Hypothetical Glasgow Crossrail services

[adrock1976]

If the political will was there to electrify the section of the City Union Line between Bellgrove station and Shields Road junction (combined with the reopening of Glasgow Cross and Cumberland Street stations, together with a new station at West Street to provide an interchange with the underground), what types of services would you like to see?

My proposals would be:

Divert and extend the present all stations Gourock - Glasgow Central to Springburn

Divert and extend the present all stations Ayr/Irvine - Glasgow Central to Springburn

(Both of the above combining to give a 15 minute service between Paisley Gilmour Street and Springburn via Glasgow Cross)

Divert and combine the present all stations Barrhead - Glasgow Central and the present all stations Glasgow Queen Street - Dunblane/Alloa to run via Glasgow Cross. Obviously, this would need the track at the former Gushetfaulds depot to be reinstated.

Divert and combine the present East Kilbride - Glasgow Central and Glasgow Queen Street high level - Anniesland via Maryhill services to run via Glasgow Cross. Obviously, this requires the dark art of signalling control due to crossing the Edinburgh and Glasgow railway at Cowlairs junction. A grade-separated junction could easily be constructed which would require a new overbridge over Hawthorn Street.

All of the above would provide at the very least a train every 7/8 minutes between Springburn and Cumberland Street based on the present service levels.

Additionally, although the below services would not directly run via Glasgow Cross, this would allow some radical recasting of some services. My ideas are below:

Divert and combine the present Edinburgh Waverley - Glasgow Central (Midcalder route) with the present Glasgow Central - Paisley Canal service. This could avoid a reversal at Glasgow Central by reopening the mainline platforms at Rutherglen (to interchange with the Argyll Line via Central low level, or with the underground at West Street). Obviously, this would need the section between Kirknewton and Holytown electrified.

[An alternative would be instead of running to Paisley Canal, this service could run to Shields junction as above, but then run to Glasgow Airport via Braehead and Renfrew. This would require additional electrification between Cardonald and the airport, with a simple bridge to cross the White Cart therefore approaching the airport from the north (with a future connection to the Inverclyde and Ayrshire route if possible).]

Extend the present Motherwell - (What's it called?) Cumbernauld service at both ends to run from Carlisle to Stirling. An example of an hourly calling pattern would be: Carlisle, Lockerbie, Symington (Biggar - reopened station) (alternating every 2 hours, with a bus link to Biggar), Carstairs (alternating every 2 hours, with a bus link to Lanark), Motherwell, Whifflet, Coatbridge Central, Cumbernauld, Larbert, and Stirling. This would restore the direct services between Carlisle and Stirling via the Caledonian Main Line that were lost years ago.

There is one final idea that I have that may seem crazy, which does not directly relate to services running via Glasgow Crossrail, but partially relates to Intercity West Coast. Extend one of the present London Euston - Birmingham New Street services to Perth after departure from Birmingham calling at Crewe, Preston, Carlisle, Motherwell, Coatbridge Central, Stirling, and Perth. This could be further extended every 2 hours to Inverness calling at Pitlochry, Aviemore, and Inverness. Obviously, this would require electrification of the Caledonian Main Liine from Cumbernauld to Stirling and Perth, and the Highland Main Line from Perth to Inverness.

I am happy for my suggestions to be improved upon, or to be torn apart.

"Glasgow Crossrail - Scotland's missing jigsaw piece for a truly integrated Scottish rail network" - Author of the aforementioned quote unknown

 

[clc]

No need to build new heavy rail to the airport when the existing heavy rail line is so close. Build a new airport station on the Gourock line and run services to Edinburgh and Stirling and further north. Renfrew could be served by light rail.

 

[Moonshot]

Who are you expecting to fund all that ?

 

[adrock1976]

Who are you expecting to fund all that ?

The infrastructure for Glasgow Crossrail already exists. The City Union Line already has the track in place along its full route, and has the oldest railway bridge that crosses the Clyde. This would be a very minimal capital outlay for any civil engineering works that would be required, in contrast to what is being spent on London Crossrail.

My suggestions above are merely diverting and combining local all stations services via Glasgow Cross so as to free up capacity at both Central and Queen Street high level for longer distance express/intercity services.

In peace
Adam

 

[Moonshot]

Hang on ....you ve already higlighted new electrification schemes required, new stations etc in your very first paragraph.

Comparing any rail project to Crossrail is a pointless exercise......its Europes biggest single engineering project with significant game changing results as outputs.

 

[Eagle]

Comparing any rail project to Crossrail is a pointless exercise......its Europes biggest single engineering project with significant game changing results as outputs.

No one's comparing anything to (London) Crossrail.

Glasgow Crossrail is the established name for plans to link up the two halves of Glasgow's network via the City Union Line.

 

[Moonshot]

No one's comparing anything to (London) Crossrail.

Glasgow Crossrail is the established name for plans to link up the two halves of Glasgow's network via the City Union Line.

Refer to post at 21.06.....

 

[NotATrainspott]

How many people have to change modes at Queen Street or Central to get to their final destination? This is what a successful Crossrail scheme tries to minimise, but this one, if implemented without any large structural changes in the city centre, would just add another change for passengers to get back to the terminii they go to today. The infrastructure is absolutely there and it is a real shame that there is no current use for it other than the occasional EMU+barrier move (it isn't wired, but I do believe Network Rail want to so that the GLQ HL electrics have an easier time reaching Shields Depot) or freight.

The only Crossrail scheme that would really solve problems would be the full-scale National Rail tunnel connecting the two, but the costs of this could be immense. Connecting it to GLQ would almost certainly mean closing the station for months, unless it were tunnelled new all the way from Cowlairs which would add hundreds of millions to the cost. More feasible, I think, would be for it to reuse the Buchanan Street (mainline) tunnel before turning south, where there would be a tunneled station with one end linking to the Buchanan Street subway/QST complex and the other at the original Buchanan Street mainline station (where Glasgow Caledonian University now stands). The tunnel would then continue parallel to the subway, to station under the Clyde with entrances at Central and on the opposite bank of the river. It would then link in with the warren's nest of tracks - probably necessitating a grade-separated junction to connect with Shields Road and with the WCML. All that is then needed is for a chord from the Railcare depot up to Springburn station, thus allowing services from Anniesland (+WHL), the E&G and from Cumbernauld to go through to any combination of Ayrshire (+Airports), Cathcart circle or the WCML at large.

What to remember in this scheme though is that effectively Glasgow already has two Crossrails, and that there are not vast numbers of people staying on past GLQ/GLC LL. The only constraint on these lines is the two track and only-grade-separated-at-one-end line between Jordanhill East and Finneston junctions. That could be fixed for a fraction of the cost of a proper Crossrail, and I certainly believe a tunnel between Jordanhill and Braehead, under the Clyde, could be built to allow services from Ayrshire to pass through the LL lines.

 

[170401]

The reason Glasgow crossrail is dead and buried is because their was no demand for it. It was always effectively an answer waiting for a question.

The vast majority of people travelling into Glasgow Central and Queen st do so because that is where they want to go. These stations are central to everything like jobs, shops, leisure and other transport connections etc. Glasgow cross/Gorbals etc, whilst handy for some, are just too far out of the way to properly service the needs of the west of Scotland.

There are though always possibilities and it would be handy for EMU moves after the electrification of the EGIP routes. One service I think that would be a winner would be to alter one of the Edinburgh - Helensburgh/Milngavie group of services (Or add in another service over the route) to run over the crossrail route and onto Paisley/Kilwinning/Ayr or even Glasgow airport if it's ever built. The displaced Helensburgh/Milngavie journeys could then be tied (eventually) to Cumbernauld/Falkirk Grahamston or Airdrie locals as part of a bigger recast.

 

[Blindtraveler]

As its all Hypathetical, Iv solved your shots line problem without need for wires - 6 car 170s (youd need to do some route clearance first) running from Edinburgh using same path and stopping Patern as the current semi fast, over to barhead, fast to Kilwarnock where 1 3 car set detatch's and terminates and the other continues once every 2 hours to Stranrar Via Prestwick and Ayr or Carlisle Via Dumfries, with the other 3 cars being picked up on the return journey meaning a 6 car service on crossrail and to Edinburgh. ↲

 

[route:oxford]

What is really needed is a new HS1 for Scotland.

Linking Carlisle International, Glasgow (new underground station beneath Buchanan Street), Stirling, Perth, Dundee & Aberdeen.

That way the country is ready when HS2 reaches the border in England.

There would be underground pedestrian walkways from Queen Street and Central to the new Buchanan Street Station.

Job Done

Don't forget that Scotland doesn't have the same kind of budget restraint as England. Messrs Salmond & Sturgeon just keep talking and the treasury are transfixed by the quivering jowls and bizarre screechy accents and find themselves just nodding and smiling hoping they'll go away.

 

[alwaystouchout]

Is there much demand for north/south cross-city services? There are already two cross-city links, one each for Central and Queen Street.

The one benefit of the City Union Line could be to allow direct express services from Edinburgh and NE Scotland to Glasgow Airport, to either a station on the existing line, or a new spur to the airport.

 

[NotATrainspott]

After a bit more thought I think any link would be inextricably linked to where Glasgow will put its HS2 captive station once needed. I remember a document produced by Glasgow City Council detailing the three possible locations for a 4 platform, ~420m long station being either on the east side of Central and the bridge over the Clyde (taking over the first few platforms and the disused bridge piers) or in one of two places over the top of Bellgrove and High Street. If the Central option were chosen for HS2, then it's almost certain the Crossrail would be a GLQ-GLC tunnel whereas the East End options would necessitate the City Union proposal.

 

[bAzTNM]

How hell-ish would a "Glasgow Cross" station be? Full of winos and dossers.

I do like the sound of a Paisley to Springburn service though.

 

[james73]

Similar to the original post, I came up with this a few months back. It assumes
a turnback west of Charing Cross, reconnecting Paisley Canal to Elderslie, new
stations at West Street, Glasgow Cross & Gorbals, the previously mentioned
High Street Curve and possibly a flyover junction to connect Springburn to
Ashfield.

 

[PaulLothian]

Similar to the original post, I came up with this a few months back. It assumes
a turnback west of Charing Cross, reconnecting Paisley Canal to Elderslie, new
stations at West Street, Glasgow Cross & Gorbals, the previously mentioned
High Street Curve and possibly a flyover junction to connect Springburn to
Ashfield.

James73's plan imakes very good sense to me. I have to agree with those who doubt there is a sufficient passenger flow for major reerouting of services. Transferring many services onto the line would simply take a lot of people where they don't want to be.

I would see Crossrail starting modestly, providing the basis for a lot more of the urban regeneration that is still badly needed on the east side of the city. and making useful connections into other services.

Success in urban regeneration might make it reasonable to increase the number of routes serving the line, but I suspect that this would be a very longterm prospect.

 

[Altnabreac]

Similar to the original post, I came up with this a few months back. It assumes
a turnback west of Charing Cross, reconnecting Paisley Canal to Elderslie, new
stations at West Street, Glasgow Cross & Gorbals, the previously mentioned
High Street Curve and possibly a flyover junction to connect Springburn to
Ashfield.

I agree this is a plan with more merit than other versions of Crossrail (whether SPT's one or Adrock1976's one.

In reality the cost of a S-E curve at High St is likely to be prohibitive for a first phase of development.

As others have said, fundamentally the problem with nearly all the various Glasgow Crossrail plans is that most passenger demand is to Central or Queen St.

Glasgow City Council like it because of the potential regeneration benefits at West St, Gorbals, Glasgow Cross, and the East End. However the fact these are areas in need of regeneration means that there isn't strong demand to travel there at present.

An initial 2tph service Paisley Canal - Springburn would be a good start. With 3 new stations, refurbishment of the track to passenger standards and electrification you might be talking about £30-50m or so which is the sort of cash that could be found. This could then drive regeneration and employment in the east end which will lead to more passenger demand and additional services and infrastructure in future.

The City Union line has great potential as a location of local regeneration but is just in the wrong place to transform the whole Glasgow public transport network.

To do that you really do need a north south mainline gauge tunnel serving Glasgow Central and that is going to cost you £££s.

 

[clc]

Was there not talk of the City Union line being electrified to allow more efficient movement of rolling stock between north and south? If that does happen it'll be politically more difficult for the Scot Govt to continue to oppose some form of Crossrail with much of the infrastructure already in place. The tunnel sounds like the best option though.

 

[Altnabreac]

Was there not talk of the City Union line being electrified to allow more efficient movement of rolling stock between north and south? If that does happen it'll be politically more difficult for the Scot Govt to continue to oppose some form of Crossrail with much of the infrastructure already in place. The tunnel sounds like the best option though.

It was talked about but not sure if ORR removed it from CP5 plans like they did with the South Sub?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Was there not talk of the City Union line being electrified to allow more efficient movement of rolling stock between north and south? If that does happen it'll be politically more difficult for the Scot Govt to continue to oppose some form of Crossrail with much of the infrastructure already in place. The tunnel sounds like the best option though.

The route is short, electrified on both ends, has no regular running services and is entirely open to the sky other than the high M74 motorway viaduct. As a result it could be electrified at minimal cost and disruption and it would be madness not to as it would allow Shields and Corkerhill depots to be accessed from the north by electrics without going through Rutherglen.

Glasgow City Centre is too far to the west of the route for it to be viable today as a through route without forcing most people to change where they don't have to today. The beauty of schemes like Crossrail in London is that it doesn't increase the number of changes needed for a journey whereas most people in Glasgow would have to start changing onto the Argyll and North Clyde lines to reach the main economic, social and cultural parts of the city. The journey times would increase as well, so it is not similar to how Sheffield and Derby/Nottingham are getting out-of-town stations.

 

[Railsigns]

If passenger services were restored to the City Union line, they could avoid both Central and Queen Street stations but still serve the city centre by calling (and reversing) at a re-opened St. Enoch station. As a small terminus with two or three platforms as opposed to the large station it once was, this would seem quite viable. Actually, this is one of the proposals referred to in the Strategic Transport Projects Review Report 3 on the Transport Scotland website, and which passed an initial sifting process (intervention No.182 on page A40).

There are similarities with the reopening of the Great Victoria Street terminus in central Belfast in 1995.

Regarding the North Suburban line via Maryhill, my suggestion would be to electrify it and extend Cumbernauld services via Queen Street Low Level to Ashfield via a new connection at Anniesland (which I understand is to be reinstated anyway). Trains could terminate and turn back at Ashfield using either the East or West Curves at Cowlairs. This would keep the North Suburban services off the E&G line and away from Queen Street High Level station. There'd be no need for a flyover between Springburn and Ashfield, the cost of which would far outweigh any benefit.

 

[NotATrainspott]

If passenger services were restored to the City Union line, they could avoid both Central and Queen Street stations but still serve the city centre by calling (and reversing) at a re-opened St. Enoch station. As a small terminus with two or three platforms as opposed to the large station it once was, this would seem quite viable. Actually, this is one of the proposals referred to in the Strategic Transport Projects Review Report 3 on the Transport Scotland website, and which passed an initial sifting process (intervention No.182 on page A40).

There are similarities with the reopening of the Great Victoria Street terminus in central Belfast in 1995.

It's an idea, but it would be a lot of money for not a massive amount of improvement as you wouldn't be able to send much to it due to its small size. A small north-OR-south facing station would probably fit over the top of the car park to the east of the shopping centre but it wouldn't be possible to join it to both north and south unless you demolished the shopping centre at great cost. From the north, any trains coming from the Springburn area will have to cross the North Clyde line at-grade and since there is no Garngad Chord the only trains able to serve it would have to cross Cowlairs on the flat as well, thus reducing capacity into Queen St HL. As a result the only north/easterly route you could take would be the Airdrie-Bathgate, which is too much of a commuter route with low top speeds and high numbers of stations for a decent Crossrail service. Trains from this direction already go under and through the city already, so there's no real capacity constraint at the low level stations until you reach Partick/Hyndland.

Regarding the North Suburban line via Maryhill, my suggestion would be to electrify it and extend Cumbernauld services via Queen Street Low Level to Ashfield via a new connection at Anniesland (which I understand is to be reinstated anyway). Trains could terminate and turn back at Ashfield using either the East or West Curves at Cowlairs. This would keep the North Suburban services off the E&G line and away from Queen Street High Level station. There'd be no need for a flyover between Springburn and Ashfield, the cost of which would far outweigh any benefit.

There is effectively no more capacity through Hyndland/Partick for a regular or useful service like this. Hyndland East is a horrible flat junction which is a source of delay which propagates across the West and East of the Glasgow electrics network. The Maryhill line is useful today simply as a short diagram to get trains out of Queen St HL to free up platform space, which is why you can get anything from 156s from Fort William to 170s with First Class on board on it. A dedicated service would either require superfluous ECS runs to replace the current service or would restrict platform capacity at the station.

The City Union Crossrail proposals always have left me with the feeling that they are the product of idle minds who are trying to solve a real problem without the resources needed to solve that problem properly. There's no disputing that a tunnel line would be a success operationally; the only issue is that the cost would be very high (i.e. more than the original EGIP, at the very least) when there were other schemes which required the money more immediately (i.e. EGIP, as otherwise there would be no electrics to run from the north through the tunnel).

 

[Railsigns]

It's an idea, but it would be a lot of money for not a massive amount of improvement as you wouldn't be able to send much to it due to its small size. A small north-OR-south facing station would probably fit over the top of the car park to the east of the shopping centre but it wouldn't be possible to join it to both north and south unless you demolished the shopping centre at great cost.

I envisage a new station immediately south of the shopping centre at Stockwell Place, with both north and south connections onto the City Union line, which appears to be feasible. This would most probably require demolition of the buildings south of Stockwell Place but not of any part of the shopping centre (reopening Belfast Great Victoria Street station required the demolition of part of a housing estate). Direct access between station and shopping centre would be an attractive benefit.

From the north, any trains coming from the Springburn area will have to cross the North Clyde line at-grade and since there is no Garngad Chord the only trains able to serve it would have to cross Cowlairs on the flat as well, thus reducing capacity into Queen St HL.

It could potentially increase capacity at Queen Street HL, if a proportion of existing services (e.g. Dunblane and Alloa services) were diverted from there onto the City Union line and St. Enoch.

There is effectively no more capacity through Hyndland/Partick for a regular or useful service like this.

Once the Cumbernauld services start running to Queen Street LL, they're going to have to continue onto the Hyndland/Partick section anyway, as there's nowhere east of there where they can turn back.

 

[Bevan Price]

Additionally, although the below services would not directly run via Glasgow Cross, this would allow some radical recasting of some services. My ideas are below:

Divert and combine the present Edinburgh Waverley - Glasgow Central (Midcalder route) with the present Glasgow Central - Paisley Canal service. This could avoid a reversal at Glasgow Central by reopening the mainline platforms at Rutherglen (to interchange with the Argyll Line via Central low level, or with the underground at West Street). Obviously, this would need the section between Kirknewton and Holytown electrified.

And thereby lose a lot of passengers on both lines, who would lose the through service to the city centre - with the increased journey times and the inconvenience of having to change trains ?

 

[NotATrainspott]

I envisage a new station immediately south of the shopping centre at Stockwell Place, with both north and south connections onto the City Union line, which appears to be feasible. This would most probably require demolition of the buildings south of Stockwell Place but not of any part of the shopping centre (reopening Belfast Great Victoria Street station required the demolition of part of a housing estate). Direct access between station and shopping centre would be an attractive benefit.

So that the curve radii wouldn't be too ridiculous on the approach, the station site would have to start at least at Stockwell St. Then you would need platforms at least 200m in length so that 8-car 23m units would be able to run there, so you effectively be rebuilding three platforms of St Enoch to the south of the existing station where there are already reasonably tall structures. I'm not disputing that the station is technically feasible but the costs would be significant.

It could potentially increase capacity at Queen Street HL, if a proportion of existing services (e.g. Dunblane and Alloa services) were diverted from there onto the City Union line and St. Enoch.

However, trains from the E&G line would have to make conflicting movements across the line to the HL station so it may free up platform space but wouldn't necessarily free up capacity for further services into the station. They would also then have to cross the North Clyde on the flat, which wouldn't be ideal either so there would be further timetable complications. These problems can be fixed but they start to increase the costs of the scheme dramatically.

Once the Cumbernauld services start running to Queen Street LL, they're going to have to continue onto the Hyndland/Partick section anyway, as there's nowhere east of there where they can turn back.

No, they're extensions of the Dalmuir-Springburn services because there is no more capacity through Hyndland/Partick. The Airdrie-Bathgate trains were simply extensions of existing services as well because of that section.

 

[james73]

Since it's all hypothetical, why not modify the St Enoch centre back into a
railway station? Lose the car park and have the ground floor maintained as
shopping units, a bit similar to the current Saint Pancras. Build a new car
park in the triangle of land between the north and south rail exits to make
up for closing the St Enoch car park.


On the subject of capacity through Partick - Hyndland I've always wondered
why serious thought hasnt been given to terminating services from the east
at Queen Street Low Level and Central Low Level. Both these stations used
to have 4 platforms instead of the current 2, and Queen Street would be fairly
easy to restore one if not two. A bit trickier at Central as the foundations
for the Westergate Building appear to have obliterated the northernmost
trackbed, but the other one is still there and looks usuable for terminating
trains coming in from Argyle Street.

http://urbanglasgow.co.uk/about3419.html

 

[NotATrainspott]

Since it's all hypothetical, why not modify the St Enoch centre back into a
railway station? Lose the car park and have the ground floor maintained as
shopping units, a bit similar to the current Saint Pancras. Build a new car
park in the triangle of land between the north and south rail exits to make
up for closing the St Enoch car park.

I don't think the shopping centre could ever be converted back to a station unless it were demolished and reconstructed entirely. Hypothetically it's possible but it's probably not the best hypothetical solution in the long term, which would be the north/south tunnel.

On the subject of capacity through Partick - Hyndland I've always wondered
why serious thought hasnt been given to terminating services from the east
at Queen Street Low Level and Central Low Level. Both these stations used
to have 4 platforms instead of the current 2, and Queen Street would be fairly
easy to restore one if not two. A bit trickier at Central as the foundations
for the Westergate Building appear to have obliterated the northernmost
trackbed, but the other one is still there and looks usuable for terminating
trains coming in from Argyle Street.

http://urbanglasgow.co.uk/about3419.html

Serious thought has been given to terminating trains here via a turnback just before Partick on both lines. When Whifflet is electrified this year it's likely that the trains would go through and terminate at either LL or Anderston, then using the existing turnback at Exhibition Centre. Turnbacks for the North Clyde line west of Charing Cross were also seriously proposed for EGIP but did not go ahead. Hyndland station was also meant to get a third platform on its existing third electrified line but that hasn't gone ahead either due to the EGIP descoping. There's not much point in terminating in extra platforms at the LL stations when a turnback further west would allow further connections to the Subway or to the west of the city centre.

 

[Tobbes]

As a southerner who only know Glasgow a little, I'm struggling to understand where a N-S tunnel would go, given that Central is on a bridge, and Central LL presumably runs E-W across it?

Forgive my ignorance!

Tobbes

 

[james73]

As a southerner who only know Glasgow a little, I'm struggling to understand where a N-S tunnel would go, given that Central is on a bridge, and Central LL presumably runs E-W across it?

Correct. It would have to be a deep-level tunnel & station, and I'm not convinced Glasgow has the substrata to support such a thing. The Glasgow Subway actually passes under both Queen Street and Central Low Level lines, but IIRC just about all of the south-of-the-Clyde section of the Subway was dug out, lined and backfilled rather than bored due to the substrata.

Of course, a North South tunnel would have to pass under the Subway as well. A total non-starter.

 

[Tobbes]

Correct. It would have to be a deep-level tunnel & station, and I'm not convinced Glasgow has the substrata to support such a thing. The Glasgow Subway actually passes under both Queen Street and Central Low Level lines, but IIRC just about all of the south-of-the-Clyde section of the Subway was dug out, lined and backfilled rather than bored due to the substrata.

Of course, a North South tunnel would have to pass under the Subway as well. A total non-starter.

Many thanks, James.

I guess (given sufficient cash) that it could be *made* to work, but in the absence of significant cross-regional demand, the only basis for doing it is to relieve terminal space in rush hours by sending the trains straight through the core. In effect, this is a major point of Crossrail 2 in London, which is only sensible because of the limitations on terminal growth with significant passenger growth expected; is terminal space that limited in Glasgow?

Of course, if Glasgow Crossrail also had a pair of HSR tracks, then the HSR could be Carlisle - Glasgow - Edinburgh which at 225 mph could avoid a Carstairs split, of course....!