Scotland Route Study

[NotATrainspott]

Don't forget the WHL services will still operate with Class 158s



This would be a reason to wire the line though just string up the wires no extra feeder stations required.

Yes they will. However, at the moment basically any unit arriving in Queen Street HL can end up on the Anniesland shuttle. When the 385s and the HSTs take over, there will be very few trains that can. This is the major justification for electrification in the Route Study, as electrification will allow the 385s to run on the line and so that there is maximum flexibility when timetabling. This will be even more important in future as the station will only get busier, and as making trains longer means you can't stack them up in platforms.

That's exactly my point. The Maryhill line has a unique set of circumstances which mean that electrification is worthwhile regardless of the passenger numbers.

 

[och aye]

I was thinking, if the proposed dynamic loops between Prestonpans and Drem goes ahead this will make reconnecting Haddington to Longniddry at the same time a more realistic prospect?

 

[Altnabreac]

I was thinking, if the proposed dynamic loops between Prestonpans and Drem goes ahead this will make reconnecting Haddington to Longniddry at the same time a more realistic prospect?

Suspect not. The cost of providing extra paths into the East end of Waverley is not cheap and Haddington (population 10,000) will not have first dibs on them.

Plus it would extract passengers from North Berwick services which would be looking to increase to 2tph.

The Haddington reopening is fairly cheap and easy. Finding paths to Edinburgh is the hard bit.

 

[GrimShady]

Any more news on the new Glasgow Terminus?

 

[clc]

Any more news on the new Glasgow Terminus?

Progress on the Glasgow Terminal Stations project seems very slow. Over a billion has been spent on roads around the city in recent years but relatively little on new rail infrastructure sadly.

 

[Clansman]

Any more news on the new Glasgow Terminus?

Progress on the Glasgow Terminal Stations project seems very slow. Over a billion has been spent on roads around the city in recent years but relatively little on new rail infrastructure sadly.

I assume you both mean Queen Street?

Wasn't planning granted a month or so ago for a major refurbishment of Queen Street's concourse and platforms?

 

[clc]

I assume you both mean Queen Street?

Wasn't planning granted a month or so ago for a major refurbishment of Queen Street's concourse and platforms?

I was referring to the new city centre station which could be built at St Enoch.

 

[Clansman]

I was referring to the new city centre station which could be built at St Enoch.

Eh? Where's this come about from?

 

[gsnedders]

Eh? Where's this come about from?

It's been mentioned occasionally, and appears in the Scotland Route Study as a possible option. Realistically, Central and Queen Street don't have the capacity for projected 2043 passenger levels. I'd still think a tunnel station linking the two networks is more likely than demolishing the St Enoch centre.

I'd expect nothing really to happen for well over a decade, even if it does happen, hence I doubt news is going to be, well, much.

 

[Clansman]

It's been mentioned occasionally, and appears in the Scotland Route Study as a possible option. Realistically, Central and Queen Street don't have the capacity for projected 2043 passenger levels. I'd still think a tunnel station linking the two networks is more likely than demolishing the St Enoch centre.

I'd expect nothing really to happen for well over a decade, even if it does happen, hence I doubt news is going to be, well, much.

So presumably this would be a very costly underground style station.

Although it's just pure speculation (or whatever it is), what services would this third terminus be most likely to serve - because it would seem very confusing from a passenger point of view to just mix and match between the 3 of them? Personally I'd of thought limiting the new termini as a hub specifically for Edinburgh services from both Queen Street and Central, as it would free up significant capacity at both Central and Queen Street. The station would clearly have to be below ground, thus very very expensive - at least £1-5 billion. Ideally, you'd be looking at a through station of around 5-8 platforms of which the southern end tunnel connects up with the mainline at Polmaddie, and the north end would link up parallel to the Queen Street tunnel.

Although as you stated, a tunnel link between both Queen Street and Central may also help to significantly improve capacity - how it would improve the current capacity levels doesn't make much sense to me, without building a new station or trying to extend Queen Street and Central. Unless I'm getting the wrong end of the stick somehow.

 

[NotATrainspott]

So presumably this would be a very costly underground style station.

Although it's just pure speculation (or whatever it is), what services would this third terminus be most likely to serve - because it would seem very confusing from a passenger point of view to just mix and match between the 3 of them? Personally I'd of thought limiting the new termini as a hub specifically for Edinburgh services from both Queen Street and Central, as it would free up significant capacity at both Central and Queen Street. The station would clearly have to be below ground, thus very very expensive - at least £1-5 billion. Ideally, you'd be looking at a through station of around 5-8 platforms of which the southern end tunnel connects up with the mainline at Polmaddie, and the north end would link up parallel to the Queen Street tunnel.

Although as you stated, a tunnel link between both Queen Street and Central would also help to significantly improve capacity.

The only possible justification for a >£1 billion underground station is that it can then link up the rail networks to the north and south of the city. The neo-St Enoch idea would be a surface terminus station which theoretically could be reached by both the north and south networks. However, it's not particularly ideal for northern access, as any trains would need to cross the North Clyde line at Bellgrove and then share the Springburn branch up to Cowlairs. Connecting to the Cumbernauld line would require the Garngad Chord to be built too, unless reversals at Springburn would be tolerated. From the south access isn't as bad, as many of the lines originally fed into St Enoch before being redirected into Central upon its closure.

A north-south tunnel would be like the North Clyde and Argyle lines in being a regional metro service, with all trains running through and only one platform per direction. There is no justification for anything more than that. If there would be an imbalance of trains per hour at both ends, then just provide some surface turnback tracks somewhere convenient north of the city centre. The surface termini would remain but lose the stopping services. Queen Street, for instance, could see only Inverness, WHL and Aberdeen trains in the most extreme case. Central would be able to saturate a tunnel immediately with planned train numbers, so there will be plenty to fill the platforms. I do not think there would be any link from the tunnel to the WCML direction, as the regional metro service from the south-east can be/is already sent through the Argyle Line tunnels. Personally I think a connection to the GSW lines for the Barrhead and East Kilbride trains would be appropriate, but I know that the few official documents about the idea only include a link through to Paisley Gilmour Street.

 

[clc]

I'd still think a tunnel station linking the two networks is more likely than demolishing the St Enoch centre.
.

I think the new terminus would be built on the car parks to the east of the St Enoch centre. Presumably it would be connected to the centre, a benefit of which would be a covered route between the new terminus and St Enoch subway station.

 

[Class 170101]

Note reversals happen at Springburn now and since the line to Cumbernauld was electrified.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Note reversals happen at Springburn now and since the line to Cumbernauld was electrified.

I am aware of this. These are tolerable for the current electrified Cumbernauld services, as they can only be extensions of the current Springburn terminators. A reversal wouldn't be as tolerable for any additional services heading to a neo-St Enoch, as it would lengthen journey times.

 

[najaB]

A reversal wouldn't be as tolerable for any additional services heading to a neo-St Enoch, as it would lengthen journey times.

If you're speaking of north-south journeys then, even with a reversal, the journey time may well be shorter overall through not having to schlep between Queen Street and Central.

 

[gsnedders]

I think the new terminus would be built on the car parks to the east of the St Enoch centre. Presumably it would be connected to the centre, a benefit of which would be a covered route between the new terminus and St Enoch subway station.

Those car parks are where the approach lines into the station used to go… would they really suffice for the whole station?

 

[edwin_m]

If you're speaking of north-south journeys then, even with a reversal, the journey time may well be shorter overall through not having to schlep between Queen Street and Central.

The majority of journeys on through services via St Enoch would be to/from the centre of Glasgow rather than across it. So the question is how long it takes to access the places people wish to go from St Enoch compared with Central or Queen Street.

Journeys possible on through services would indeed be quicker, though the reversal would put 10min or so into schedules. But a through journey requiring a change between St Enoch and one of the other stations would be no quicker than one requiring a change between Central and Queen Street. And the alternatives of increasing the number of trains at the existing stations - whether by tunnelling or other means - would result in fewer station-to-station transfers.