Possible future development of Glasgow Central station

[Altnabreac]

Isn't the new development going to be pretty much over the river from Glasgow Central?

It should help improve the business case for extending Glasgow Central over the Clyde and providing a new Tradeston entrance Blackfriars style.

 

[gsnedders]

It should help improve the business case for extending Glasgow Central over the Clyde and providing a new Tradeston entrance Blackfriars style.

How does that help? Some new terminus platforms over the Clyde (at the site of the original bridge)? How would they link into the remainder of the station without affecting platform 1?

 

[najaB]

It should help improve the business case for extending Glasgow Central over the Clyde and providing a new Tradeston entrance Blackfriars style.

I didn't think that there was a serious proposal to do that. Is this for full-length HS2 trains?

 

[NotATrainspott]

I didn't think that there was a serious proposal to do that. Is this for full-length HS2 trains?

There hasn't been a serious proposal to do it. But, it doesn't seem like there are many realistic alternatives.

For one, the idea of any new Glasgow HSR capacity being anywhere other than Central station is a dud. Crossrail isn't happening and the land around High Street is being developed now or in the near-future. There would never be a business case for moving high speed services out of the main Glasgow railway hub anyway.

Then, we work on the assumption that at some point in the future there will be 400m high speed trains headed for Glasgow. It might not be planned for the HS2 project, but HS2 is not the last ever railway improvement project to happen in the UK. Should 400m platforms be required at Central, they will need to be standards-compliant and represent an increase in net capacity.

Then, we look at the site that's available. NR have already mentioned the idea of new platforms on the eastern side for LDHS services. If you're having to do a major rebuild to add platforms, it makes sense doing so in a way which keeps your options open for the future. TSI-compliant platforms could be designed so that they could semi-permanently adopt the UK platform-train interface until there's a compelling need to run captive trains.

As part of TSI compliance there are limits on curvature, making it pretty much essential for the platforms to be dead straight. Fitting in several dead-straight 400m long platforms such that they link towards the WCML fast tracks, without reducing capacity for other trains and also without destroying the Grade A listed station features isn't exactly trivial. It seems like the best and probably only viable way of doing is to have the platforms as far south-east as can be managed in the city grid. Union Street has an awkward kink at Argyle Street which makes dead-straight platforms impossible, so it's likely the buffer stops would have to be at Argyle Street. This means the southern end of the platforms would be on the south bank of the Clyde and the station would end up resembling Blackfriars.

I don't think anyone would really object to a station like this. If designed as a suitable centrepiece for the city, it would be a massive boost for the waterfront as it would tie the north and south banks together. You'd have to have escape stairs on the southern bank anyway, so you may as well add in a revenue entrance and really open up that part for train passengers. There'd have to be quite a bit of remodelling the railway as part of this work, but it could all be done in a sympathetic way for the city. The most important part of the station heritage north of Argyle Street might end up losing trains, with all of the buffer stops moved south of Argyle Street, but this would allow a nice new internal plaza under the traditional train shed. It'd all be like what happened at Madrid Atocha or St Pancras, where the traditional train shed became essentially a public space while the railway splayed out a bit at the country end to accommodate more platforms and facilities.

 

[edwin_m]

I think moving the entire buffer line at Central out to Argyle Street would lose too much capacity in platform length and perhaps even eliminate some platforms entirely. It seems to me more likely that the northern part of platforms 1 and 2 would be replaced by a walkway (possibly a moving walkway) to a buffer line for the high speed platforms further south, and the rest would remain roughly as they are. It might also be possible to link all the platforms via Argyle Street or a passage alongside it, so as to shorten the walking route for connecting passengers and to allow the shorter platforms 3 upwards access to the southern exit by walking along the high speed platform.

 

[Altnabreac]

I didn't think that there was a serious proposal to do that. Is this for full-length HS2 trains?

Serious proposal is in development. The logic is well outlined by NotATrainspott as why that is the only simple way to deliver 400m platforms for Central without eating into capacity.

 

[clc]

Transport Scotland has commissioned Atkins to examine possible future plans for Glasgow Central and the West of Scotland rail network. Initial findings are due in September.

 

[och aye]

I'm sure I read somewhere that a new St Enochs station could be considered for HS2 services.

Would the existing NCP car park provide enough space to build a station to accommodate the length of the trains?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

I'm sure I read somewhere that a new St Enochs station could be considered for HS2 services.

Would the existing NCP car park provide enough space to build a station to accommodate the length of the trains?

I have heard a proposal to use a new station above High Street to allow 400 metre HS2 trains but not St Enoch

 

[clc]

St Enoch would be for local services such as Barrhead and East Kilbride. Central and High Street were the sites identified for a HSR terminal, though the council has recently granted planning permission for a huge housing development on the High Street site so it looks like Central is now the only viable option.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I think moving the entire buffer line at Central out to Argyle Street would lose too much capacity in platform length and perhaps even eliminate some platforms entirely. It seems to me more likely that the northern part of platforms 1 and 2 would be replaced by a walkway (possibly a moving walkway) to a buffer line for the high speed platforms further south, and the rest would remain roughly as they are. It might also be possible to link all the platforms via Argyle Street or a passage alongside it, so as to shorten the walking route for connecting passengers and to allow the shorter platforms 3 upwards access to the southern exit by walking along the high speed platform.

It would depend on just how comprehensive a redevelopment you'd want for the station. One thing to consider is that any meaningful expansion towards Jamaica Street will require CPO and demolition. At that point, there's not an incredible amount of point in not extending the station all the way to the street and creating a new frontage (maybe with some facade retention for heritage purposes). That means you're already starting on a fairly major mixed-use redevelopment already.

Also, the layout of the station throat means that taking a relatively small amount of space off the existing station at the eastern side results in a disproportionately large number of platforms becoming out of use. These unusable platforms are currently the shortest, and the natural development of the railway network will make them less and less useful in future. In a redevelopment they'd end up replaced by a smaller number of longer platforms.

There's already consideration of expanding westwards towards Oswald Street. I think this would be a useful Phase 1 of any major scheme here, because it would provide some space for services to be shifted westwards while the eastern side is in the peak of redevelopment work (like Waterloo with the international platforms). The western platforms would provide a similar mixed-used opportunity for station development.

The need for platforms at Central will also depend on what happens with the Glasgow stations capacity work in the STPR, as all three (tunnel, metro, neo-St Enoch) would provide some amount of capacity relief. The first two options (tunnel and metro) wouldn't really diminish the value of redeveloping the station - indeed, a redevelopment might be the best way of accommodating the new need for passenger interchange between the tunnel/metro and the mainline station. Moving everyday commuters to the tunnel/metro would make high-value amenities for long-distance passengers more worthwhile in the existing station. Folk going down to London are more likely to go to a fancy restaurant or shop than someone headed to Paisley.

 

[edwin_m]

It would depend on just how comprehensive a redevelopment you'd want for the station. One thing to consider is that any meaningful expansion towards Jamaica Street will require CPO and demolition. At that point, there's not an incredible amount of point in not extending the station all the way to the street and creating a new frontage (maybe with some facade retention for heritage purposes). That means you're already starting on a fairly major mixed-use redevelopment already.

It's certainly a difficult site (but then so would nearly any station be in a city centre). With the need for high speed platforms to be 400m long and straight, I can't see how they could go north of Argyle Street, because Union Street is not a direct continuation of Jamaica Street so a straight platform would project out over the former. This leads to an assumption of CPO and demolition of most or all of the area bounded by Argyle Street, Union Street, the existing station and the Clyde plus probably a smaller area on the south bank. I think there are then three options:
- New tracks and platforms immediately east of the existing on the footprint of the demolished bridge. This would indeed take a slice of the throat and affect access to most of the low-numbered platforms.
- New tracks and platforms up against Bridge Street and Union Street. This would leave the existing throat north of the Clyde intact and probably allow all platforms to be retained in approximately their existing form but with some re-configuration south of the Clyde.
- Somewhere between the above two options there may be one that (north of the river) takes the southern part and approaches of platform 1 and 2 only. Those platforms might then be re-configured to be shorter (probably too short) or serve as an access from the historic shed to the new high speed platforms. They would probably also have access off Argyle Street as well as somewhere on the south bank.

 

[B&I]

If some form of Glasgow Crossrail was devised, and some or all of the Ayrshire, south-western and or Cathcart area services were diverted through it to connect with routes to the east or north east, how many platforms would that free up at Central for high speed services ?

 

[edwin_m]

If some form of Glasgow Crossrail was devised, and some or all of the Ayrshire, south-western and or Cathcart area services were diverted through it to connect with routes to the east or north east, how many platforms would that free up at Central for high speed services ?

Can't find the platform lengths at present, but few if any of 3 onwards are able to take even a single (200m) high speed unit.

 

[gsnedders]

Can't find the platform lengths at present, but few if any of 3 onwards are able to take even a single (200m) high speed unit.

Platform 9 had a Class 390 in it on Saturday (probably a nine car? I didn't look closely enough, pretty sure eleven won't fit though), so at least that is long enough. And platform 11, where the sleeper normally goes, is presumably long enough?

 

[edwin_m]

Platform 9 had a Class 390 in it on Saturday (probably a nine car? I didn't look closely enough, pretty sure eleven won't fit though), so at least that is long enough. And platform 11, where the sleeper normally goes, is presumably long enough?

Yes I had a feeling a couple of the western platforms were longer, but if used routinely during daytime these would cause extra conflicts in the station throat.

 

[gsnedders]

Yes I had a feeling a couple of the western platforms were longer, but if used routinely during daytime these would cause extra conflicts in the station throat.

Oh indeed, they'd almost certainly cause too many conflicts (esp. given the time taken for a 200m train to clear the conflict at the slow speeds allowed).