empty four-lane road, so construction could be really pretty swift. The sooner the service is running, the sooner it can start to pay back the capital costs and then help to fund more extensions. It'll also help public and political perception of the scheme if it concentrates on something that it can easily do first, building up trust which it can then use to get through more challenging sections like the city centre. Edinburgh couldn't do that so easily, as the profitable section of the route was on the wrong side of the city for the depot and the easy section ran out at Haymarket too far west of the traditional city centre.

 

[mcmad]

Any chance of including google map links or at least junctions to allow those of us not quite to acquainted with Glasgow to follow these discussions?

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Any chance of including google map links or at least junctions to allow those of us not quite to acquainted with Glasgow to follow these discussions?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place...eb88544607d!8m2!3d55.84953!4d-4.26592!6m1!1e1

If that link works:
On the left above the Subway station entrance is the Port Eglinton Viaduct of the M74 extension, on the right the 3 track line to Paisley and Ayrshire.

Satellite:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.8508253,-4.2608274,613m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

[mcmad]

Sorry, I was more meaning the likes of the suggested terminus in the Broomielaw and the proposed location of St Johns Curve and such like. A quick google suffices for actual existing stations locations

 

[me123]

I would guess at those estimates being vastly too low.

A big issue is that Renfrew is in a different local authority to Glasgow. Why would any local authority want to invest money taking people away from their area? If SPT were to fund it, that is essentially LA money anyway.

It's all a nice idea though...

On the other side of the coin, Renfrew is probably the biggest town in the immediate vicinity of Glasgow to have no rail link. People already go to Glasgow from Renfrew. But a connection to Glasgow ± Paisley could actually attract people to the town who might otherwise have overlooked it. Suddenly, the town becomes prime commuter belt land, and may even attract some commercial and office development on the back of improved transport links to a major economic hub.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Perhaps a slightly longer google then?

eg: High Street chord – draw your own though the car park (major/minor/diminished/augmented).

Argyle Line goes into tunnel at Exhibition Centre (turnback siding exists) and north bank electrics (junction left centre) line goes into tunnel at Argyle Street, next station Charing Cross. But you might know that already.

 

[clc]

I think the business case would be stronger, even if the upfront capital cost were higher. As with general Crossrail discussions, a lower upfront cost doesn't matter if the scheme still wouldn't be any good. This is particularly so if it would then mean indefinite ongoing subsidy from the government. I have my doubts that any tram-train scheme of this nature would really be able to turn a profit, especially when considering the impact that it would inevitably have on ScotRail services. Consider the need for a turnback west of Charing Cross for this tram-train service. Providing one turnback might be feasible, but providing two might not be. If so, building one for the tram-train service effectively prevents there being one for the ScotRail service. With the Partick bottleneck being expensive to fix, not being able to have a Kelvinhaugh turnback means that you can't run more services east of the city centre. These services will probably be significantly more useful for the city, the country and the amount of ScotRail subsidy than an ineffective shuttle service that has to enter the city centre from the wrong direction.

I suggest Broomielaw as the terminus as it would allow construction of the tram to go ahead sooner without causing too major a reduction in profitability. A terminus on the car park next to the Bingo hall would be just about as far away from most of the Glasgow destinations as the former Platform 11a at Central, so it's not going to turn prospective passengers away. Almost the entire route to Renfrew is either already Fastlink or is a relatively empty four-lane road, so construction could be really pretty swift. The sooner the service is running, the sooner it can start to pay back the capital costs and then help to fund more extensions. It'll also help public and political perception of the scheme if it concentrates on something that it can easily do first, building up trust which it can then use to get through more challenging sections like the city centre. Edinburgh couldn't do that so easily, as the profitable section of the route was on the wrong side of the city for the depot and the easy section ran out at Haymarket too far west of the traditional city centre.

I can't think of a bingo hall on Broomielaw, do you mean the casino opposite the Clydeport building? I think stopping the line that short of Central Station would be a false economy. Passengers arriving at Central enroute to Pacific Quay and the hospital would most likely plump for the convenience of the bus from outside the station.

Re your point about using the turn back for Scotrail services rather than tram train, the only potential additional Scotrail service is 2tph more on the Airdrie-Bathgate line. Couldn't the turn back handle 5tph?

You still haven't put a ballpark price on the tram line I notice.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I can't think of a bingo hall on Broomielaw, do you mean the casino opposite the Clydeport building? I think stopping the line that short of Central Station would be a false economy. Passengers arriving at Central enroute to Pacific Quay and the hospital would most likely plump for the convenience of the bus from outside the station.

Re your point about using the turn back for Scotrail services rather than tram train, the only potential additional Scotrail service is 2tph more on the Airdrie-Bathgate line. Couldn't the turn back handle 5tph?

You still haven't put a ballpark price on the tram line I notice.

Yes, I mean the casino. I read 'Gala' on the map and my brain filled in 'Bingo' for the rest.

By temporary terminus I mean a properly temporary terminus, where the construction contracts are all signed and possibly underway for the next stage but enough has been finished to get the tram in passenger service. What I suspect is that ripping up Argyle Street would be much more time-consuming and risky than the rest of the line, and it's never a bad idea to de-risk what would be a major infrastructure project. In the worst case scenario the tram is still useful for getting pedestrians from the city centre (who would need to walk to Central anyway), and would still provide the necessary connectivity for Renfrew and Govan town centres. It's not uncommon for new transport systems to deliberately open up in phases for the reasons that I provided.

I really don't know what it would cost to build this tram line. It was implicit in my comments that I knew it would cost more than some Rail to Renfrew tram-train scheme, but that those costs would be justified by much greater benefits. A well-managed scheme run by the reasonably competent people at Transport Scotland should be deliverable for less per kilometre than the Edinburgh system, at the very least.

A regular 5tph service means ~12 minutes between successive entries and exits of a turnback. Combining a 3tph shuttle and a 2tph heavy rail service would make it uneven, especially if it proves difficult to timetable the tram-train services at a suitable frequency. This turnback would be to one side of the line, so either entries or exits will be conflicting movements, and there will be something like 8tph running through at the same time. I'm not confident that a Kelvinhaugh turnback would be able to manage this level and complexity of service. Even if it could, there would still be an opportunity cost of using those paths for the shuttle and not some other service that would otherwise need to squeeze into the high level station, or not run at all.