Expansion of Glasgow Subway

[GusB]

http://www.globalrailnews.com/2017/04/18/political-pledge-for-expansion-of-glasgows-subway-network/

The SNP has said it will look at expanding Glasgow’s subway network if it is successful in the upcoming local elections.

Announced in its manifesto for Scotland’s largest city, the political party has declared its intention to support the extension, which would be the first since the 1890s when the subway was built.

Management of the urban rail – the third oldest network in the world – would also be brought back under control of the city from Strathclyde Partnership for Transport under the changes in the hope of generating a stimulus for economic development.

The manifesto reads: “The Subway is entirely located within Glasgow, but is managed by Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT): we will plan to bring management of Glasgow’s Subway into the fold of the City Government.

“We will look favourably on opportunities to expand the Subway network and consider innovative funding approaches to achieve the first extension to the Subway since its creation in the 1890s.”

No clarification has been offered as to how the network would be expanded in the manifesto.

The commitments are part of a number of promises the SNP has made ahead of the Scottish Council Elections on May 4, where it is currently battling it out with Labour for control of Glasgow City Council.

Thoughts?

 

[gsnedders]

It's probably worthwhile pointing out that it's definitely being treated by many as if it's a near certainty that SNP are going to take control of the council.

My biggest question, really, if anything is done, is whether it's going to be compatible with the existing Subway and stick with 4" gauge, or go with standard gauge and necessitate a new depot and everything (which it may well due to extra stock?).

 

[mcmad]

thought? Political waffle with little substance. Can't see any reason other than trying to break up SPT to move 'ownership'. Any extension would be very expensive with a correspondingly low CBR. Ridership of the subway is falling, there was serious thought given to closing it completely before the current refurb programme began.


Any extension that was built would be to existing gauge and profile unless it was a completely stand alone system, the cost of reboring all the tunnels would be horrific.

 

[Mordac]

Pre-election wibble. Can't believe anyone is taking this seriously.

 

[me123]

My biggest question, really, if anything is done, is whether it's going to be compatible with the existing Subway and stick with 4" gauge, or go with standard gauge and necessitate a new depot and everything (which it may well due to extra stock?).

It entirely depends on what the actual proposals are.

I've seen proposals for an "East End Circle" which shares track with the Subway through the City Centre (St Enoch or possibly Bridge Street - Buchanan Street). Obviously that would need to use the same stock - and probably would manage with just the one depot, even though it's a bit out of the way. Here's a proposed map from SPT that has, of course, failed to come to fruition in any way, shape or form.

Otherwise, going for standard gauge is probably a more sensible idea. Would make the acquisition of new stock easier and potentially cheaper in the future if you could just procure a few extra LU trains.

I'd be interested to see any solid proposals that the SNP have. I would have thought that the next logical expansion for any Subway line would be to incorporate the Cathcart routes to the South of the city. Somehow divert the lines to terminate underground at St Enoch, for example. A lower cost project, with benefits of increasing the service frequency on the lines, potential to extend to places like Castlemilk and Newton Mearns, and importantly freeing up valuable capacity in Central High Level at the same time. However, they specifically mention North and East of the city. There is potential to go North - Bishopbriggs, Lenzie and Kirkintilloch are relatively poorly served, and diverting the Maryhill line to go underground frees up capacity in Queen Street HL. But aside from that and the East End Circle, I'm not coming up with lots of obvious options here.

Hopefully they aren't going with this non-sensical proposal.

Pre-election wibble. Can't believe anyone is taking this seriously.

Worth discussing I'd say, but I'd agree with the sentiment that this is just a vote-winner for the SNP, who are aiming to take control of Glasgow in the forthcoming elections, and I doubt that this will come to anything.

 

[gsnedders]

I've seen proposals for an "East End Circle" which shares track with the Subway through the City Centre (St Enoch or possibly Bridge Street - Buchanan Street). Obviously that would need to use the same stock - and probably would manage with just the one depot, even though it's a bit out of the way. Here's a proposed map from SPT that has, of course, failed to come to fruition in any way, shape or form.

The thing that always makes me wonder about that plan at the various times it has come up is what the plan was for signalling down the common core. Anyone know quite what the new signalling system is? If that's moving block we could have trains queueing up far more practically than today.

Also interesting to see the Gorbals station north of the Clyde; don't think I'd noticed that before!

(Not that I expect this to happen!)

 

[Railsigns]

I've seen proposals for an "East End Circle" which shares track with the Subway through the City Centre (St Enoch or possibly Bridge Street - Buchanan Street). Obviously that would need to use the same stock -

Does it necessarily follow that this "East End Circle", as proposed, would share track with the existing circle? It could be entirely segregated, with extra platforms being built at the stations which are common to both circles. The new circle could then be built to standard gauge. I couldn't see a new line being anything other than standard gauge.

Modern underground systems tend to be built with each line entirely segregated from the others (other than links for empty stock movements), so as to minimise delays and the unfortunate effects of points failures at key junctions.

 

[gsnedders]

Does it necessarily follow that this "East End Circle", as proposed, would share track with the existing circle? It could be entirely segregated, with extra platforms being built at the stations which are common to both circles. The new circle could then be built to standard gauge. I couldn't see a new line being anything other than standard gauge.

Modern underground systems tend to be built with each line entirely segregated from the others (other than links for empty stock movements), so as to minimise delays and the unfortunate effects of points failures at key junctions.

Certainly most of the East Circle plans over the years have implied sharing track.

 

[Clansman]

It looks like a big plea for votes, but a bold one if that.

Having another loading gauge would just overcomplicate things. It's not like the proposed new subway line would be integrated with the mainline unless this whole tram-train stuff ever makes it past the drawing board for Glasgow Airport (not that it's even at that stage anyway).

If the new subway line ever goes ahead, best to keep it simple and build it to the specifications as the existing one.

 

[gsnedders]

It looks like a big plea for votes, but a bold one if that.

Having another loading gauge would just overcomplicate things. It's not like the proposed new subway line would be integrated with the mainline unless this whole tram-train stuff ever makes it past the drawing board for Glasgow Airport (not that it's even at that stage anyway).

If the new subway line ever goes ahead, best to keep it simple and build it to the specifications as the existing one.

The purpose isn't mainline compatibility: the purpose is compatibility with existing machinery (from manufacturing sleepers to existing metro train designs), as the Glasgow Subway is the only 4" gauge railway in the world, and as such costs are higher than they otherwise would be as much needs to be custom-made when other networks buy them off-the-shelf.

 

[Railsigns]

Having another loading gauge would just overcomplicate things. It's not like the proposed new subway line would be integrated with the mainline

It would simplify things by being able to purchase stock 'off the shelf'.

 

[me123]

Does it necessarily follow that this "East End Circle", as proposed, would share track with the existing circle? It could be entirely segregated, with extra platforms being built at the stations which are common to both circles. The new circle could then be built to standard gauge. I couldn't see a new line being anything other than standard gauge.

Modern underground systems tend to be built with each line entirely segregated from the others (other than links for empty stock movements), so as to minimise delays and the unfortunate effects of points failures at key junctions.

We're talking SPT here, I'd very much doubt that new line through Glasgow would have been on the cards. But with a 4 minute service frequency at the height of rush hour (in fact, frequently going above that at times) it would make sense to have two separate tracks.

If the new subway line ever goes ahead, best to keep it simple and build it to the specifications as the existing one.

Since a lot of potential routes could actually be existing heavy rail routes (Cathcart, Maryhill), then using standard gauge would be entirely reasonable in these instances.

 

[Clansman]

I just automatically thought they could've purchased a follow-on order from the company that are constructing the new 4-car sets for the Subway in the coming years? This then allows operational flexibility on the entire network for trains and staff.

I must be wrong by thinking that's the cheapest option

 

[gsnedders]

I just automatically thought they could've purchased a follow-on order from the company that are constructing the new 4-car sets for the Subway in the coming years? This then allows operational flexibility on the entire network for trains and staff.

I must be wrong by thinking that's the cheapest option

That'll make the rolling stock side cheaper than it otherwise would've been, but there's more than just rolling stock the non-standard gauge makes expensive. (And yes, building more at the same gauge will likely bring down maintenance costs, as per unit items will become cheaper: but will that saving be sufficient versus just building anything new at standard gauge?)

 

[route101]

It entirely depends on what the actual proposals are.

I've seen proposals for an "East End Circle" which shares track with the Subway through the City Centre (St Enoch or possibly Bridge Street - Buchanan Street). Obviously that would need to use the same stock - and probably would manage with just the one depot, even though it's a bit out of the way. Here's a proposed map from SPT that has, of course, failed to come to fruition in any way, shape or form.

Otherwise, going for standard gauge is probably a more sensible idea. Would make the acquisition of new stock easier and potentially cheaper in the future if you could just procure a few extra LU trains.

I'd be interested to see any solid proposals that the SNP have. I would have thought that the next logical expansion for any Subway line would be to incorporate the Cathcart routes to the South of the city. Somehow divert the lines to terminate underground at St Enoch, for example. A lower cost project, with benefits of increasing the service frequency on the lines, potential to extend to places like Castlemilk and Newton Mearns, and importantly freeing up valuable capacity in Central High Level at the same time. However, they specifically mention North and East of the city. There is potential to go North - Bishopbriggs, Lenzie and Kirkintilloch are relatively poorly served, and diverting the Maryhill line to go underground frees up capacity in Queen Street HL. But aside from that and the East End Circle, I'm not coming up with lots of obvious options here.

Hopefully they aren't going with this non-sensical proposal.



Worth discussing I'd say, but I'd agree with the sentiment that this is just a vote-winner for the SNP, who are aiming to take control of Glasgow in the forthcoming elections, and I doubt that this will come to anything.

Newhall and Onslow . Never heard of these places on the map

 

[Peter Mugridge]

the cost of reboring all the tunnels would be horrific.

Money aside, would that even be physically possible? I am guessing that the tunnels fit quite tightly around everything else that is underneath that part of Glasgow in the same way that the Underground threads closely past everything else under London?

 

[Railsigns]

I remember on one of the previous occasions that new lines were proposed, it was suggested that the existing circle line could be converted to standard gauge by building new, wider, tunnels directly below the existing ones.

 

[urbophile]

I know this is (just about still) the UK we are talking about and hence 'grands projets' are seen as unthinkable. But cities throughout Europe and across the world, of similar size or smaller than Glasgow, have invested in metro projects with much success. Scotland may well take its cue from these rather than the blinkered administration in London. And if the Tories win the General Election Scotland's exit from the UK and remaining in the EU will surely follow.

 

[me123]

Newhall and Onslow . Never heard of these places on the map

Onslow is not an area of Glasgow I'm familiar with - it appears to relate to Onslow Drive. Similarly Newhall seems to relate to Newhall Street.

 

[mark-h]

Having both circles using the same gauge would potentially allow some services to run in a figure of eight formation giving an increased number of no-change journeys.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Onslow is not an area of Glasgow I'm familiar with - it appears to relate to Onslow Drive. Similarly Newhall seems to relate to Newhall Street.

Not sure you would want to be familiar with either, after dark at least.
The SPT plans also appear to have involved diverting the river Clyde to run south of the Gorbals.

 

[Railsigns]

The SPT plans also appear to have involved diverting the river Clyde to run south of the Gorbals.

... and north of St Enoch!

 

[oldman]

However, they specifically mention North and East of the city. There is potential to go North - Bishopbriggs, Lenzie and Kirkintilloch are relatively poorly served,

But that conflicts with transferring it to Glasgow Council as these places are in East Dunbartonshire. I'm no fan of SPT, but I think treating the city as a separate transport planning unit makes no sense.

If the subway did not exist, would anyone suggest a wee west end circle as a solution to (Greater) Glasgow's 21-century transport needs? And if there wasn't a west end circle would anyone suggest an east end circle?

If you want to spend billions on new tunnels within Glasgow, surely a linear north-south line, say Maryhill-Castlemilk, would make more sense.

 

[Blindtraveler]

What a load of pre election wibble!

Im no fan of SPT iether but this rather amacks of the SNP's renationalisation obsession for rail to me, no doubt in fear or terror that SPT, post subway modernisation will let a managements contract to someone like Serco in a bid to supposedly cut costs and its not like the Scottish govd have ever handed vital or big ticket transport contracts to bunglers like that before is it?

I must say though that the 2 ideas upthread of converting Maryhill and Cathcart services to metro style opperation and removing them from the 2 termini are IMo great but the Cathcart section at least would have to stay as standard gage and with a mainline connection as its a regular diversion if the WCML falls over through Lanarckshire.

 

[JohnR]

This seems to really nice thing to say to get votes. The reason why it hasnt happened up until now, despite the plans already shared on the thread is simple - there isnt the few billion quid you'd need to do it, and if you had a few billion quid to spend on Glasgow's transport infrastructure, you wouldnt spend it on this.

And now the SNP seem to have realised this, as the promise has watered down to "We'll look at plans to expand the Subway".....

 

[DelW]

I know this is (just about still) the UK we are talking about and hence 'grands projets' are seen as unthinkable. But cities throughout Europe and across the world, of similar size or smaller than Glasgow, have invested in metro projects with much success. Scotland may well take its cue from these rather than the blinkered administration in London.

But rather than add another limited-appeal circle, a continental-style approach would surely be tram or light rail with underground running across the city-centre and above-ground routes in the suburbs.

And if the Tories win the General Election Scotland's exit from the UK and remaining in the EU will surely follow.

I think that's an SNP pipe-dream - like it or not, Scotland will be out of the EU as an integral part of the Brexit process, and the best a potential independent Scotland could do is to apply for admission (not readmission) as a new member, with the Schengen and Euro implications that might hold.

 

[DarloRich]

I would say this is pre electoral guff designed to hook the simple minded.

I know this is (just about still) the UK we are talking about and hence 'grands projets' are seen as unthinkable. But cities throughout Europe and across the world, of similar size or smaller than Glasgow, have invested in metro projects with much success. Scotland may well take its cue from these rather than the blinkered administration in London. And if the Tories win the General Election Scotland's exit from the UK and remaining in the EU will surely follow.

but the issue for Glasgow is gauge. It creates a curates egg. Having already let contracts for new rolling stock for the existing lines do you:

• build any new extensions to the existing gauges to offer interoperability with the current system BUT accept that rolling stock costs more as it is bespoke
• build any new extension to a different ( standard) gauge and accept that while train orders may be cheaper you have to buy & maintain two sets of everything
• rebuild the existing system to standard gauge and expand, accepting you have chucked away millions on a refurbishment you now don't need.

Any choice wastes money that could be spent elsewhere.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Exactly, it is what politicians always promise before elections without the slightest intention of doing anything about it.

 

[Altnabreac]

This seems to really nice thing to say to get votes. The reason why it hasnt happened up until now, despite the plans already shared on the thread is simple - there isnt the few billion quid you'd need to do it, and if you had a few billion quid to spend on Glasgow's transport infrastructure, you wouldnt spend it on this.

And now the SNP seem to have realised this, as the promise has watered down to "We'll look at plans to expand the Subway".....

Indeed. If you have the money to build a tunnel under Glasgow and underground stations there will be a far better business case for an S-Bahn style system diverting existing suburban trains and freeing up capacity for other services at Central and Queen St.

My longstanding suggestion of a tunnel from Arkleston - Cowlairs with stations at QEII Hospital, Govan, SECC, Central and High St would cost less than a new Subway circle and connect most of west central Scotland directly to all of Glasgow's major employment sites.

A slimmed down version from Shields Road to Cowlairs with just Central and High St stations would be even cheaper, albeit with fewer benefits.

 

[gordonthemoron]

It's debatable as to whether it is the 3rd oldest subway after London Metropolitan Line and Budapest Foldilati, as Istanbul Tunel is also older than it