Hypothetical Glasgow Crossrail services

[NotATrainspott]

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....!

Glasgow's tunnels aren't that deep below the surface so a TBM wouldn't have to be particularly deep to clear them easily. The North Clyde and Argyll lines are effectively the same size and in the same position as subsurface tunnels on the London Underground while the Subway tunnels are just a few centimetres narrower than Tube tunnels but not as deep in most places. All of these tunnels were built around the same time back at the turn of the century; any new tunnel for any new purpose would have the advantage of TBMs and more mechanisation in general so we wouldn't have more problems than they did back then.

The tunnelled Crossrail is only really needed for capacity relief but it would have the effect of allowing the city centre to expand northwards and southwards. It would also help the BCR for schemes such as GARL and EARL as through trains under the city could then continue through the airport stations, thus making the train a much more viable option for travel to the airport. The issue with GARL specifically was that it was really just a shuttle operation between Central, Paisley and the Airport which wouldn't be useful for people travelling from most of the rest of Scotland or the surrounding areas of the city. As a result the passenger numbers forecast to go to the airport on GARL were ridiculously small, which was a main driver for cancelling the scheme.

Queen Street High Level station has capacity issues as it is on the end of a two-track 1-in-40 tunnel and is constrained on all sides by streets or other buildings. The EGIP platform lengthening to take 8x23m carriages is effectively all that is ever going to be possible on the current site. Central High Level has many more platforms and less constrictive trackwork but it still has the issue that trains will be sitting around there doing nothing for long periods of time. Glasgow City Council said that the station could be extended to provide 4x400m HS platforms but the issue would be the loss of capacity for normal train services, especially during the construction phase. If we have a tunnelled Crossrail sorted out beforehand, it could free up the majority of the Strathclyde services and leave only diesel and long-distance trains still using the HL platforms at both stations.

 

[clc]

.

The tunnelled Crossrail is only really needed for capacity relief but it would have the effect of allowing the city centre to expand northwards and southwards. It would also help the BCR for schemes such as GARL and EARL as through trains under the city could then continue through the airport stations, thus making the train a much more viable option for travel to the airport. The issue with GARL specifically was that it was really just a shuttle operation between Central, Paisley and the Airport which wouldn't be useful for people travelling from most of the rest of Scotland or the surrounding areas of the city. As a result the passenger numbers forecast to go to the airport on GARL were ridiculously small, which was a main driver for cancelling the scheme.

A tunnel is a long way off, by that time a solution will have been found re surface access to the airport and GARL will be long forgotten. It was a daft idea anyway, with the terminal so close to the mainline a people mover makes more sense than spending £200 million on a 1 mile spur which would carry hardly any passengers.

 

[adrock1976]

Many thanks for the interesting replies - I've only just had chance to read through them all.

In my original post, it was not the intention to move all of the local services across onto Crossrail. It was just the local all stations stopping services along routes that are already served by faster services to both Glasgow Central and Queen Street that I was proposing. For example, the present limited stop services that operate along the Ayrshire and Inverclyde routes would remain at both Central and Queen Street, so as to maintain connections from the ferry services onto longer distance intercity services such as to Birmingham and London.

With the almost completion of the electrification of the Whifflet route, I have had another idea. Divert this service to run through the low level platforms at Glasgow Central and continue it along to Exhibition Centre then send it up to Maryhill Central (where the present Tesco store is along Maryhill Road) via the Glasgow Central Railway (Caledonian Railway) line, which would be reopened with the stations at Kelvinbridge and Botanic Gardens also reopened. This would solve the problem of the congestion around Partick.

In addition, the Paisley Canal route could be diverted to run to Maryhill Central via Rutherglen (disused platforms brought back into use), then as the Whifflet service to Maryhill Central as above. This would provide a service every 15 minutes between Rutherglen and Maryhill Central.

The present Falkirk Grahamston/Cumbernauld service could be diverted from Springburn to run to Dumbarton Central via Maryhill Park and Westerton calling all stations. This would boost the services between Springburn and Maryhill Park to every 15 minutes, with both the Balloch and Helensburgh services possibly speeded up between Dalmuir and Dumbarton Central. Obviously, this would require electrification of the Maryhill Park line which would most likely be bottom of the list of the various electrification projects.

I have designed a map (on the dreadful side bearing in mind I was using a very basic paint program called Paintbrush.app) of what my proposals would look like. The file is in the standard JPEG format.

In peace

Adam

 

[Railsigns]

In addition, the Paisley Canal route could be diverted to run to Maryhill Central via Rutherglen (disused platforms brought back into use)

Why? Your proposed service wouldn't pass those platforms.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Many thanks for the interesting replies - I've only just had chance to read through them all.

In my original post, it was not the intention to move all of the local services across onto Crossrail. It was just the local all stations stopping services along routes that are already served by faster services to both Glasgow Central and Queen Street that I was proposing. For example, the present limited stop services that operate along the Ayrshire and Inverclyde routes would remain at both Central and Queen Street, so as to maintain connections from the ferry services onto longer distance intercity services such as to Birmingham and London.

With the almost completion of the electrification of the Whifflet route, I have had another idea. Divert this service to run through the low level platforms at Glasgow Central and continue it along to Exhibition Centre then send it up to Maryhill Central (where the present Tesco store is along Maryhill Road) via the Glasgow Central Railway (Caledonian Railway) line, which would be reopened with the stations at Kelvinbridge and Botanic Gardens also reopened. This would solve the problem of the congestion around Partick.

In addition, the Paisley Canal route could be diverted to run to Maryhill Central via Rutherglen (disused platforms brought back into use), then as the Whifflet service to Maryhill Central as above. This would provide a service every 15 minutes between Rutherglen and Maryhill Central.

The present Falkirk Grahamston/Cumbernauld service could be diverted from Springburn to run to Dumbarton Central via Maryhill Park and Westerton calling all stations. This would boost the services between Springburn and Maryhill Park to every 15 minutes, with both the Balloch and Helensburgh services possibly speeded up between Dalmuir and Dumbarton Central. Obviously, this would require electrification of the Maryhill Park line which would most likely be bottom of the list of the various electrification projects.

I have designed a map (on the dreadful side bearing in mind I was using a very basic paint program called Paintbrush.app) of what my proposals would look like. The file is in the standard JPEG format.

In peace

Adam

Fundamentally though your solution to the problem doesn't really solve the problem that people from Falkirk or Paisley Canal or wherever mostly want to go into the city centre and not the periphery. Although it is still possible to get to where you want to go to with a single change, it is still a change more than what is needed right now and people won't be particularly happy about that. The Subway is not a perfect solution by any means to replace the need for a proper cross city link because it is so technically limited. Unless there was a huge amount of money invested in making it accessible, the changes you propose to the south side services would primarily affect people of limited mobility which would not go down very well at all.

There is also very limited capacity for services to go from Springburn to Maryhill across Cowlairs because it is a flat junction and would conflict with almost every single other movement. That's probably the biggest thing that kills the idea of an orbital Queen St LL-Springburn-Maryhill-Partick-QST LL service unless it were split across Cowlairs.

In all likelihood the first proper north-south link through the city centre on rails will be a tram network. Hopefully this will prove the waters for a more substantial solution; fundamentally the idea of a full-on London Crossrail-style bored tunnel connecting the Central and Queen Street lines is by far the best but with the massive disadvantage of its biblical cost. If it were possible to fund such a line through a long-term bond issue (on the order of 50 years) it would likely be fundable as the benefits would have more than paid back the initial cost by this time. Only when the rebuilt Queen Street High Level station is full and there is a need to rebuild Central HL for HS2 will the tunnel idea really be necessary.

 

[clc]

If tram trains from Glasgow airport become reality how about routing some of these to Queen St Low Level/Charing Cross via the City Union line?

 

[clc]

There was talk recently on another thread about re-opening a line to Renfrew using the old freight line that currently terminates near Braehead. So, how about running trains from Renfrew to Charing Cross via the City Union line, High St and Queen St low level?

Renfrew is a decent size town not currently served by rail so there should be strong demand from there alone, never mind the other new stations which would also be built along the route namely Ibrox; West St (subway interchange); Gorbals (one of the biggest Sheriff Courts in Europe, new college u/c, big housing development u/c at Laurieston); and Glasgow Cross (interchange with Argyle line, big regeneration planned at Gallowgate).

The area around High St station is regenerating, with developments by Strathclyde University and others completed recently and more planned.

Queen St serves much of the business community of course; will soon have a direct connection to a massive shopping centre extension; and is within walking distance of Strathclyde and Caledonian Universities and City of Glasgow College which between them have 80,000 students.

Charing Cross is an expanding business centre with Santander and Whyte & Mackay amongst others based there; Scottish Power building it's HQ; and other office, hotel and residential developments u/c or in the pipeline.

I could see a decent business case for a line which for the first time provided a direct connection from the south side to these locations.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Perhaps you could also increase frequency on the Paisley Canal line to 4tph and run half of these to Charing Cross, giving 4tph over the City Union line. You'd have to redouble the single track section of the Canal line, but you'd have to do that at some point if an extension to Elderslie/Bridge of Weir was to happen.

 

[clc]

Scottish Labour Commits to funding Glasgow Crossrail http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-31298277

 

[Agent_c]

I really don't see the point - are there that many people looking to get from Ayrshire services to the central belt to warrant taking the trains out of the terminii and sticking Glasgow or other transferring passengers instead out in the Barras?

I think a much better investment would simply be better Central-Queen Street-Buchannan Bus Station links. Maybe an inner city tram or elevated monorail which could then be extended out to High street, down to salt market, and then around to complete a loop. Hell, since we're playing hypoteticals, how about a spur to Parkhead.

 

[PaulLothian]

Scottish Labour Commits to funding Glasgow Crossrail http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-31298277

I admire Jim Murphy's optimism...

 

[adrock1976]

I really don't see the point - are there that many people looking to get from Ayrshire services to the central belt to warrant taking the trains out of the terminii and sticking Glasgow or other transferring passengers instead out in the Barras?

I think a much better investment would simply be better Central-Queen Street-Buchannan Bus Station links. Maybe an inner city tram or elevated monorail which could then be extended out to High street, down to salt market, and then around to complete a loop. Hell, since we're playing hypoteticals, how about a spur to Parkhead.

Glasgow Cross is the true centre of the city, as that area towards the Molendinar Burn was the site where the city was founded in the medieval period. It has the postcode of G1.

Also, the tunnels and trackbed of the Glasgow Central Railway I believe still remains from Bridgeton Cross to Parkhead, and once connected with the Rutherglen & Coatbridge Railway at Carmyle. Both became part of the Caledonian Railway.

Also, it should be noted that according to various government surveys, the people residing in the city of Glasgow has the lowest access to a private car compared to other major cities in the UK.

In peace

Adam

 

[me123]

Glasgow Cross is the true centre of the city, as that area towards the Molendinar Burn was the site where the city was founded in the medieval period. It has the postcode of G1.

It may be true that, historically, Glasgow Cross was the true centre of the city. However, the city has since evolved and grown.

If I was asked where the heart of the city was today, I'd probably say Buchanan Street, George Square, the Eastern part of Sauchiehall Street and Argyle Street. It's quite compact and busy. (Of course, I'm not asserting that it's the only part of Glasgow people will travel to, but it's probably widely perceived to be the centre). If anything, most of the development has been to the immediate West of this area, with very little to the East of Glasgow Cross. So Glasgow Cross would realistically be on the periphery of the City Centre as we know it today.

I'm all for regenerating the East End, and I think there is fantastic scope to develop the area along Gallowgate. And, indeed, a station on the city union line would be a good step along the way. But my continued concern with Crossrail is that it's providing a poor solution to the problem at hand. It's diverting traffic away from the heart of the city to where people simply don't want to go. Existing routes will endure prolonged journey times if they are diverted onto Crossrail. To work, it will need the chord at High Street (as I've stated before, I think the cost of the chord and relocating High Street Station into a tunnel is excessive and it will likely not happen).

Crossrail seems to be sold as a "ready made" solution to Glasgow's rail problems. However, it's far from ready made, and I'm not convinced it even tackles the problems adequately. If, however, someone can show me a scenario in which Crossrail would be of a net benefit to rail users and the city, and can reassure me as to the cost of the High Street Chord (or demonstrate a better solution to that problem), then I'm happy to re-assess my opinion.

Jim Murphy is supporting Crossrail in a purely political move to win back Yes voters from Glasgow to the Labour party. I doubt that we'll actually see Crossrail in the near future. It's been mooted on many occasions and nothing has been done to get it going. It rears its head at times of political need and then quietly gets forgotten about, and I'm pretty sure there's a reason for this over and above the integrity of our politicians!

(BTW, having a G1 postcode is of no relevance to anything. Parts of Caithness have a KW (Kirkwall, Orkney) postcode.)

 

[JamesRowden]

Since it's hypothetical, the best long term solution might be to convert Glasgow Central and Glasgow Queen Street into through stations with up to 24tph (or possibly more if connected by more than 2 tracks) running through between them at street level. This would obviously require the demolition of the buildings and the roads in the way.

 

[Altnabreac]

Scottish Labour Commits to funding Glasgow Crossrail http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-31298277

Interesting political moves but no actual details of what the scheme would consist of.

The Evening Times article has some useful info here:
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/murphy-pledge-on-crossrail-196875n.118099740

The plan would cost at least £200m according to previous estimates and involve new stations, most likely one at Glasgow Cross.

Mr Murphy said at the Core Cities Devolution Summit in Glasgow the link would be used by millions of passengers a year.

He said it would be in Labour's manifesto for the 2016 Holyrood election and be funded by new Scottish Government borrowing powers.

He said: "Crossrail would bring Scotland together, linking North, South, East and West. It would see Scotland finally have a unified rail network service. It would offer better transport for Glaswegians, more capacity on a rail network creaking at the seams and more jobs for the East of the city.

"For too long our cities have been held back by a lack of ambition, a lack of funding and a lack of freedom."

He wants to see the leaders of Glasgow and Edinburgh city councils produce a report on Crossrail by the end of this year.

It seems the same mistakes as previously are being made again with this scheme.

It is being suggested it will provide cross Scotland strategic links and proposing that a report into it should be delivered by a joint group of Glasgow and Edinburgh Councils.

Any scheme developed on these grounds is bound to fail. With EGIP improving services via Falkirk and then a new High Speed Line being developed, Crossrail cannot be the scheme to provide nationwide links.

Instead it should be being promoted as a scheme to deliver regeneration in the East End with new local services calling at Gorbals and Glasgow Cross.

Diverting long distance passengers to new stations on the edge of the city centre will always have a poor business case.

Perhaps though, like with Glasgow Airport Rail Link, the political focus on the scheme by Labour will force a new more local, small scale, practical scheme to be developed by Transport Scotland as an alternative to the impractical long distance suggestions of Murphy?

 

[Agent_c]

Glasgow Cross is the true centre of the city, as that area towards the Molendinar Burn was the site where the city was founded in the medieval period. It has the postcode of G1.

A long time ago perhaps, but now? Its the edge between the good part of town, and the wrong side of the tracks (literally). Is it likely to be where rail customers are wanting to go? I think chances are passengers with a ticket marked "Glasgow" are more interested in Sauchiehaul Street/Buchanan Street/Argyle Street for which GLC and GLQ are better situated.

And that doesn't even begin to look at transfering passengers who are better served by services to the GLC/GLQ terminii, not to some 2 platform through train bridge out by the Barras.

Also, it should be noted that according to various government surveys, the people residing in the city of Glasgow has the lowest access to a private car compared to other major cities in the UK.

Which is an argument for better public transport, but not for white elephant projects that don't serve a specific need.

Need to instead look at:
1. How many people on the routes replaced on the line have an ultimate destination closer to Glasgow cross than their routes terminii
2. How many people want to transit through one effected route to the other
3. How many people on the affected routes wish transit through
4. How many people are better served by their existing termini
If 1+2>3+4 then does the margin justify turning glasgow from 2 mainline stations to two and a half (and subsequent costs to reopen Glasgow Cross lower level, bus link to Queen street, etc.

I'd be suprised if 1+2 exceeded 3+4, much less to any significant degree.

 

[matchmaker]

Gorbals (one of the biggest Sheriff Courts in Europe)

As there aren't any Sheriff Courts outside Scotland it IS the biggest in Europe!

 

[tbtc]

I've never understood the logic of "Glasgow Crossrail" (other than the usual enthusiast obsession of suggesting that we reopen an abandoned alignment as a solution in need of a problem).

Connecting Heavy Rail and the Subway at West Street sound like a fairly good idea, though that doesn't require this complicated scheme to happen.

If Glasgow Crossrail diverts existing services away from Central/ Queen Street then it disadvantages those passengers by giving them a longer journey into central Glasgow via a part of town that won't offer anything like as much.

If Glasgow Crossrail has to be new services (so that nobody loses their existing services to Centra/ Queen Street) then it won't free up platform space at Central High Level/ Queen Street High Level, so won't tackle the real congestion faced in Glasgow (run as many Southside trains through the Gorballs/ Glasgow Cross as you want, but that won't tempt many from the busy services into Central - which is where the masses want to be).

The fact that Glasgow Cross was once the central point of the city is irrelevant - the Royal Mile was once the main thoroughfare in Edinburgh, but I think the tram was better routed along Princes Street! Bringing up medieval history won't help things - it's about the 21st century.

London's Thameslink works because

• It let people from the south retain their existing services to the major stations at the south of the city centre (London Bridge, Blackfriars)
• It let people from the north retain their existing services to the major station at the north of the city centre (St Pancras)
• It provided a link between the the stations at the south (London Bridge/ Blackfriars) and those at the north (Kings Cross/St Pancras), acting like a "Tube" line
• It removed terminating trains at those busy stations (therefore freeing up platform space)

Same goes for "London" Crossrail

• People retain their existing services into Liverpool Street and Paddington
• You gain a new high capacity link between Liverpool Street and Paddington You free up platform space at Liverpool Street and Paddington (due to fewer services terminating there)

The Glasgow version wouldn't link Central and Queen Street, it would divert some passengers to somewhere outside the modern city centre, it wouldn't free up plaform space at the busy High Level stations.

If you want to build light rail through the centre of the city (linking the two High Level stations) then that has merit - Glasgow's wide straight streets should be capable of accomodating a tram.

If you want to regenerate the Barrowlands/ Glasgow Cross/ Gorbals areas then there are ways of solving that without dragging passengers from the Paisley Canal line through it so that their journey into the modern city centre takes a good bit longer.

Sorry, it's a solution in need of a problem, a jumble of weak cases cobbled together in the hope that they sound "bigger". Plenty of alternative things that any money could be spent on in Glasgow (e.g. the flat junction around Yorkhill?).

 

[6Z09]

As has been said, people want faster journey times,not a tour round the freight lines of Glasgow!
Better ways to spend money on the Scottish Rail system than that surely!

 

[Argosy]

I fully concur with this view. The ideal solution for cross Glasgow linking would be by re-instating the former alignment to the east of Glasgow Central across the Clyde and then constructing a link to the old St Enoch site and out to the east that way. This could then lead to a connection with St Enoch Underground. To enable this a major regeneration of the centre of Glasgow could take place and the developer contributions could help fund it. One would need to get from the west side to the east but the City Union could provide a means of doing that or at least getting over the WCML.

An alternative would be to re-open the Kilbirnie loop line and continue beneath Glasgow Airport and come up north side of the Clyde. I suspect there is not the physical space to four track through Queen Street low level though I suppose you could make a lower lower level! From what I have been told the geology of Glasgow is not particularly conducive to tunnelling hence the 'Chicago option' up in the air - literally.

The Glasgow Crossrail project is a bit like diverting SW train services via Chelsea and Kensington to get to Essex and East Anglia and completely missing central London. Indeed the latest Rail future offering in Scotland is akin to the 19th century rail mania without any thought of priority or logic or funding. It seems their philosophy is 'if there is a former rail alignment we must re-open it'.

Brill Tramway anyone?

 

[laseandre]

Since it's hypothetical, the best long term solution might be to convert Glasgow Central and Glasgow Queen Street into through stations with up to 24tph (or possibly more if connected by more than 2 tracks) running through between them at street level. This would obviously require the demolition of the buildings and the roads in the way.

That would rather defeat the point, since you're demolishing huge swathes of the city centre you're trying to serve in your plan. The best long term plan is probably a rather infeasible and expensive tunnel along the same route. But we also have the problem of the Cowlairs Tunnel at Queen St... That is the major bottleneck for services into Q St HL.

 

[Altnabreac]

That would rather defeat the point, since you're demolishing huge swathes of the city centre you're trying to serve in your plan. The best long term plan is probably a rather infeasible and expensive tunnel along the same route. But we also have the problem of the Cowlairs Tunnel at Queen St... That is the major bottleneck for services into Q St HL.

Any future cross city tunnel won't use Cowlairs tunnel as the alignment just wouldn't work and you'd have to close Queen St for 2 years while you built it.

The northern portal of a cross city tunnel would be somewhere like Cowlairs or Springburn with a new tunnel all the way. Easier than trying to connect to the existing tunnels.

 

[james73]

I fully concur with this view. The ideal solution for cross Glasgow linking would be by re-instating the former alignment to the east of Glasgow Central across the Clyde and then constructing a link to the old St Enoch site and out to the east that way. This could then lead to a connection with St Enoch Underground. To enable this a major regeneration of the centre of Glasgow could take place and the developer contributions could help fund it. One would need to get from the west side to the east but the City Union could provide a means of doing that or at least getting over the WCML.

An alternative would be to re-open the Kilbirnie loop line and continue beneath Glasgow Airport and come up north side of the Clyde. I suspect there is not the physical space to four track through Queen Street low level though I suppose you could make a lower lower level! From what I have been told the geology of Glasgow is not particularly conducive to tunnelling hence the 'Chicago option' up in the air - literally.

The Glasgow Crossrail project is a bit like diverting SW train services via Chelsea and Kensington to get to Essex and East Anglia and completely missing central London. Indeed the latest Rail future offering in Scotland is akin to the 19th century rail mania without any thought of priority or logic or funding. It seems their philosophy is 'if there is a former rail alignment we must re-open it'.

Brill Tramway anyone?

Queen Street low level had four tracks prior to electrification in 1960.

http://urbanglasgow.co.uk/about2757.html

James H

 

[Agent_c]

Queen Street low level had four tracks prior to electrification in 1960.

http://urbanglasgow.co.uk/about2757.html

James H

I think the space might still be there, you can still see the old Island platform when you go down there.

Those pics clear up a few things for me... Always wondered why it was configured in what seemed to be a very inefficient way.

 

[james73]

I think the space might still be there, you can still see the old Island platform when you go down there.

Those pics clear up a few things for me... Always wondered why it was configured in what seemed to be a very inefficient way.

As far as I'm aware, the current tracks are the ones that were accessed by the island platform. The outer tracks were lifted and the space built over, which explains why the current platforms are so wide.


James H