Glasgow Crossrail

[gingerheid]

SPT have pushed their Glasgow Crossrail proposals above the parapet again recently. http://www.spt.co.uk/news/story500.html

What do people think of these?

While it's never bad to see a railway line proposed, and SPT have historically been great at doing this, I'm not so sure about this one.

I love the idea of a West Street station; the link to the underground would be fantastic and a massive benefit.

I'm not so sure about any of the rest of it. Is there really that much of a demand for trains that don't go to the city centre, or that make it take longer to get to the city centre, or that split city centre departures to a destination between two stations?

There are possible routes mentioned now. But is there really the appetite for Ayr > Glasgow Cross > Edinburgh? Or would they get more thanks for extra services from Ayr to Central and Edinburgh to anywhere at all actually in the centre of Glasgow? Likewise with Barrhead > Glasgow Cross > Croy.

The only services I can think of that might generate some interest would be

- Glasgow Airport > Edinburgh (especially now that it seems Edinburgh Airport probably isn't going to get that good a rail link)
- Paisley > West Street > Glasgow Cross > High Street > QS > Partick (as a connecting service so the other ones still got to go into Central where most people will be wanting to go)

What are capacities like in the area anyway? I thought Ayrshire was pretty much full and that the GARL upgrades only provided the capacity GARL needs? Would I be wrong in thinking that Glasgow North Electrics isn't going to be that much better?

 

[djw1981]

The problem with additional Ayr-Glasgow Central station services is capacity into the station. This will be partially relieved with electrification of Whifflet & Paisley Canal.

 

[me123]

The least that needs to be done is the Kelvinhaugh Turnback IMO. Even on its own, it would clear paths for 2tph through Partick which would be enough, with the Whifflet electrirication, to run Whifflet trains to Milngavie. So, what I'd do:

-Cease the Milngavie-High Street service. Run a Milngavie-Whifflet service in place via Glasgow Central LL.
-Turnback all Edinburgh services (via A-B) at Kelvinhaugh running therefore between Edinburgh and Charing Cross. (as faster services, calling at some key stations).

As a result, the pathing issue at Partick has been resolved. There are 8tph through QSt LL, which is enough to allow any extra trains from the High Street Curve to run to Charing Cross, although I think the High Street Curve could easily be ommitted (see below). This also assumes that Airdrie-Helensburgh and Balloch servies remain unaffected by these changes. It may also be desirable to have two turnbacks at Kelvinhuaghif this is the case. In reality, I imagine the 8tph idea won't come to fruition but one can only hope. Even then, perhaps linking them to Ayr or Glasgow Airport at least twice an hour would be a useful link as well.

As for the Barrhead-Croy Route, there may not be large demand for the route, but it would potentially allow a half-hourly service to Croy which would free platforms at Glasgow Queen Street and allow some services which currently stop at Croy to run faster by omitting this stop in future (Edinburgh-Glasgow comes to mind).

And as for West St. subway interchange, well it's a terrific idea that will have huge interchange potential for Barrhead customers.

The main issue with this IMO could be cost. We are looking at quite a lot of work and, whilst the Scottish Parliament are better than the UK government at funding these things, a bit of me is worried that the cost is going to be too much. In particular, the High Street Curve is going to involve relocating a station and constructing probably e tight Carstairs-like curve, and I fail to see much potential in it. I'd personally scrap this part of the project, but I am in full support of the rest.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I can see how the proposals might add to capacity and add some through routes (I think). But the claim "This is not a Glasgow parochial Crossrail link, this is a nationwide Scottish link" is less persuasive.

There are certanily outer suburban links that others have mentioned but a key feature of the City's rail infrastructure remains an obstacle: there are 2 main-line stations poorly linked to each other and certainly not linked by any local / suburban service (such as the underground).

UK-wide journeys are barely touched. eg Manchester - Aberdeen, or Birmingham - Perth, or Liverpool - Stirling will still involve walking or taxi between Glasgow Central & Queen Street.
There is questionable capacity for through-freight.

The new possibilities for direct links between some Scottish stations are interesting but I feel the proposals miss 3 exciting opportunities which won't last forever:
- the potential to link the WCML with routes north (isn't there still enough brownfield land (or car showrooms) available (eg south of High Street, or south of the Gorbals area, or those those dodgy flats at Cowcaddens, near Queen Street & shopping centres)? (this could serve through freight as well as pax).
- the potential to link a new high capacity station (WCML and suburban lines)closely with the Underground and suburban electric routes, and/or
- to create a major new interchange station which does link the existing mainlines (poss, near High Street, or further out east at Coatbridge / Whifflet where there's underdeveloped land between the Clyde valley and lines north&east, or even Partick to the west ?), (also providing for through freight)

Additionally, the concerns over the capacity & life-span of the Forth Bridge requires planning now - improved capacity for freight & passengers in the west would address this.

Yes, its easy being an armchair route planner! But Glasgow does still have the opp. to develop where other cities may have developed too far for links between historically seperate lines to be created.

 

[me123]

There are certanily outer suburban links that others have mentioned but a key feature of the City's rail infrastructure remains an obstacle: there are 2 main-line stations poorly linked to each other and certainly not linked by any local / suburban service (such as the underground).

UK-wide journeys are barely touched. eg Manchester - Aberdeen, or Birmingham - Perth, or Liverpool - Stirling will still involve walking or taxi between Glasgow Central & Queen Street.
There is questionable capacity for through-freight.

You may be forgetting about the "wee free bus" no. 398 that runs frequently between the two stations and is free for rail ticket holders!

I do agree, though, that a link to the WCML would be highly useful indeed. After Motherwell, trains could call at Glasgow Cross and then run through to the north; Stirling and Perth and potentially even Aberdeen, Inverness! I'm thinking mostly Virgins form Birmingham and FTPEs from Manchester could be extended every so often to provide the through travel facility. And it's a more direct route for the Highland Sleepers!

The only issue is that trains at Bellgrove would then be held up due to the high frequency of services there, so perhaps another link would be needed and then we're adding even more to what will undoubtedly be a monumental cost.

And running through Coatbridge, completely bypassing Glasgow using the Motherwell-Cumbernauld line is already possible IIRC (connecting at Carmuirs) but I don't see this being a popular decision amongst travellers, despite the good links available at Motherwell, Whifflet and Cumbernauld. Maybe routeing the Highland Cheiftain this way would be a good start, though, when the Forth Bridge really starts to become problematic, and the potential is there to route the NXEC Aberdeen trains this way as well (albeit omitting stops at Inverkeithing, Leuchars and Kirkcaldy).

 

[DaveNewcastle]

You may be forgetting about the "wee free bus" no. 398 that runs frequently between the two stations and is free for rail ticket holders!

Ah! Didn't know about it. And never seen it. Thanks for the info.
I hope it stops near the platforms!

I do agree, though, that a link to the WCML would be highly useful indeed. After Motherwell, trains could call at Glasgow Cross and then run through to the north;

. . . and . . .

. . . when the Forth Bridge really starts to become problematic, and the potential is there to route the NXEC Aberdeen trains this way as well (albeit omitting stops at Inverkeithing, Leuchars and Kirkcaldy).

Yes. Exactly. And I do sometimes think the Scot Exec WILL make the long-term investment decisions (rather than knee-jerk reactions too late). But probs not.

And running through Coatbridge, completely bypassing Glasgow . . . . but I don't see this being a popular decision amongst travellers

Well, you're quite right. I don't have enough local detailed knowledge to be precise, but I DO see largish undeveloped land areas in & around Glasgow that I don't see elsewhere. The Coatbridge corridor to the Clyde Valley is so obvious. And if there IS an opp to link the 2 terminating lines (Central & Queen St) somehow then it really does help the longer journeys (incl freight).
And this would be the time to start planning

Isnt Glasgow the UK's 3rd or 4th largest City, and it doesn't have any through rail-links? Not mainlines, anyway.

 

[djw1981]

Ah! Didn't know about it. And never seen it. Thanks for the info.
I hope it stops near the platforms!

Next to P7 at Queen St, and main entrance at Central. It also runs to the Bus Station for airport buses etc.

Well, you're quite right. I don't have enough local detailed knowledge to be precise, but I DO see largish undeveloped land areas in & around Glasgow that I don't see elsewhere. The Coatbridge corridor to the Clyde Valley is so obvious. And if there IS an opp to link the 2 terminating lines (Central & Queen St) somehow then it really does help the longer journeys (incl freight).
And this would be the time to start planning

The freight link is there. It is this line which it is proposed to upgrade.
You also have to look at a) the topology of the Clyde Valley and b) the nature of West of Scotland.

As a Tynesider, the sprawl of Gateshead-Prudhoe area on the Tyne saddens me. Town sprawls into village into town. West Of Scotland is quite good at having a clear green belt, and areas of countryside between urban areas. Irvine, Croy, Dumbarton & Kilmarnock are both about 30min travel from Glasgow and yet each has its own identifiable and accessible countryside, which over-development would destroy.

Yes jobs are needed in Strathclyde, but the regeneration of the inner city factories and such like has been very successful, meaning that many of the jobs have stayed within the towns and cities, without the fringe of 'business parks' that other urban areas have. In doing this Glasgow has avoided the donut effect.

Isnt Glasgow the UK's 3rd or 4th largest City, and it doesn't have any through rail-links? Not mainlines, anyway.

I;m not sure this affects Glasgow adversely. Liverpool doesn't either.

Passengers from North of Glasgow would probably have to travel via Glasgow or Edinburgh anyway unless you made the WCML run up to the HML at Perth, because the service via Motherwell and Stirling would not be frequent enough - note the number of people buying say Dundee-London tickets who do not catch the NXEC services at Dundee, but instead travel FSR to Edinburgh then on by the more frequent NXEC services. A direct service will suit some, but that capacity could be better used further down the WCML, as an increased frequency service into Glasgow.

Even with luggage and waiting for the bus, a 30minute transit time from one station to the other is easily do-able (and is the National Rail recommended). This is only slightly longer than that recommended for Edinburgh! I really don;t see that Crossrail would benefit intercity trains, except from the Ayrshire line to the Edinburgh/Perth line.

Any train from England wanting to go to Perth etc via Glasgow could not use Crossrail anyway unless diverted via the G&SW from Gretna! From Motherwell, ther eis the (primarily freight) line vi Coatbridge and Cumbernauld to Stirling. Thus for freight all movements are covered, where as the only two not covered for passenger rail as direct services are South West-North West and South West - North East. Cross rail would solve both, but you would still want services to serve Glasgow central, so the frequency at Central / Queen St has to be cut, or you increase the capacity on the Paisley and Falkirk corridors and order more rolling stock.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And it's a more direct route for the Highland Sleepers!

The Highland sleepers used to run this way, being formed and split at Braidwood loop. This was transferred to Waverley (AIUI) when sleepers were transferred under BR from Intercity to Scotrail. The additional journey time to Edinburgh allows Falkirk Grahamston to be served, and also allows forming and splitting in a lit sheltered environment, especially for the seated passengers from the Fort William day coaches to transfer between carriages along a platform. The time cost is less than 30 minutes AIUI.

Your idea would give Coatbridge 1 train a day to London though

 

[jopsuk]

I;m not sure this affects Glasgow adversely. Liverpool doesn't either.

True- but, Edinburgh has through services. And Glasgow always wants what Edinburgh has

This plan seems slightly saner than some of the mooted plans over the years- which have included running lines directly between Queen Street and Central, above street level- yes, this would involve massive amounts of demolition in the (now pretty well regenerated and thriving) heart of the city- especially as I'd reckon to be of any real use you'd want four tracks, not two.

 

[djw1981]

I'm not sure that is even possible......

There is also the crazy idea of tracks below the 'low level' lines running NE-SW from Cowlairs under Queen St station, across and then under P1/P2 at Central, then out under the clyde and surfacing somewhere near Polmadie. Anyone who knows what the existing Cowlairs tunnel up from Queen St - Lenzie is like, can imagine it having to go a further 20-30m deeper. :0

 

[me123]

Your idea would give Coatbridge 1 train a day to London though

The fact I live in Coatbridge does not bias my decision at all

 

[djw1981]

I thought as much........

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Any train from England wanting to go to Perth etc via Glasgow could not use Crossrail anyway unless diverted via the G&SW from Gretna!

Yeah, and similarly for other UK-wide links (others, at random, in my first post in this thread). What worries me is that most Scottish decisions are now being made by the Scot.gov't (hurray!!!) but when they are UK-wide issues, they are still viewed as Scottish only (dumb). Notably, the Network Rail Rail Utilisation Strategy for Scotland only analysed and quantified one passenger route that didn't terminate in either Edin. or Glas. (I think it might have been Dundee - Perth). All the data presumes that journeys end in Edin or Glas.
Point is, rail network planning is a UK-wide matter. So while I'm delighted at this possibility for new rail, I'm unconvinced that its justification is based on ACTUAL useage, demand and potential, but has been based on a restricted data set.

Links between G Cent & Queen St.?
[you'll all excuse me from commenting on the poss of an overground link between Central & Queen St. And with 4-tracks? Never mind the investment in sustaining the existing buildings - they are too beautiful in their own right!]
And tunneling underground? No. Sorry, I don't have info on depths - there will be substantial geological factors to consider too, of course]

But is any of this actually going to happen? We're still waiting for the Waverly line to appear - its suffering from so much opposition from Scots who you might have thought would welcome it!

 

[djw1981]

Yeah, and similarly for other UK-wide links (others, at random, in my first post in this thread). What worries me is that most Scottish decisions are now being made by the Scot.gov't (hurray!!!) but when they are UK-wide issues, they are still viewed as Scottish only (dumb). Notably, the Network Rail Rail Utilisation Strategy for Scotland only analysed and quantified one passenger route that didn't terminate in either Edin. or Glas. (I think it might have been Dundee - Perth). All the data presumes that journeys end in Edin or Glas.
Point is, rail network planning is a UK-wide matter. So while I'm delighted at this possibility for new rail, I'm unconvinced that its justification is based on ACTUAL useage, demand and potential, but has been based on a restricted data set.

Links between G Cent & Queen St.?
[you'll all excuse me from commenting on the poss of an overground link between Central & Queen St. And with 4-tracks? Never mind the investment in sustaining the existing buildings - they are too beautiful in their own right!]
And tunneling underground? No. Sorry, I don't have info on depths - there will be substantial geological factors to consider too, of course]

But is any of this actually going to happen? We're still waiting for the Waverly line to appear - its suffering from so much opposition from Scots who you might have thought would welcome it!

The tunnel si dead as a dodo now, and has been since the 60's.

The Waverley line is opposed because it won;t be much quicker than the car, and will take people to Waverley station when many of the commuters on that route want to go to Edinburgh Park (Business / HBOS / RBS), RBS at Gogarburn, Scot Exec in Leith or the Finnance district near Haymarket. Thus unless they make the Waverley line a continuation of the Dunblane service (as an extension of Edinburgh Crossrail), I don't see the popularity being too high.

 

[gingerheid]

I know there will be people that will hiss and spit at this... but I think a link between SQ and C is needed and could be and should be built. In the form of a tram line from Cowlairs Junction, through the city centre at George Square, past the St Enoch's centre, and over the river on the old railway bridge.

Tram trains could take shorter distance routes like Maryhill & Anniesland, Croy, Paisley Canal, Cathcart Circle, Whifflet etc. It would only involve a little over 2 or 3 miles of track, but would free up lots of lovely capacity in both QS and C for extra long distance services.

Tram trains would have the flexibility for lots of lovely extensions like Paisley Canal - Bridge of Weir, Neilston - Beith, East Kilbridge - Hamilton, and Whifflet - Chapelhall.

But I know I'm dreaming...

 

[me123]

So where would the track go? On a bridge, in a tunnel... I can't think of a viable option myself. The big problem with all the historic railway companies is that compeition was so intense that these links were never constricted when it was possible. The closest thing we have to a link ATM is the line through Central LL and the City Union Line and neither of them are particularly great to provide services through the city. Crossrail will improve this, but I don't think that a line can now be built across/through the city.

 

[gingerheid]

If Karlsruhe can do on-street trams, why can't we?

It's a rhetorical question; I don't need the answer - I know it. The answer is because we are hamstrung by petty minded inability to recognise the value of public transport, lack of willingness to fund it, ...

 

[me123]

Also, we have narrow streets and, considering we have a decent subway that could potentially (and will IIRC) be expanded to the West, the need is very little ATM.

 

[djw1981]

What SPT are calling the subway is a lightrail extension but by calling t a subway extension (when it will not interact with, share tracks with or even look like the current subway) is IMO at attempt by SPT to retain control and not to have to cede it to Transport Scotlad.

 

[me123]

I was under the impression that the "new subway" would share tracks with the clockwork orange on the Argyle St.-Cowcaddens section of the route, for interchange purposes? Or would those be different tracks following the same route?

(PS, this is the "East End Circle" I am referring to).

 

[djw1981]

be expanded to the West,

See where the confusion came from Anyways, yes an east end version could be created like that, although the buget would be huge.

Given you had mentioned wes, I though you were referring to the SECC - Commonwealth Park proposal using tram style light rail running mixed with heavy rail from Exhibition Centre to Dalmarnock area, before surfacing and running on road to the Park. Basically a Tram Train from SECC through city to East End. Based on the religious painting strategies of the subway, it should thus be green.

 

[me123]

Based on the religious painting strategies of the subway, it should thus be green.

Ohh, did I say West? Sorry: I get my easts and wests mixed up a lot Anyhoo, the East circle is probably the basic proposal they're thinking of, but they do seem to want a new light rail system in place for 2014, as you've said, which would likely tie-in with the rolling stock replacement project.

Running through Central LL though... I think that's a bad use of the capacity down there.

 

[logical]

I for one think that crossrail is a great idea, what it will do in main is link the three biggest airports almost directly and the west cost ports of Troon and Stranraer. If you travel very often on the Ayrshire routes you will realise just how many low cost passengers use the service.

 

[djw1981]

Would you run Edinburgh -Ayr (EMU / Cl90 & Mk2?) to serve Prestwick (& GARL via Paisley)?

Personally I think one good use would be a North - South Lanarkshire service e.g. Cumbernauld - East Kilbride) That is a very difficult journey at present. Stranraer to Edinburgh is already do-able, via Shotts, Carstairs or a GLC reverse, but FSR and predecessors have not seen a large enough market.

 

[me123]

A cross-lanarkshire service would be wonderful! The buses take ages ATM. I'd like to see the Cumbernauld-Motherwell line extended to Blantyre or at least Hamilton and a new link be constructed out to EK for connecting onto Glasgow services, or even continue those trains into Glasgow.

 

[djw1981]

The EK - Larkhall link would be difficult engineering, hence my suggestion of using Crsosrail for that service. You would be able to do Cumbernauld - EK via Springburn, Crossrail (City Union line), down a newly constructed Strathbuno link and onto the Kilmarnock lines, before taking the EK branch.

 

[me123]

Remember that I live in Coatbridge

I wasn''t sure if a link to EK would be structurally feasible; I do know there's a lot of hills that sort of way. It would be a great link, however, as the local bus (201) takes about 2 hours from Coatbridge-Hamilton alone: you're quicker catching the train to Glasgow and back!!!

 

[djw1981]

You can do good interchanges at Motherwell though, and once the Cumbernauld line is electrified, you could run an EMU extension of the Coatbridge Central services up to Cumernauld or even Stirling. The routes could look quite odd - Helensburgh to Stirling via Hamilton, Motherwell & Cumbernauld anyone? Then back to Ayr via Crossrail......

 

[jopsuk]

"Stirling" and "electric" in the same sentence?

 

[me123]

The connections are useless, with long connection times and an infrequent service (it only runs hourly)., Yoiu are just as good to travel via Glasgow, and usually just as quick, especially on the return journey when you can have a 50 minute or so connection at MTH.

Of course, the upcoming Whifflet electrification (should it still be happening) would allow a thorugh service to operate from Coatbridge to Hamilton.

 

[djw1981]

Electrification is IIRC
Completion dates:
2010 A-B
2011 GARL
2012-14 Edinburgh - Glasgow, plus Edinburgh - Dunblane, Glasgow - Larbert, Stirling - Alloa, Camelon - Queen St via Cumbernauld
2014 Whifflet electrification / paisley Canal electrification
2015 (possibly) Maryhill Electrification and Fife Circle

The idea is for a constant work programme so the OHLE team is not disbanded after A-B then reformed 2 years later.