Expansions for Scotland's rail network proposed

[clc]

First phase , what would be the second phase ?

Doubling parts of Busby-East Kilbride and electrification.

 

[route101]

Doubling parts of Busby-East Kilbride and electrification.

Guess we have to sit tight and hope thats the case.

 

[adrock1976]

There still isn’t any peak time capacity at Glasgow Central though which has always been the flaw with the scheme. Either it needs to be a PRT system from Gilmour St to the Airport or someone needs to create a load more capacity at Central.

Because for me if you managed to create space for 4tph extra at Central I’d be looking to run 2tph to Largs, 4tph to EK and 3tph to Neilston with my extra slots rather than some slow short tram trains to the Airport that mess up capacity on the Paisley Corridor.

So to resurrect GARL you need to be creating 15tph extra slots at Central and you only get that with the cross Glasgow tunnel.

I think the case for Edinburgh Airport being linked up to the rail network is far stronger than Glasgow, due to it's location.

If anything was to happen for Glasgow then potentially some form of light rail link between there and the city, but that would be it.

It's a pet issue for the Evening Times, but I doubt many in the city are that bothered.

I agree. I just wish a decision would be made one way or the other so they can get on with it.

What is ideally required is for Glasgow to bring back trams. The Cathcart, Newton, and Neilston lines could be converted as part of a second phase after building a Glasgow Queen Street - Central - Broomielaw - Clyde Arc Bridge - Pacific Quay - Govan Cross - New Southern General Hospital - Braehead Centre - Renfrew Cross - Glasgow International Airport - Abbotsinch - Paisley Gilmour Street - Paisley Cross line. Being as the stations along the Cathcart, Newton, and Neilston lines are close together, this would be suitable for converting to trams.

All it requires for Glasgow and SPT to bring back trams is to get the people in who planned, designed, and constructed the Manchester Metrolink, as they are the experts and would make sure it is done properly at the first time of asking.

 

[clc]

I expect the preferred option will be PRT, in which case you could still build a tram from the city centre to the airport. Not sure you could justify extending the tram to PGS if you already had a PRT link.

 

[Highlandspring]

PRT..?

 

[clc]

PRT..?

Personal Rapid Transport. Running pods to St James has been considered though I’d rather they went to Gilmour Street. Some images here:

https://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news...avellers-from-new-station-to-glasgow-airport/

 

[clc]

The council leader recently raised the possibility of the preferred option also serving a new manufacturing zone which is being developed north east of the terminal on land between Abbotsinch Road and the White Cart river. I think that would rule out tram train as the cost of extending the line beyond the terminal would take the total cost over the £144 million budget. Perhaps an extended PRT line could serve this area within the budget.

 

[snookertam]

What is ideally required is for Glasgow to bring back trams. The Cathcart, Newton, and Neilston lines could be converted as part of a second phase after building a Glasgow Queen Street - Central - Broomielaw - Clyde Arc Bridge - Pacific Quay - Govan Cross - New Southern General Hospital - Braehead Centre - Renfrew Cross - Glasgow International Airport - Abbotsinch - Paisley Gilmour Street - Paisley Cross line. Being as the stations along the Cathcart, Newton, and Neilston lines are close together, this would be suitable for converting to trams.

All it requires for Glasgow and SPT to bring back trams is to get the people in who planned, designed, and constructed the Manchester Metrolink, as they are the experts and would make sure it is done properly at the first time of asking.

'All it requires....' Hmm there's probably a lot involved in that, including costs of not only the work itself, but also hiring in the same experts. Then there's the question of whether they want to do it again, and given that Metrolink was first constructed and implemented in the 1990's, there's the issue that some of those same people could very well have retired by now.

I'm personally not in favour of converting the Cathcart Circle lines for Light rail. They perform their role perfectly well as heavy rail. If there are to be light rail options on the south side of Glasgow, I'd suggest a tram option along main roads which would supplement existing transport provision.

I'd further suggest that the biggest issue in Glasgow is not the level of transport provision - which is actually relatively good for a UK city although could do with some improvements - but ticketing. If we could get rid of the constant need to get separate tickets for one off journeys covering multiple modes of transport then it would be far easier for people.

 

[najaB]

If there are to be light rail options on the south side of Glasgow, I'd suggest a tram option along main roads which would supplement existing transport provision.

The downside of street running is that the rather than being a way to beat the traffic, the trams get stuck in it too.

 

[NotATrainspott]

'All it requires....' Hmm there's probably a lot involved in that, including costs of not only the work itself, but also hiring in the same experts. Then there's the question of whether they want to do it again, and given that Metrolink was first constructed and implemented in the 1990's, there's the issue that some of those same people could very well have retired by now.

I'm personally not in favour of converting the Cathcart Circle lines for Light rail. They perform their role perfectly well as heavy rail. If there are to be light rail options on the south side of Glasgow, I'd suggest a tram option along main roads which would supplement existing transport provision.

I'd further suggest that the biggest issue in Glasgow is not the level of transport provision - which is actually relatively good for a UK city although could do with some improvements - but ticketing. If we could get rid of the constant need to get separate tickets for one off journeys covering multiple modes of transport then it would be far easier for people.

The skills required to convert the Cathcart Circle and other routes to tram or tram-train aren't unique to Metrolink. There are plenty of other cities around Europe which have done a similar thing.

It is true that ticketing is by far the most important but least physically visible project that needs to be sorted out. There's no point building any other urban metro infrastructure until ticketing is sorted out because bus operators would otherwise have no compulsion to work with it. Metrolink didn't need it so much to begin with because the tram aspects were relatively small and it was a project that BR had a major interest in delivering for heavy rail network reasons. That would be true to some extent for other NR line conversions in and around Glasgow, but inevitably the network would start stepping on the toes of the bus operators. If so, they'll either lobby against it, or they'll engage in ticketing practices to damage the network once it starts. Sorting out the bus network before you start building any metro also means you can design them to complement one another. For example, to reduce the number of buses going into the city you can design routes and ticketing so that people change onto a tram at a convenient point for the final leg into or across the city.

The justification for tram(-train) conversion is that you can run a much higher frequency service and make amendments to the network which improve its usefulness but without the massive costs of doing that with heavy rail. It's inevitable, for instance, that the maximum length of a single tram(-train) vehicle would be shorter than is possible today for heavy rail. But, the tram(-train) vehicles would be optimised for the shorter-distance journeys made on this line, rather than being generic EMUs capable of performing most ScotRail duties. While vehicle length decreases, it becomes practical to run the whole network at a higher frequency, which is then more useful for passengers. The reduced operational cost per service, and the reduced maintenance requirements for light-rail infrastructure, make it easier to run services earlier and later in the day still at a turn-up-and-go frequency. Of course, some people at the outer reaches of the network might complain they don't get the same facilities on board for their peak commute but the network works far more effectively for everyone during the off-peak, which accounts for most of the time and most of the costs of running the network.

The downside of street running is that the rather than being a way to beat the traffic, the trams get stuck in it too.

It depends on how sophisticated your street running is. Modern tram networks minimise the amount of properly shared roadway - e.g. running down the central reservation, or off to the side. Using street running technology means that they can then still use normal at-grade crossings for cars and pedestrians.

 

[najaB]

Modern tram networks minimise the amount of properly shared roadway - e.g. running down the central reservation, or off to the side.

Which works well when you have wide streets, less so in UK cities where there often isn't even room for a bike lane.

 

[edwin_m]

What is ideally required is for Glasgow to bring back trams. The Cathcart, Newton, and Neilston lines could be converted as part of a second phase after building a Glasgow Queen Street - Central - Broomielaw - Clyde Arc Bridge - Pacific Quay - Govan Cross - New Southern General Hospital - Braehead Centre - Renfrew Cross - Glasgow International Airport - Abbotsinch - Paisley Gilmour Street - Paisley Cross line. Being as the stations along the Cathcart, Newton, and Neilston lines are close together, this would be suitable for converting to trams.

All it requires for Glasgow and SPT to bring back trams is to get the people in who planned, designed, and constructed the Manchester Metrolink, as they are the experts and would make sure it is done properly at the first time of asking.

This may very well be a good suggestion for general transport (although I'm not aware that anyone in a position of power is in favour of it). But the problem with this from the airport point of view is that the existing bus is relatively fast except when the M8 is jammed. Any stops other than perhaps one in Paisley would make an airport rail link uncompetitive, so it's difficult to include an airport service in an integrated network.

'All it requires....' Hmm there's probably a lot involved in that, including costs of not only the work itself, but also hiring in the same experts. Then there's the question of whether they want to do it again, and given that Metrolink was first constructed and implemented in the 1990's, there's the issue that some of those same people could very well have retired by now.

Metrolink phase 3 finished three or four years ago, the Trafford line is still building, and West Midlands is in the early stages of a major expansion. Some of them have retired but others (including me) are still around...

I'm personally not in favour of converting the Cathcart Circle lines for Light rail. They perform their role perfectly well as heavy rail. If there are to be light rail options on the south side of Glasgow, I'd suggest a tram option along main roads which would supplement existing transport provision.

The reason to do this (and I repeat it's not any sort of official policy) would not be because the existing service was deficient, but because it's the shortest route out of Central, therefore the most appropriate for conversion to tram-train to free capacity there for longer-distance services.

Personal Rapid Transport. Running pods to St James has been considered though I’d rather they went to Gilmour Street.

If something like this were to happen, it would be far more likely to be an automated shuttle as they have at Gatwick and Birmingham and are building for Luton. True PRT with pods for about four people is superficially attractive but when looked at in more detail it's essentially a solution in need of a problem. There are good reasons why the concept of PRT has been around for nearly half a century but (depending on how you define it) there are no more than four PRTs in operation worldwide.

 

[GLC]

Would the Mount Florida to Glasgow Central section of the line not want to be retained as a diversionary route for WCML services?

 

[47271]

Good point on ticketing, and the problem of private bus operators - and Glasgow has many of them - undermining the intended outcomes of public investment.

The observation is particularly apt in relation to construction of a rail link to a privately owned airport. Can we be sure that, if however many millions ever get spent on a link, the airport won't charge vast sums for the service to access its terminal?

By all accounts this is the reason why tram and through ticketed rail fares from Edinburgh Airport to Gateway are so high. Quote from Ginaro's post in the Edinburgh Gateway 'White Elephant' thread from 12 December:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/edinburgh-gateway-a-white-elephant.143148/page-9

The surcharge to the airport is due to the airport charging an access fee for the bus and tram, and yes it should be reduced to make the tram/bus more appealing. (info from this Edinburgh councillor:https://twitter.com/CllrChasBooth/status/1070788401656418305)

 

[snookertam]

Metrolink phase 3 finished three or four years ago, the Trafford line is still building, and West Midlands is in the early stages of a major expansion. Some of them have retired but others (including me) are still around...

The reason to do this (and I repeat it's not any sort of official policy) would not be because the existing service was deficient, but because it's the shortest route out of Central, therefore the most appropriate for conversion to tram-train to free capacity there for longer-distance services.

I see your point regarding motivations, however in Glasgow there is another available solution involving the City Union line becoming a cross-city (has been referred to as crossrail) line. The Cathcart lines don't have a link to it but the Paisley lines do and the Larkfield Curve could also be linked up - in fact a space was deliberately left in the M74 viaduct for this purpose. I'd argue that in terms of overall cost, if you want to free up space at Central then this would be more likely rather than conversion of the Cathcart Circle. If you do convert the Cathcart Circle lines to light rail, where do they go when they reach Muirhouse? Do they go on street? In that case you get the same objections regarding on street running as were made above - and how do they get on street?. Do they go underground? What is the cost of building a new tunnel underneath the city? I get that if you wanted to design the perfect transport network and cost wasn't an issue then yes, there is a certain appeal to conversion of those route to light rail, but I can't see it ever happening especially when there are perfectly good alternatives.

The point further above about specialised light rail vehicles as opposed to generic ones for all duties, up until now these lines have had units that were designed for a line such as this - quick acceleration and basic, high density seating with wide doors. Glasgow has plenty of routes that require this sort of unit, so it shouldn't be beyond the ken of ScotRail/Transport Scotland to provide something appropriate for this service. It is only now that we are seeing introduction of 90 and 100mph capable units on a regular basis. I would argue that when class 318 and 320s come to be replaced, there should be a 20m vehicle 3 or 6 car unit ordered that can be used on all suburban routes that largely remain in the immediate Glasgow area, including the Argyle Line, Balloch/Airdrie & Dumbarton/Springburn services, Cathcart Circle and Paisley Canal routes. Like an updated version of the 314s, as that's all that's really required for such routes.

As also pointed out above, conversion means you lose a WCML diversion route also. The big trains use it sometimes too.

 

[delt1c]

PRT..?

"A" Missing !!!!!!!!!

 

[route:oxford]

By all accounts this is the reason why tram and through ticketed rail fares from Edinburgh Airport to Gateway are so high. Quote from Ginaro's post in the Edinburgh Gateway 'White Elephant' thread from 12 December:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/edinburgh-gateway-a-white-elephant.143148/page-9

It doesn't help that it's Scotrail Policy "in-line with other UK rail operators" not to offer period returns on rail+ airport tram tickets. Buying two singles is a pest.

Scotrail refused, when I asked them, to tell me which other UK rail operators offer joint ticketing with a tram service to an airport. They merely repeated that it was "in-line with other UK rail operators".

 

[Highlandspring]

"A" Missing !!!!!!!!!

Sorry?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Which works well when you have wide streets, less so in UK cities where there often isn't even room for a bike lane.

There's almost always room if you're happy to fiddle with the road network. Bike lanes are hard to fit in when you're not also willing to restrict road space for normal road vehicles. The nature of proper bike lanes or other good public transport improvements is that the end result is better than what came before, as the remaining road space can still be used by drivers who don't have a choice while those who do start using the bike lane or public transport instead. IIRC the London Cycle Superhighway along the embankment carries as many people per hour as the whole rest of the roadway in the peak despite taking up only one traffic lane.

Would the Mount Florida to Glasgow Central section of the line not want to be retained as a diversionary route for WCML services?

This is why I would expect it to be a tram-train conversion, alongside the desire to run up onto the Maryhill line while keeping that open for WHL trains. High-floor tram-trains like those proposed for Manchester would mean minimal work would be required on the network outside of the city. If really required, you'd even be able to run longer formations of tram-trains into the high level platforms at Glasgow Central for handling peak loads.

I see your point regarding motivations, however in Glasgow there is another available solution involving the City Union line becoming a cross-city (has been referred to as crossrail) line. The Cathcart lines don't have a link to it but the Paisley lines do and the Larkfield Curve could also be linked up - in fact a space was deliberately left in the M74 viaduct for this purpose. I'd argue that in terms of overall cost, if you want to free up space at Central then this would be more likely rather than conversion of the Cathcart Circle. If you do convert the Cathcart Circle lines to light rail, where do they go when they reach Muirhouse? Do they go on street? In that case you get the same objections regarding on street running as were made above - and how do they get on street?. Do they go underground? What is the cost of building a new tunnel underneath the city? I get that if you wanted to design the perfect transport network and cost wasn't an issue then yes, there is a certain appeal to conversion of those route to light rail, but I can't see it ever happening especially when there are perfectly good alternatives.

The point further above about specialised light rail vehicles as opposed to generic ones for all duties, up until now these lines have had units that were designed for a line such as this - quick acceleration and basic, high density seating with wide doors. Glasgow has plenty of routes that require this sort of unit, so it shouldn't be beyond the ken of ScotRail/Transport Scotland to provide something appropriate for this service. It is only now that we are seeing introduction of 90 and 100mph capable units on a regular basis. I would argue that when class 318 and 320s come to be replaced, there should be a 20m vehicle 3 or 6 car unit ordered that can be used on all suburban routes that largely remain in the immediate Glasgow area, including the Argyle Line, Balloch/Airdrie & Dumbarton/Springburn services, Cathcart Circle and Paisley Canal routes. Like an updated version of the 314s, as that's all that's really required for such routes.

As also pointed out above, conversion means you lose a WCML diversion route also. The big trains use it sometimes too.

The City Union Line is not the magical solution its proponents claim it to be. The amount of benefit it provides for transport planners is outweighed entirely by the compromises and improvements required to make it work. That's why Transport Scotland are not interested in the line to be used for cross-city services. At most, they would be interested in using it as a simple access to a neo-St Enoch station from the south.

When the tram-trains reach Muirhouse they go onto the street, yes. Glasgow has a grid road network which can be easily redesigned to provide one northbound and one southbound tram line. If you're going to the effort of providing a new high-capacity north-south metro line you can afford to drop some traffic lanes to make room. All of the road junctions along the route would be redesigned to provide priority for tram and public transport services. Also, building a tram line comes side-by-side with wider development ideas and this area south of the city centre is ripe for changes. That may provide the opportunity to create new roads and urban corridors.

It would definitely be possible to build a metro specification EMU for local Glasgow rail services. However, the way the rail network is developing will make it harder, not easier, for these metro spec EMUs to stay on local services. The end of separate SPT branding came with the Airdrie-Bathgate project, and was a reflection of how the network is better as it is made to stretch well beyond the limits of traditional Strathclyde. You'd probably use a metro EMU on trains to Cumbernauld, but now those trains are going to be headed all the way to Edinburgh. The trains to Airdrie go all the way to Edinburgh too. In future, so may Argyle line services. Obviously the branch lines like East Kilbride won't see services extended, but in general the metro-ness of the rail network is going away. For distances within the traditional Strathclyde area, a tram-train vehicle on a higher frequency service pattern will be just fine.

 

[InOban]

The argument for conversion is that the current railways don't penetrate the major housing areas such as Castlemilk.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The argument for conversion is that the current railways don't penetrate the major housing areas such as Castlemilk.

The example I normally use is Newton Mearns but Castlemilk works too. New heavy rail branches aren't going to happen unless there's a complete old alignment in situ. With light rail, the Phase 1 of the project can be the simple conversion, and then the branches can be added later. That's like what happened with the Oldham loop where the original Mumps station was initially used for tram services before the line was redirected through the streets in the middle of Oldham. Similarly, the branch from the existing Rochdale station into the town centre was added later and had a major impact on the utility of the line for local people. Couple this to the way tram lines can be built steeper, with sharper corners and cheaper infrastructure generally and you can make all sorts of new lines and branches viable.

 

[clc]

...If really required, you'd even be able to run longer formations of tram-trains into the high level platforms at Glasgow Central for handling peak loads.

How long would they be and how much capacity would they have compared to a 6-car EMU?

 

[edwin_m]

How long would they be and how much capacity would they have compared to a 6-car EMU?

Slightly longer than the 6-car EMU due to the narrower body and extra cabs. But to be honest if the optimum service is a 6-car every few minutes, the line probably isn't one for tram-trains. If the current service is a 6-car EMU every 20-30min then it might be possible to run a tram-train every 5min or so by avoiding the bottleneck of capacity at Central.

 

[clc]

Slightly longer than the 6-car EMU due to the narrower body and extra cabs. But to be honest if the optimum service is a 6-car every few minutes, the line probably isn't one for tram-trains. If the current service is a 6-car EMU every 20-30min then it might be possible to run a tram-train every 5min or so by avoiding the bottleneck of capacity at Central.

Currently you have 4tph on the eastern half of the circle, 3tph on the western half of the circle (including 1tph going the long way round), 2tph on the Kings Park-Newton section and 2tph on the Muirend-Neilston section. Network Rail estimates that these frequencies will have to double by 2043 to meet forecast demand. So in the long term heavy rail will be providing 8tph on the busiest section and 4tph-6tph on the other sections.

That level of frequency combined with heavy rail comfort and capacity seems like the ideal outcome to me.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Currently you have 4tph on the eastern half of the circle, 3tph on the western half of the circle (including 1tph going the long way round), 2tph on the Kings Park-Newton section and 2tph on the Muirend-Neilston section. Network Rail estimates that these frequencies will have to double by 2043 to meet forecast demand. So in the long term heavy rail will be providing 8tph on the busiest section and 4tph-6tph on the other sections.

That level of frequency combined with heavy rail comfort and capacity seems like the ideal outcome to me.

That's still a far way from the maximum possible frequency of a tram-train line which doesn't normally conflict with other rail services. Metrolink has a tram every 4 minutes between Cornbrook and Deansgate-Castlefield.

The issue is that there's a zero-sum game involved in extra capacity at Central. Each proposed capacity enhancement - new platforms for LDHS services on the east, new suburban platforms on the west, the whole underground tunnel notion - provides a certain increase in capacity for a cost. If you use up that extra capacity for Cathcart Circle services, you can't use it for other lines regardless of how deserving they are. The only way to have both is to go for even more capacity enhancements, but each extra heavy rail path is going to cost more and more to deliver. At the same time there's real untapped potential for local services to run north-south via a tram-train line. Even if you still had a mixture of heavy rail and tram-train services on the Cathcart Circle network you'd still be better off than we are today, at a lower cost per extra path than most viable alternatives. Remember that while you can argue that the Cathcart Circle network might not be quite suitable enough for a tram-train network, there's no question at all about most of the other lines. If you can provide another 10 trains an hour's capacity via a tram-train line the only suburban branches you could ever use it on are the Cathcart and Paisley Canal lines, or the EK line at a push if you create a chord and run via Muirend as was proposed back in the 80s.

The idea that it'll all be hunky dory using heavy rail trains to provide lots of seats and toilets at future frequencies is also a bit misguided, in my opinion. Faced with capacity constraints on metro services and a requirement to use heavy rail technology, the solution will be new rolling stock optimised for metro services ahead of big, expensive infrastructure projects. The seats and toilets that people would lose from tram-trains will also be lost in a heavy rail future. Realistically, what difference is there for passengers between a Class 345-style unit and a tram-train? Longitudinal seating, no tables, no toilets, minimal or no power sockets and an expectation that you'll be standing up for much of your journey. Sure, the ride quality might be a little better, but is that really enough for people to reject a more frequent and lower cost tram service?

Lowering costs is a key justification for tram-train conversion. It's the easiest way to reduce operational costs while still improving the service in a way which can increase revenue. The Cathcart Circle line is hardly a profitable enterprise today, when systems like Metrolink no longer break a sweat to make a profit. There's plenty of potential for it to cross-subsidy other public transport including heavy rail services.

 

[Steamysandy]

For a prototype in use at present look at Tokyo Yamanote line.Eleven coach basic one class only trains every two and a half minutes approx.

 

[NotATrainspott]

For a prototype in use at present look at Tokyo Yamanote line.Eleven coach basic one class only trains every two and a half minutes approx.

Thameslink is planned to do pretty much the same thing, so it's hardly a unique thing. What makes it possible isn't the train design itself, but the fact the line is designed as a self-contained metro network. Of course, there's no way a 220m long commuter train can run on the streets, but Glasgow doesn't need anything near that amount of capacity. Frequency though, that's what everyone needs, as that's what makes rapid transport useful.

 

[och aye]

It looks like Winchburgh station is going to happen now that the expansion of the Village has been agreed by the developers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-46906369

A West Lothian village is to be developed into a town with 3,000 new homes being built in a £1bn project.

Winchburgh will be extended over 15 years on 347-hectares (857 acres).

Winchburgh Developments Limited will go ahead after owners West Coast Capital (WCC) agreed a joint venture with Cala Homes.

As well as 3,450 homes and school buildings the plan includes improved transport links, a marina, a 75-acre park and 35 acres of employment land.

About 700 of the properties will be affordable houses of which 400 homes will be made available for social rent.

 

[InOban]

The press release refers only to 'transport improvements'. Train or Railway Station aren't mentioned. It could merely be improved links to the M9 or the A89.

 

[najaB]

It looks like Winchburgh station is going to happen now that the expansion of the Village has been agreed by the developers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-46906369

My first though on reading that was "a marina?!", but it makes sense given that a canal runs through it.