Glasgow Airport People Mover

[kylemore]

An £80m "People Mover" is being considered linking an improved Paisley St James Station with the Airport Terminal as an alternative to the "TramTrain" scheme.

Presumably this would entail an increased frequency on the Inverclyde Line?

 

[edwin_m]

An £80m "People Mover" is being considered linking an improved Paisley St James Station with the Airport Terminal as an alternative to the "TramTrain" scheme.

Presumably this would entail an increased frequency on the Inverclyde Line?

Source?

 

[kylemore]

Source?

Absolutely useless at all that stuff - links etc

Article in Evening Times referenced by Railscot.

 

[185]

Shame it could go the extra 900 metres into Gilmour Street for an almost walk-on service.

St. James Station is remote and only a half hourly daytime frequency, seems a waste to end it there.

 

[clc]

It would be extremely daft to choose St James over Gilmour St, but with local councillors in charge of the project you wouldn't rule it out.

 

[bluenoxid]

It's a proposal from a private organisation who owns a good few acres that would make a nice car park too. Sadly I see no indication of funding that they would offer and wonder if they hope that the powers will be will fund the people mover and the station relocation for a token developer contribution. They have no website either, which also doesn't fill me with confidence.

 

[clc]

It's a proposal from a private organisation who owns a good few acres that would make a nice car park too. Sadly I see no indication of funding that they would offer and wonder if they hope that the powers will be will fund the people mover and the station relocation for a token developer contribution. They have no website either, which also doesn't fill me with confidence.

It'll be funded by City Deal money of which the councils have over a billion to spend on infrastructure over the next 10 years.

 

[Mag_seven]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the bus service. It delivers you to Central and Queen st stations as well as other stops in the city centre handy for hotels etc.

 

[MatthewRead]

I disagree they should have put a transit there ages ago.

 

[MarkyT]

Shame it could go the extra 900 metres into Gilmour Street for an almost walk-on service.

St. James Station is remote and only a half hourly daytime frequency, seems a waste to end it there.

It would be extremely daft to choose St James over Gilmour St, but with local councillors in charge of the project you wouldn't rule it out.

I suggest an elevated shuttle route heading east from the airport terminal, curving tightly under the motorway then following the Cart river to terminate on the north side of Gilmour Street station.

 

[Altnabreac]

I suggest an elevated shuttle route heading east from the airport terminal, curving tightly under the motorway then following the Cart river to terminate on the north side of Gilmour Street station.

Worth reading the STAG2 summary by Renfrewshire Council which broadly proposed an elevated route to Gilmour Street as having a.similar BCR to tram train.

Once it becomes clear the tram train BCR does not include funding for capacity on the Paisley corridor or at Glasgow Central then it is inevitable that PRT will be examined more carefully.

Broadly the trade off is a better frequency at Gilmour Street but a more complex job to integrate the PRT in the station layout.

St James would be cheaper and simpler but a less useful connection.

I think that Gilmour St is probably the better option.

 

[AlterEgo]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the bus service. It delivers you to Central and Queen st stations as well as other stops in the city centre handy for hotels etc.

Rail links are important to an airport. International passengers feel more confident in taking trains than buses, plus it's a more premium mode of transport. Many airports want rail links, and often pay in part for the construction costs.

 

[clc]

Worth reading the STAG2 summary by Renfrewshire Council which broadly proposed an elevated route to Gilmour Street as having a.similar BCR to tram train.

Once it becomes clear the tram train BCR does not include funding for capacity on the Paisley corridor or at Glasgow Central then it is inevitable that PRT will be examined more carefully.

Broadly the trade off is a better frequency at Gilmour Street but a more complex job to integrate the PRT in the station layout.

St James would be cheaper and simpler but a less useful connection.

I think that Gilmour St is probably the better option.

Do you think there is any chance the SG would agree to pay for the capacity works? Humzah Yousaf seemed quite supportive recently.

 

[Altnabreac]

Do you think there is any chance the SG would agree to pay for the capacity works? Humzah Yousaf seemed quite supportive recently.

I think SG could be willing to fund creating capacity at Glasgow Central and on Paisley Corridor.

I suspect that the crux will be whether tram train services to Glasgow Airport are the most efficient usage of that capacity or whether more services to Inverclyde and Ayrshire are a better use for the capacity.

The Scotland Route Study suggests a 2043 service for Ayrshire / Inverclyde of:
4tph Gourock
2tph Wemyss Bay
2tph Largs
1tph Ardrossan
1tph Kilwinning
4tph Ayr

That is 3tph more than currently so Paisley Corridor capacity would have to be balanced against these new services.

Equally at Glasgow Central the 2043 service spec suggests an extra 4tph on Cathcart Circle, 2tph East Kilbride, 1tph Kilmarnock and 2tph cross border.

That's before you even consider 3-4tph High Speed Rail in Central.

So you're looking at a requirement for 12-16tph of additional capacity at Central excluding any airport services. That's getting physically very difficult to provide on the existing site without major interventions like a cross city tunnel.

 

[MarkyT]

Worth reading the STAG2 summary by Renfrewshire Council which broadly proposed an elevated route to Gilmour Street as having a.similar BCR to tram train.

Once it becomes clear the tram train BCR does not include funding for capacity on the Paisley corridor or at Glasgow Central then it is inevitable that PRT will be examined more carefully.

Broadly the trade off is a better frequency at Gilmour Street but a more complex job to integrate the PRT in the station layout.

St James would be cheaper and simpler but a less useful connection.

I think that Gilmour St is probably the better option.

I assume you mean this report:
http://www.glasgowairport.com/media/37884/ga-exec-summary_final.pdf

I'm a closet fan of PRT generally I must admit, but for such a point to point link I would have thought a shuttle system based on larger vehicles than the standard 4 person Ultra pod would be more appropriate. The report claims the need for interchange would be off putting and that would limit modal shift and the system would require 'subsidy'. I would argue that operational costs should be considered no different to those of interterminal links, moving walkways, or even elevators within the airport premises, ie an intrinsic part of the people moving infrastructure of the airport itself. To mitigate the interchange disbenefit, the entrance at Gilmour street could be considered, signed and branded as an entrance to the airport itself, so instead of catching a shuttle to the airport, entering the shuttle terminal would be seen as entering the airport itself, albeit a peripheral 'portal'. Gilmour Street station, being so central, would also form a fantastic link between airport and the town itself including all its local bus transport services. Rail services to Ayrshire and beyond as well as Glasgow would also be linked in far more effectively. I would argue if designed well a free on demand 24/7 airport shuttle from Gilmour Street could result in the maximum modal shift from personal car both within the local area and from the wider region, and for airport employees as well as passengers.

 

[Altnabreac]

I assume you mean this report:
http://www.glasgowairport.com/media/37884/ga-exec-summary_final.pdf

I'm a closet fan of PRT generally I must admit, but for such a point to point link I would have thought a shuttle system based on larger vehicles than the standard 4 person Ultra pod would be more appropriate. The report claims the need for interchange would be off putting and that would limit modal shift and the system would require 'subsidy'. I would argue that operational costs should be considered no different to those of interterminal links, moving walkways, or even elevators within the airport premises, ie an intrinsic part of the people moving infrastructure of the airport itself. To mitigate the interchange disbenefit, the entrance at Gilmour street could be considered, signed and branded as an entrance to the airport itself, so instead of catching a shuttle to the airport, entering the shuttle terminal would be seen as entering the airport itself, albeit a peripheral 'portal'. Gilmour Street station, being so central, would also form a fantastic link between airport and the town itself including all its local bus transport services. Rail services to Ayrshire and beyond as well as Glasgow would also be linked in far more effectively. I would argue if designed well a free on demand 24/7 airport shuttle from Gilmour Street could result in the maximum modal shift from personal car both within the local area and from the wider region, and for airport employees as well as passengers.

Agree with all that. There is a slightly longer version of the report here with some costings and BCRs.

 

[me123]

Shame it could go the extra 900 metres into Gilmour Street for an almost walk-on service.

St. James Station is remote and only a half hourly daytime frequency, seems a waste to end it there.

Of course, a 4tph frequency can be easily achieved by stopping the express services (1tph Gourock and 1tph WB) at Paisley St James. They would be minimally inconvenienced, and in addition to providing 4tph for the airport you'd be connecting stations on the Wemyss Bay branch to the airport link.

But I agree that it's worth the extra investment to run into Gilmour Street. It has the benefits of a high frequency to the city and wider connections to Ayrshire as well as Inverclyde.

Of course the best solution for GLA airport is a direct link, but it's not practical. It would be the easiest option for visitors who don't have to work out how to transfer in Paisley. But there simply is not capacity on the approaches to Central, and what capacity there is is better used elsewhere. That's why I advocate a true Glasgow Crossrail running from the Airport through the city via Renfrew and Govan, but I digress.

Beside, the shuttle option works elsewhere, most notably at JFK and EWR airports. You get a shuttle to the rail/subway station and go into the city from there. It works and it is used. At Newark in particular the service frequency is pretty poor but it still works. So I do not see why the solution wouldn't work at Glasgow.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I'm an advocate of the PRT solution as well. The crucial advantage it has over an airport shuttle bus is that it can run on demand, which makes it appealing to travellers at times of relatively low demand. A shuttle bus would have a fixed capacity and at times of low demand, matching capacity means reducing frequency, which then makes the shuttle less useful. A PRT system could deliver zero wait time at times of low demand, so passengers could be confident that they'll never have to wait around. The actual journey time isn't as important as the waiting time when distances are this short, and having 10tph at Paisley Gilmour Street would mean little wait time for rail travel either.

 

[mark-h]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the bus service. It delivers you to Central and Queen st stations as well as other stops in the city centre handy for hotels etc.

The city-centre to airport bus does not show up on the journey planners to allow customers to buy through tickets.

From Edinburgh to Glasgow Airport the only the routes via Paisley Gilmore Street are offered (including some requiring changing between Queen St and Central).


A PRT or people mover system would make the route via Gilmore Street a bit better, however it would still be two changes rather than the one for a lot of passengers.

 

[Butts]

It's Paisley Gilmour Street ....not Gilmore :roll:

I was on the Bus from the Airport last Thursday - it is a small Vehicle and goes through a load of Housing Estates before arriving in the Town Centre to connect to the Train into Glasgow. It was rammed and god help anyone with large suitcases - a non-starter.

Much easier to get the 500 direct into Glasgow (but not cheaper)

 

[clc]

I think SG could be willing to fund creating capacity at Glasgow Central and on Paisley Corridor.

I suspect that the crux will be whether tram train services to Glasgow Airport are the most efficient usage of that capacity or whether more services to Inverclyde and Ayrshire are a better use for the capacity.

The Scotland Route Study suggests a 2043 service for Ayrshire / Inverclyde of:
4tph Gourock
2tph Wemyss Bay
2tph Largs
1tph Ardrossan
1tph Kilwinning
4tph Ayr

That is 3tph more than currently so Paisley Corridor capacity would have to be balanced against these new services.

Equally at Glasgow Central the 2043 service spec suggests an extra 4tph on Cathcart Circle, 2tph East Kilbride, 1tph Kilmarnock and 2tph cross border.

That's before you even consider 3-4tph High Speed Rail in Central.

So you're looking at a requirement for 12-16tph of additional capacity at Central excluding any airport services. That's getting physically very difficult to provide on the existing site without major interventions like a cross city tunnel.

Theres also potential re-openings of Bridge of Weir via PGS (I assume 2tph) and Renfrew (2-3tph?).

Edinburgh-Glasgow HSR would be 5tph in peak periods according to the the High Speed Rail Scotland Summary Report published in March.

So potentially the total additional requirement could be 17-22tph without any airport services or 21-26tph if the tram train gets the go ahead.

 

[me123]

Theres also potential re-openings of Bridge of Weir via PGS (I assume 2tph) and Renfrew (2-3tph?).

Edinburgh-Glasgow HSR would be 5tph in peak periods according to the the High Speed Rail Scotland Summary Report published in March.

So potentially the total additional requirement could be 17-22tph without any airport services or 21-26tph if the tram train gets the go ahead.

This is in part why I advocate an Airport-Renfrew-Govan-City Centre route separate to the Glasgow-Paisley corridor. It would be expensive, yes, but benefits are far greater than you would get by just continuing to squeeze capacity into Central. Both the airport and Renfrew could benefit from 4tph (or more) without impacting on capacity into Central. You can then use any capacity increases into Central to facilitate growth on the existing Ayrshire and Inverclyde routes, as well as maybe reopening routes such as Bridge of Weir.

 

[Altnabreac]

Theres also potential re-openings of Bridge of Weir via PGS (I assume 2tph) and Renfrew (2-3tph?).

Edinburgh-Glasgow HSR would be 5tph in peak periods according to the the High Speed Rail Scotland Summary Report published in March.

So potentially the total additional requirement could be 17-22tph without any airport services or 21-26tph if the tram train gets the go ahead.

I believe the 5th tph path on HSR is the existing cross country Glasgow - Newcastle service rerouted so only a net increase of 4tph but the point stands in general.

 

[clc]

I believe the 5th tph path on HSR is the existing cross country Glasgow - Newcastle service rerouted so only a net increase of 4tph but the point stands in general.

The report says:

'The proposal is for a high speed shuttle service that would operate between Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverley with an intermediate stop at Haymarket. This shuttle service would operate at a frequency of five trains per hour in the morning and evening peaks and four trains per hour at other times'

Sounds like it's additional to the Newcastle service (which isn't hourly anyway).

 

[edwin_m]

The report says:

'The proposal is for a high speed shuttle service that would operate between Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverley with an intermediate stop at Haymarket. This shuttle service would operate at a frequency of five trains per hour in the morning and evening peaks and four trains per hour at other times'

Sounds like it's additional to the Newcastle service (which isn't hourly anyway).

The Newcastle train might use the HSR in addition to the service described above.

 

[clc]

The Newcastle train might use the HSR in addition to the service described above.

True but then Motherwell would lose services to Edinburgh.

 

[Altnabreac]

True but then Motherwell would lose services to Edinburgh.

The Cross Country services would use the HS line. The document also makes that clear and talks about time savings to those cross border services.

There are a couple of options to serve North Lanarkshire better. Firstly an Intermediate station - the document talks of "one or two". Secondly there is a possibility of regular Motherwell services via Shotts like the current evening peak only service.

 

[clc]

Another point against St James is it wouldn't be able to maximize the benefits of a cross city tunnel should this ever be built. All of the potential inter-regional crossrail services - from Edinburgh, Dunblane, Dundee etc - would stop at Gilmour St but at best maybe only half of such services would run on the Inverclyde lines.

Glasgow City Council's own Crossrail proposal is to operate an Ayr-Edinburgh service via the City Union line. Obviously airport passengers travelling via St James would be unable to connect to these services so logically the council would reject this option.

The preferred option is due to be selected in December.

 

[Carntyne]

There is zero need for a rail link. Trains carrying fresh air for the majority of the day is not the right use of capacity of the Paisley Corridor. It's madness.

The bus link (500) is fantastic. Spend a wee bit of money on that to improve further rather than tens of millions of a rail link that will be poorly used.

 

[92002]

It would be extremely daft to choose St James over Gilmour St, but with local councillors in charge of the project you wouldn't rule it out.

It's well seen that this is a local council plan.

A simple tram system from Glasgow city centre, using the bridge at Finnieston, then the fastlink system, to the QEU hospital. Street running to Braehead shopping centre and enter the airport from the East, avoiding the last abandoned plans through the fuel farm.

If it's felt there is a need for a Paisley Gilmour Street connection, continue there by Street running.

Works very well for Edinburgh airport. Although the planners there could not count and it ended up massively over budget.