Glasgow - becoming a backwater?

[ayrshire_voyager]

Not sure if this is in the right place. Anyway , there is a group of us go to Cheltenham once a year and we normally go to Brum to stay. I have been looking at first class travel both from Edinburgh and Glasgow. The prices from Edinburgh are pretty reasonable, whereas Virgin from Glasgow, the prices are astronomical.

Now after recent announcements that GARL was removed, East Coast may no longer go to Glasgow and the delay in implementing extra carriages on the West Coast route, I believe there is an agenda here. Seems like if you want to go outside of Scotland from Glasgow you either have to pay an excess or change the route. Sounds like our airport...........

 

[jamesontheroad]

A backwater? Hardly. Glasgow Central is, for instance, the busiest station in the country outside London. TPE and Virgin services are very heavily loaded most days. And Virgin can charge those prices because they've invested in both their trains, schedules and their first class service. Higher fares = more demand. NXEC very successfully degraded their first class product and saw their business customers fly or travel standard class. New carriages will come eventually for Virgin, and if EC cut Glasgow there'll be almost like-for-like XC services in place of them.

As for cutting the GARL, it will be a false economy with spending already committed to new trains and track as far as Paisley. I find it hard not to sympathise with the opinion that a heavy anti-Glasgow sentiment influenced that very short sighted decision.

 

[djw1981]

GARL was always an expensive white elephant - the Glasgow-PAisley 3rd line was funded by NR and will be completed to schedule, so AYrshire and Inverclde may well see a better service with inc freq and inc capacity.

EC / XC - TS want an hourly service on that route anyway, and with the New Caledonian express and the existing Shotts service, tehre will be 5 'south' services from Central every 2 hrs, plus next december, the A-B and 2014 the 6 via E&G (Falkirk High).

With Waverly such a jam for through traffic, there will be more E-G shuttles and thus platform changes for passengers for Glasgow, but the same is true for most of the country.

Virgin serves Glasgow poorly IMO with customer service - on Voyagers the FC at seat service is poor and doesnt start til Preston sometimes.

 

[Trains06]

Till Preston? Wow!

 

[me123]

The problem is; we're out of the way. Down the WCML, the first significant location is Carlisle. Lancaster's not that big, and then it's Preston. In between, the Lake District stations are relatively small (for a national mainline). It's a hell of a long way for Virgin to run trains just to serve Glasgow. That's probably why the FC service is poor.

East Coast is underused because it's "only" got 1tp2h (compared to the rest of the region; that's a poor service). The corridor from Motherwell to Edinburgh is big, but sadly neglected. It is a waste of East Coast's resources to send trains to Glasgow, agreed, but something needs done to keep the link to the North East open and, indeed, enhance it.

I'm never sure about GARL. It would have been worthwhile with the Commonwealth Games, but the capacity can be better used elsewhere IMO. Furthermore, if they did need to cut costs, I'd rather they cut GARL than new schools and hospitals. I whole heartedly disagree with this anti-Glasgow rubbish. Anyone with half a brain can see that Labour's the one who's ruined Glasgow over the years (considering they've been the ones in charge for, seemingly, eons). And let's not forget the new Southern General, which costs several times more than the rail link...

 

[djw1981]

The new Southern isn't agreed yet. Final costings to be announced in Summer 2010.

 

[ChrisTheRef]

On Voyagers, there is no FC at-seat North of Preston - that would explain it

 

[Old Timer]

In BR days Glasgow was alos seen as being predominant to Edinburgh, and looking at some of those MPs I can see why !


However, coming back on subject Glasgow shall never be a backwater so far as OT is concerned whilst it has FOUR Weatherspoons, serving excellent meals with walking distance of OTs hotel !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I also think the ladies of Glasgow are much better looking as well !

 

[voyagerdude220]

On Voyagers, there is no FC at-seat North of Preston - that would explain it

Yup, thats correct. I also find it extremely annoying that the FC AP singles between Preston & Birmingham are frequently higher than the First Anytime Single..

The majority are going for £78.50 each way, with a small number being sold at £93.50! (The First Anytime single is priced at £73) .

£93.50 for a 103 mile journey....

I wonder if anyone accidently buys these higher priced AP singles on the internet, without realising that the FOS is lower than the price quoted for the FC AP single?

 

[tbtc]

Recently: The Larkhall extension, meaning more Lanarkshire services (e.g. Lanark doubled to two/ hour). Anniesland, Whifflet and Paisley Canal are relatively "modern" too. Service to Birmingham and London faster/ frequenter than I can remember

Now: Double the Kilmarnock service and double the Shotts line service this winter

Next: The Airdrie - Bathgate line, electrification of the line from Queen Street to Stirling/ Edinburgh, longer 390s, 380s on the Ayrshire lines...

And not a Pacer to be seen. I think Glasgow is doing fairly well...

 

[djw1981]

Pacers are only allowed to do Border - Kilmarnock (Brush Barclay) - not cleared for any other routes

 

[Failed Unit]

Pacers are only allowed to do Border - Kilmarnock (Brush Barclay) - not cleared for any other routes

Not true I am afraid, look at your history books and see what the first train to operate the Bathgate route was while Scotrail were waiting for more 150/2's to be built. It was a 143 pacer!

 

[MCR247]

Not true I am afraid, look at your history books and see what the first train to operate the Bathgate route was while Scotrail were waiting for more 150/2's to be built. It was a 143 pacer!

This thread is about Glasgow and Bathgate is served by Edinburgh trains, so I assume he was talking about in the Glasgow area

 

[djw1981]

Intesresting point, I knew that 142 have operated Dumfries-Carlisle early morning in lieu of a 156 if Northern have issues with availability. The 142 Overhaul was also Glasgow works, not Brush as I stated earlier.

Looking into it, the 143 was there for an open day the day before services started operating on the line in March 1986, but was appatrently static, along with De;ltic D9000 and did not carry any fare paying passengers. It was there to show the 'new' trains BR was procuring and apparently one lookwa senough to make Scottish Region managers decide they were not having any of them......

The 143 no longer has clearance.

Class 14x - Lines cleared in Scotland
LoR code 	Line of Route Description
SC031* 	Gretna Jn - Kilmarnock
SC039 	Kilmarnock - Barassie
SC059* 	Shields Jn - Barassie 	(ECS only)
SC059* 	Barassie - Ayr
SC123* 	Bellgrove Jn - High Street Jn 	(ECS only)
SC129 	Springburn - Belgrove Jn 	(ECS only)
SC131 	Shields Jn - Belgrove 	(ECS only)
SC147* 	Berwick - Haymarket Depot (via Edinburgh Waverley)
* 	Partial LoR route only

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This thread is about Glasgow and Bathgate is served by Edinburgh trains, so I assume he was talking about in the Glasgow area

We're only 30min apart and Glasgow and Bathgate will be linked by cl334/318 next year anyway.

 

[bengolding]

Yup, thats correct. I also find it extremely annoying that the FC AP singles between Preston & Birmingham are frequently higher than the First Anytime Single..

The majority are going for £78.50 each way, with a small number being sold at £93.50! (The First Anytime single is priced at £73) .

£93.50 for a 103 mile journey....

I wonder if anyone accidently buys these higher priced AP singles on the internet, without realising that the FOS is lower than the price quoted for the FC AP single?

You seem to travel almost every day in First Class on Virgin, voyagerdude . Do you actually work for them or do you have deep pockets that allow you to spend a fortune doing so just for the fun of it?!

 

[voyagerdude220]

Thanks, i'd love to work for VT, but don't.

 

[me123]

Recently: The Larkhall extension, meaning more Lanarkshire services (e.g. Lanark doubled to two/ hour). Anniesland, Whifflet and Paisley Canal are relatively "modern" too. Service to Birmingham and London faster/ frequenter than I can remember

Now: Double the Kilmarnock service and double the Shotts line service this winter

Next: The Airdrie - Bathgate line, electrification of the line from Queen Street to Stirling/ Edinburgh, longer 390s, 380s on the Ayrshire lines...

And not a Pacer to be seen. I think Glasgow is doing fairly well...

And as a citizen of Glasgow, I agree. The whole thing's just an attempt to win a by-election and part of the media campaign against the SNP. There have been significant rail improvements in all three governments/executives up here since devolution.

 

[Old Timer]

And as a citizen of Glasgow, I agree. The whole thing's just an attempt to win a by-election and part of the media campaign against the SNP. There have been significant rail improvements in all three governments/executives up here since devolution.

Yet Glasgow North East was a Labour "Win", albeit only 60% of the 33% turnout voted for them.

What is happening to the SNP ? I thought they were sweeping Labour out of Scotland ?

The SWP website has an answer but I would be interested to hear aview from you, old chap.

 

[jopsuk]

On the Off Topic matter of the SNP- watching with interest from afar (being a Scot born and raised but living in England) I think to certain extent the voting public is beginning to see them for what they are- tartan tories with a hefty dash of added fun-hating Calvinism...

Also, when it came to the matter of the by election, conventional wisdom (that opposition parties do well at them even in safe seats) doesn't really apply, as although the election was for Westminster such a distinction is possibly lost on the majority of voters, who're more affected by the parliament at the other end of the M8 where Labour are the largest opposition party.

 

[djw1981]

I'd rather have an SNP executive than another Labour one up here.

SNP said after the election that Glasgow East had a large aspirational/change vote. Glasgow NE was never going to have that - it is one of the most depressed areas of the UK & Europe.

 

[me123]

Yet Glasgow North East was a Labour "Win", albeit only 60% of the 33% turnout voted for them.

What is happening to the SNP ? I thought they were sweeping Labour out of Scotland ?

The SWP website has an answer but I would be interested to hear aview from you, old chap.

Being in government, they've got the challenge of already having made enemies. And I think cancelling GARL gave Labour the "SNP hate Glasgow" argument. They are still gaining popularity (as demonstrated in the various by-elections where they may not have necessarily won but gained a huge swing from Labour). I'm not sure if it is because the voters like them in Holyrood or if it's just a vote against Gordon Brown.

Nevertheless, they have always polled higher for Holyrood than they have for Westminster. If things keep up, they will win more seats in Holyrood in 2011, and there is a chance that they'll form a majority (well, them and the Greens). I think that this is because people (on the whole) don't want independence at this point.

As for the SNP's aspirations in Glasgow North East... well you need only look at the 2005 election to see how Labour it is. Michael Martin was standing as "Speaker", so over 4000 people looking for Labour voted for the Socialist Labour Party instead :roll: I'm surprised how well Labour did, because I thought it would be their supporters who would have stayed away. Who knows; maybe they did!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

On the Off Topic matter of the SNP- watching with interest from afar (being a Scot born and raised but living in England) I think to certain extent the voting public is beginning to see them for what they are- tartan tories with a hefty dash of added fun-hating Calvinism...

They're the only party that seems to believe in retaining the NHS, they're the only party that believes in free further education for all, regardless of your financial background, they're the only party that stands up for Scottish heritage, and they're the only party in Government that supports nuclear disarmament.

Contrast that to the Tories, who will push Scotland aside when they win the ext election and Labour who have failed us for over 60 years. Independence aside, they do IMO have the best policies for Scotland.

 

[Old Timer]

About Independence, I seem to meet a lot of Scots who DO want it, and certainly we cannot go on where a government uses its Scottish MPs to vote through Legislation that no-one in England wants, without increasing dissent here.

 

[me123]

About Independence, I seem to meet a lot of Scots who DO want it, and certainly we cannot go on where a government uses its Scottish MPs to vote through Legislation that no-one in England wants, without increasing dissent here.

That will change when the Tories get in. It's not fair that Scottish MPs vote on devolved issues, and it's only the Labour and Lib Dem ones that do because SNP leave the chamber. Labour would never change this because it affects their majority, but the Tories have nothing to lose and will implement this. That said, without Scottish MPs, Labour still have a majority so as of yet the Scottish MPs presence shouldn't alter the overall outcome.

I actually believe that England should be entitled to a devolved body (should you want it, of course), but you've not been given that opportunity. Unlike other members of the Union. It's not fair that we have a parliament to stand up for us, whereas you have... nothing!

I support Independence because I think it's the best way forward for our country. However, "only" a third of Scots share my view, so as of yet it's not feasible. It's remained largely unchanged since the SNP got into power (although has fluctuated slightly).

 

[djw1981]

Tartan tories? The SNP is at best left of centre currently - though with a wide range of political opinions. Better than Scottish Labour still though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That will change when the Tories get in. It's not fair that Scottish MPs vote on devolved issues, and it's only the Labour and Lib Dem ones that do because SNP leave the chamber. Labour would never change this because it affects their majority, but the Tories have nothing to lose and will implement this. That said, without Scottish MPs, Labour still have a majority so as of yet the Scottish MPs presence shouldn't alter the overall outcome.

I actually believe that England should be entitled to a devolved body (should you want it, of course), but you've not been given that opportunity. Unlike other members of the Union. It's not fair that we have a parliament to stand up for us, whereas you have... nothing!

I support Independence because I think it's the best way forward for our country. However, "only" a third of Scots share my view, so as of yet it's not feasible. It's remained largely unchanged since the SNP got into power (although has fluctuated slightly).

North East England was offered a regional government and rejected it at a referendum because they saw it as a layer of red tape and talking shop and expensive. Labour decided not to poll other areas......

 

[Old Timer]

Tartan tories? The SNP is at best left of centre currently - though with a wide range of political opinions. Better than Scottish Labour still though.
North East England was offered a regional government and rejected it at a referendum because they saw it as a layer of red tape and talking shop and expensive. Labour decided not to poll other areas......

Going more off topic unfortunately but under the EU constitutional arrangements that are planned Post Lisbon "Treaty", is the Regionalisation of the UK, with Regional Commissioners who report back to the EU Council.

The impact of Lisbon as we shall see in due course is the further transfer of legislative control away from National Governments towards the EU. We can see this with the appointment of Ashton to the post an EU Foreign Minister. Why should a trade organisation want a Foreign Minister when foreign policy lays in the gift of the individual countries, unless those Countries no longer had a veto on foreign policy ??

It is also worthwhile to note to it is now ILLEGAL to criticise the Lisbon "Treaty", by virtue of a section of that EU Legislation.

Seven deadly Lisbon Treaty clauses
Source David Noakes. http://eutruth.org.uk

From Edward Heath’s Treaty of Accession of 1972, to the Reform or Lisbon Treaty 2008, politicians have lied about the content of the EU’s six Constitutional Treaties.

A dictatorship: an executive of unelected politburos
Page 18 Article 9: Defines the Executive of the EU: three unelected politiburos on the soviet model. The only chance we have of representation is in the European Council, which starts off as being one Prime Minister per country (but can be chosen by EU politicians). But these 27 Heads of State (Gordon Brown is ours) are the very ones who illegally forced us into the EU against our wishes in the first place: they are already bought and paid for by the EU.

Below the politiburos is the European Court of Justice, the one that ruled in case EUCJ 274/99 that it is illegal to criticise the EU.

When EU Budget Director Marta Andreasen was fired for revealing that 95% of the EU’s expenditure could not be accounted for, this court ruled she should be denied compensation because she told the truth. This is the court that interprets and enforces these treaties.

At the bottom is the powerless sham EU Parliament, the only vote we will get. It is the Soviet system, but with a more tyrannical constitution, 2,000 controlling pages long instead of the Soviet 80 pages.

The end of the Lib-Dem, Labour and Conservative Parties
Page 16 Article 8A-4. “Political parties at European level contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union.”

What does this mean? At the EU’s Party Financing Conference in Madrid in June 1999, parties at the European level were defined as parties with voters in more than 10 countries. The Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem Parties have voters in only one country, Britain.

Under this clause, British parties do not contribute and do not express the will of the EU’s citizens. That empowers the EU to abolish our Lib Lab Con, the very parties whose leaderships have worked so hard to illegally force us into the EU.

Not possible? Read the ½ page 1933 German Enabling Act. It didn’t mention political parties, but was used to abolish them. Given Lisbon removes the last 20% of Westminster’s powers, it makes perfect sense to close Westminster when its current five year term expires in May 2010. By then, it will have been powerless and defunct for 17 months.

The EU is a Military Union: scores of clauses including:
Page 39 10A-c-3 "Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy,”
“Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities.”

Three unelected EU politburos will control the nuclear weapons of the former nations of Britain and France. The Treaty of Elysee 1963 gives Germany effective voting control of the EU. Nuclear weapons controlled by German dictators? What is that a recipe for?

Petitions: We are told what to ask for
Pages 17 8B-4. “Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of many Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.”

Wonderful. We may petition the EU government. But we are only allowed to ask for more laws to complete the EU dictatorship. We are forced to petition for the EU, Soviet style.

The EU can force the Euro on us:
Page 12, Article 2- 4. “The Union shall establish an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro.” Our politicians pretend this means nothing.

If our EU rulers were to impose the Euro on us under this clause, our British government, if still functioning, could in theory appeal. Except for decades our government has implemented EU treaties, laws, and regulations, not the wishes of the people. So it is unlikely it would appeal. Under this clause, an EU judge would have no choice but to impose the Euro on us.

(But they won’t. The EU dictatorship cannot be built while there is a strong and free Britain on its doorstep; we stopped them in 1914 and 1939. Don’t forget the EU was founded by Nazi Germany in 1940, and its design finalised at the conference at Berlin University in 1942, since when it has not changed. So they will destroy us politically with the treaties, economically with the 120,000 regulations and by destroying Sterling to give us poverty.)

We may not oppose the EU
Page 13, 3A-3, end: “The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union's objectives." In English: “We must comply with the treaties, and we may not oppose the EU. “

We are forced to obey the treaties
Page 14. 3A-4. “Under the principle of proportionality, the content and form of Union action shall not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties.”

In English, “the EU will not use more force than is necessary to compel us to comply with the treaties.” See page 13, 3A-3: The other EU states are to force us to comply too.

These are just two of scores of clauses that demolish our sovereignty and Britain.

Summary: Britain abolished on 1st January 2009.
The treaties are written to conceal their intent. For example, they “take Primacy” over our written British Constitution and laws. A nation cannot have two constitutions, so this means the EU’s constitutional treaties replace the British Constitution. In other words, they abolish our Constitution (which is written, every word of it), but they are careful not to say that.

These six treaties are to be enforced by EU judges, paid by the EU, whose remit is to enforce them with the policy of “Ever closer union”. So every ruling is biased in advance towards the EU, and against Britain.

These clauses, and hundreds of similar ones in the 2,000 pages of the six treaties, overwhelmingly abolish British sovereignty, and therefore the British nation.

History shows us dictatorships eliminate those who put it in power, as they are the greatest threat to remove it. In the EU dictatorship our MPs will suffer even more than we will. Watching our traitorous MPs suffer is the one thing we have to look forward to.

 

[djw1981]

The sooner we choose to be like Switzerland or Iceland, the better.

 

[Old Timer]

Too late Chap, Brown signed the Treaty so that is it. No return.

That was why everyone was hoping that the Irish would say No a second time. Unfortunately they were lied to and misled by a whole series of EU members who went specially to Ireland to campaign for a yes, whilst unfortunately the No campaign overplayed their hand at the first Vote and lost an immense amount of credibility by some of the stupid things that they said.

The last Bastion was Klaus who tried to delay things through his own Courts but didn't manage to delay long enough.