Provide the service and the people will use it
"If you build it, they will come" is the worst reasoning (though admittedly fairly common on the Forum).
There needs to be a stronger argument than just the blind faith of "we should introduce a service from X to Y because someone might find it useful".
As an example, how many Citylink/ National Express services are there per day from "north of the M8" to England (not including services which run *via* Edinburgh/ Glasgow)?
In fact, I'm struggling to think of many coach services in Scotland that don't involve Edinburgh/ Glasgow/ Dundee/ Aberdeen/ Inverness (including Stagecoach Express etc). There's a few Stagecoach (X75?) services from Stranraer to Dumfries, but beyond that...
Better way to achieve a fast Killie to Glasgow trains would be to complete the doubling of the line between Barrhead and kilmarnock. No room for anymore trains on the Ayr - Glasgow line as it is.
Agreed.
Kilmarnock to Glasgow ought to have been a half hourly EMU many years ago - it's underserved by rail (look at the killing that Stagecoach must be making on the X76).
I would agree that a Stirling-Motherwell service would be a fantastic idea, in fact I had long advocated that the Motherwell-Cumbernauld shuttle be extended to Stirling. It would provide Monklands with excellent connections to the North as well as connecting Stirling to the WCML and Lanarkshire
Agreed.
I've wondered for a while (certainly back to the National Express ScotRail days...) why the hourly service from Falkirk (Grahamston) to Cumbernauld was an extension of the Queen Street service, rather than the lightly used Motherwell - Cumbernauld service (since Falkirk (High) already had four trains an hour to Glasgow.
Electrification has changed things, of course, but it'd be a cheap way of improving links (i.e. no more stock required, once EMUs are running all of these services).
A better option could be a Stirling - Carlisle Citadel regional service, calling at Larbert, (What's it called?) Cumbernauld, Coatbridge Central, Motherwell, then alternating every 2 hours between Carstairs and a reopened Abington or Symington (Lanarkshire) station, then Lockerbie and Carlisle Citadel.
The above would restore a direct link along the Caledonian Railway Main Line on a north-south axis that was lost, and would reconnect Biggar and the western side of the ML12 postcode area to the network again.
Combine this with if VTWC reinstates the calls at Motherwell that were cut back in 2008, there would also be the option of decent traditional Intercity services not just from Motherwell, but from neighbouring Hamilton, Bellshill, Shotts, Carluke, Wishaw, Coatbridge, and Lanark too, due to them being as good as next door to each other
Which is it to be?
IF you want the VTWC services to stop at Motherwell then you don't need a through service from Stirling to Carlisle (since there can be regular connections at Motherwell).
(unless this is all an excuse to introduce a "slow" service down the WCML to serve a new station at the metropolis of Symington?)
It is ridiculous that passengers in most of the ML postcode area have to have on average a 30 minute trek to Glasgow Central, minimum interchange time of 10 (or 15 if arriving to or from low level) minutes at GLC, only to pass back though Motherwell (a station designed for and was branded for Intercity services) 12 miles away where if VTWC were to call, there would be no need for any ridiculous doublebacks. It is even worse if doing a Motherwell - Watford Junction journey, as it requires not one, but TWO doublebacks at the Glasgow and London ends.
How is that ridiculous?
Plenty of examples of that elsewhere - e.g. Musselburgh to Stevenage is generally going to mean doubling back at Waverley and Kings Cross.
Virgin don't think that it's worth slowing down most London - Glasgow services by stopping at Watford and/or Motherwell... they seem to know what they are doing (e.g. a ten minute penalty to accommodate those stops will make rail less attractive than air for the more important city centre to city centre market)
I think any such stopping service north of Carlisle serving extra stations would run into Glasgow or alternate between Glasgow and Edinburgh. This is simply because that is where the majority of northbound passengers from Carstairs, Lockerbie and any new stations would wish to go. Giving Stirling a service to Carlisle with changes for the south isn't much of an improvement over making the change at Haymarket.
I do agree there seems to be a case for stopping more long-distance trains at Motherwell, as it sits in a well-populated area where suburban services can act as feeders. But the fact they don't stop suggests that the extra passengers aren't enough to outweigh the loss in custom to Glasgow resulting from the extra journey time.
Agreed on all points.
Both First and Virgin provided trains to Stirling in the aborted West Coast competition.
I'd treat that as "window dressing" (i.e. an interesting distraction from the meat and drink of London - Birmingham/ Manchester/ Glasgow).
The fact that they have (subsequently) found the stock for extensions to Blackpool and Shrewsbury (but not Stirling) suggests it wasn't a big priority.
I notice that the report says the Finnieston Turnback is not being progressed. Four tracking between Hyndland and Partick is to be considered but this is longer term. So where does this leave the possibility of running more trains through Central Low Level in the near future?
That's a shame re Finnieston - this is the kind of project that we should be throwing megabuck at (since it'd benefit lots of journeys in/through Clydeside), rather than piddling about re-opening quaint branches.
Build this turn back and you increase the amount of services from Lanarkshire that can run through Glasgow (with wider repercussions - e.g. West Lothian) which frees up platform space at Central to allow more services from Ayrshire/ Renfrewshire etc too.
Since the Forth Bridge can't be four-tracked (for rather obvious reasons), I'd treat this as the biggest solvable bottleneck in Scotland - should be a priority.
