Scottish Electrification updates & discussion

[LNW-GW Joint]

Hope Street in Glasgow regularly tops the pollution table, mainly due to buses I suspect but being next to Central Station can't help. Am I right in saying that the GSW routes are the last DMUS operating regularly from Central (Shotts excepted as that's being electrified)?

Well there's Voyagers (XC and VT) and the odd 185 (TPE) towards Motherwell.

 

[Southsider]

Well there's Voyagers (XC and VT) and the odd 185 (TPE) towards Motherwell.

Thanks, forgot about them. Don't know why as I regularly see one heading for Plymouth as I arrive in Central in the morning.

 

[Carntyne]

Hope Street in Glasgow regularly tops the pollution table, mainly due to buses I suspect but being next to Central Station can't help. Am I right in saying that the GSW routes are the last DMUS operating regularly from Central (Shotts excepted as that's being electrified)?

Hope Street is bad because there's thousands of crap buses & taxis running up the street 24/7 with no respite. Central will hardly contribute at all, there's only one exit from High Level to it, and it's miles away from the platforms.

 

[Altnabreac]

It seems to have moved into CP7, but I don't know for sure why, as yet. CP7 would tie in with the currently estimated replacement of the rolling stock on the route though, whilst moving Aberdeen and particularly Inverness up by a couple of years in turn ties those schemes in more closely to the expected out of service date for the HST sets.

The VW emissions scandal fall-out is stirring a few rumours and reminding various people about air quality reports sitting on their desks too, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen have NOx and particular matter related air quality issues which would be helped by the removing diesel trains from the principal stations in those cities.

I can definitely see the logic of morving the phasing around to allow wiring to reach Aberdeen and Inverness before the HSTs are life expired.

Hope at least East Kilbride gets done in CP6 though as with the number of 6 car trains on there it must be one of the most efficient ways to free up DMUs. Hopefully also some infrastructure improvements to allow 4tph as well.

 

[Argosy]

Afterwards I gleaned (though hardly exclusively) that NR wanted to do a Paisley Canal type job on East Kilbride/Barrhead/Kilmarnock. I then pointed out that EK was one thing but Kilmarnock was the diversionary route for WCML so surely needs more robust treatment.

 

[sng7]

I can definitely see the logic of morving the phasing around to allow wiring to reach Aberdeen and Inverness before the HSTs are life expired.

Hope at least East Kilbride gets done in CP6 though as with the number of 6 car trains on there it must be one of the most efficient ways to free up DMUs. Hopefully also some infrastructure improvements to allow 4tph as well.

The thing is from a scottish sense (bearing in mind rail is devolved) once you get to 2018-19 You will have already freed up an awful lot of DMUs between the edinburgh to glasgow electrification including stirling and the introduction of the HSTs so being able to free up DMUs becomes a lower priority for scotland as we will have plenty.

 

[marks87]

It's fine, but it will need a rigid overhead conductor system, as much for the climatic conditions as anything else.

The route north isn't going to be easy, but it's nothing we've not really done before, bridges excepted.

I was thinking more for the people actually putting the wires up - definitely a job for the summer, I'd say!

The thing is from a scottish sense (bearing in mind rail is devolved) once you get to 2018-19 You will have already freed up an awful lot of DMUs between the edinburgh to glasgow electrification including stirling and the introduction of the HSTs so being able to free up DMUs becomes a lower priority for scotland as we will have plenty.

Bigger picture - freed-up DMUs that are surplus to requirements in Scotland can head south to modernise and/or bolster services in England (and Wales).

 

[clc]

Was thinking about how far north the wires could go in CP6.

The rolling programme of electrification will result in around 300 single track miles being wired in CP6. Shotts has been brought forward to CP5 and Kilmarnock apparently deferred to CP7 so with E&G (plus diversionary routes) and Dunblane/Alloa also completed in CP5 that will leave the following STPR priorities still to be done:-

Grangemouth*
Maryhill*
East Kilbride*
Barrhead*
Edinburgh South Suburban*
City Union Line*
Fife Circle*
Kirkcaldy-Dundee/Perth
Dunblane-Perth
Perth-Dundee
Dundee-Aberdeen
Perth-Inverness

If the Central Belt routes (marked *) add up to, say 100 single track miles that leaves 200 single track miles of additional electrification in CP6, which should be enough to get the wires to Dundee, from both Glasgow and Edinburgh.

 

[snowball]

Press release

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/mine-remediation-works-for-falkirk-high-station

Mine remediation works for Falkirk High station

Monday 5 Oct 2015

Scotland

Network Rail will shortly begin mining remediation work at Falkirk High Station in preparation for the extension of the station’s platforms.

Part of the Scottish Government-funded, £742m Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Programme (EGIP), the work will help to deliver faster, longer and greener trains for customers on the Edinburgh Waverley-Glasgow Queen Street line from December 2016.

Over the next two months, engineers will drill and pour grout into 400 holes to the west of the station to address the presence of the old mining works within the railway corridor.

The grout will act to seal voids and holes and create a solid consistent base surface for the construction of the platform extensions. This work will be both day and night shift and unavoidably noisy for those living near the railway.

Work to set up a site compound within part of the station car park will begin on Sunday, October 11, which will lead to a temporary reduction in the number of car parking spaces available for commuters.

Drilling work will begin on October 19 and will utilise full-length double acoustic blankets on the drilling rig as well as acoustic baffling panels positioned 3m from it to minimise the noise emanating from the drilling rig.

When the mining remediation is complete, work can then begin on a four-month programme to construct the extended platforms.

 

[rower40]

Is there any discussion on here of the new chord being built at Anniesland, to connect the line from Maryhill into platforms 1 and 2?

 

[clc]

Is there any discussion on here of the new chord being built at Anniesland, to connect the line from Maryhill into platforms 1 and 2?

There's been some discussion here:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=114661&page=1

 

[92002]

Was thinking about how far north the wires could go in CP6.

The rolling programme of electrification will result in around 300 single track miles being wired in CP6. Shotts has been brought forward to CP5 and Kilmarnock apparently deferred to CP7 so with E&G (plus diversionary routes) and Dunblane/Alloa also completed in CP5 that will leave the following STPR priorities still to be done:-

Grangemouth*
Maryhill*
East Kilbride*
Barrhead*
Edinburgh South Suburban*
City Union Line*
Fife Circle*
Kirkcaldy-Dundee/Perth
Dunblane-Perth
Perth-Dundee
Dundee-Aberdeen
Perth-Inverness

If the Central Belt routes (marked *) add up to, say 100 single track miles that leaves 200 single track miles of additional electrification in CP6, which should be enough to get the wires to Dundee, from both Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Now that mostly all mast foundations are completed on the main line from Falkirk High route. Work has now started on the diversion route from Cumberland to Greenhil Lower. Mostly all foundations have been completed. Presumably work will continue from Greenhill Lower to Falkirk Grahamston and Polmont and could continue then to Grangemouth if funding can be found.

 

[adrock1976]

Regarding the STPR priorities in a previous post, it is interesting that the rest of the City Union Railway (Shields - Bellgrove, Bellgrove to Springburn was already electrified back in 1960) is planned to have wires.

Perhaps with the plans to double the frequency on the East Kilbride services, this could be done in association with Glasgow Crossrail?

 

[Altnabreac]

Now that mostly all mast foundations are completed on the main line from Falkirk High route. Work has now started on the diversion route from Cumberland to Greenhil Lower. Mostly all foundations have been completed. Presumably work will continue from Greenhill Lower to Falkirk Grahamston and Polmont and could continue then to Grangemouth if funding can be found.

I believe that Grangemouth electrification funding has been agreed. I think it is being funded from the freight improvements money but delivered as part of the post EGIP rolling electrification contract.

See for example here where it is confirmed by someone from Transport Scotland:
http://www.sestran.gov.uk/files/1390317318.pdf

The funding only covers the Network Rail owned portion of the branch but I suspect at least the Multimodal terminal will be wired for Tesco traffic.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I believe that Grangemouth electrification funding has been agreed. I think it is being funded from the freight improvements money but delivered as part of the post EGIP rolling electrification contract.

See for example here where it is confirmed by someone from Transport Scotland:
http://www.sestran.gov.uk/files/1390317318.pdf

The funding only covers the Network Rail owned portion of the branch but I suspect at least the Multimodal terminal will be wired for Tesco traffic.

Yeap, I've mentioned it before, wires funded by Transport Scotland and Network Rail to the Forth Ports boundary (alongside Dock Road). It'll be up to Forth Ports, Ineos and others to decide what they would like to do with their side of the boundary.

There's also some changes in the pipeline for access to Grangemouth from the east (without reversals etc) and for twin tracking the western entry, the twin tracking work would hopefully be done prior to electrification, eastern access will be something for a little further in the future, I'd say.

 

[Carntyne]

Regarding the STPR priorities in a previous post, it is interesting that the rest of the City Union Railway (Shields - Bellgrove, Bellgrove to Springburn was already electrified back in 1960) is planned to have wires.

Perhaps with the plans to double the frequency on the East Kilbride services, this could be done in association with Glasgow Crossrail?

Crossrail isn't going to happen. Reckon they'll be wiring the CU for ECS movements.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Crossrail isn't going to happen. Reckon they'll be wiring the CU for ECS movements.

It was to be wired as part of EGIP for that reason, but it was culled along with some of the other changes when EGIP was re-scoped, and is now absent from the EGIP and CP5 electrification works.

I believe the design work and some of the preparatory ground works started on the route for this reason, but didn't proceed too far, but then again it's a very easy project to deal with. The biggest works will be vegetation clearance.

 

[clc]

Regarding the STPR priorities in a previous post, it is interesting that the rest of the City Union Railway (Shields - Bellgrove, Bellgrove to Springburn was already electrified back in 1960) is planned to have wires.

Perhaps with the plans to double the frequency on the East Kilbride services, this could be done in association with Glasgow Crossrail?

It so happens The Scotsman has raised the topic of Glasgow Crossrail today. However, the response from TS isn't exactly grounds for optimism:

http://www.scotsman.com/business/glasgow-crossrail-will-the-missing-link-be-built-1-3914994

 

[me123]

I hope we don't waste money on Crossrail. I've spent plenty of time on here explaining my thoughts as to why it will be a colossal waste of money. And I'll happily break apart some of the nonsense spouted in the Scotsman article.

The lack of a connecting link between Glasgow Central and Queen Street stations means a five minute dash along Buchanan Street for those looking for a train south after arriving from the east and vice versa.

Here's the big problem. Let me make this clear. Crossrail (as proposed) will never provide a link between Central and Queen Street Stations. Many arguments claim that it is the "missing link" between the North and South of the City, yet despite publicity coming close to claiming that it will link the two stations it does no such thing.

Besides, walking between Central and Queen Street is perfectly manageable. For those who can't manage to walk, there's a bus. I'd agree that connectivity could be massively improved, but Crossrail simply does not deliver on this in any way. (I had suggested that a hypothetical tram service on Clyde Fastlink could run non-stop from Gordon Street to George Square, for example).

Currently, most services from Ayrshire and the south-west terminate at Central and cannot carry on through to Edinburgh.

But services from Ayr to Edinburgh do operate. Yes, they require a reverse at Central and take a while, but they exist. I don't think that diverting trains away from Glasgow and onto the North Clyde/Airdrie-Bathgate route is going to be highly beneficial. I suspect journey times would be comparable to walking to Queen Street and catching the fast EMUs that will be running on the Falkirk High line. Or by taking one of the at least 3tph from Central to Edinburgh. The proposed route is relatively slow and would not effectively compete with road journeys. It would require existing services (presumably, fast Edinburgh-Milngavie and fast Ayr-Glasgow runs) to be diverted away from the largest city in Scotland to serve a small number of passengers.

The Tron line, which crosses the Saltmarket and Gallowgate, would allow passengers travelling to and from the south to avoid changing in Glasgow and connect directly with the east of the country.

True. It also does a fantastic job of bypassing just about anywhere in the City Centre that you'd want to go to. West Street - Gorbals - Glasgow Cross - Bellgrove misses the heart of the City Centre and, crucially, actually removes a huge number of connection opportunities from the passenger compared to the existing interchanges in the City Centre. Furthermore, given that discussions surrounding Crossrail often focus on the creation of capacity at Glasgow Central, it's reasonable to assume that there will be no new services, rather existing services will be diverted onto the new line. This will decrease connectivity to one of the most important economic hubs in Scotland. OK, so there's a connection to the Subway at West Street. That adds significant time and (under the current pricing model) cost to peoples journeys, which will be poorly received.

Of course, it's also proposed that a chord can be constructed to divert trains to Queen Street Low Level and beyond. However, this would be a very tight chord with a steep gradient, and would involve relocating High Street Station into a tunnel. This would be costly both in financial terms and in extending journey times to the City Centre. And where do the trains go then? Patrick, inevitably. Which is already also at capacity. You could build the Kelvinhaugh turn back, but that adds cost and minimises connectivity.

Besides - I've yet to hear anyone actually suggest what services would use the increased capacity at Central.

“Crossrail would not only benefit Glasgow – it would bring national benefits by linking Ayrshire to the north of the country, allowing people to get to work from further afield and making it easier for commuters to pass through the city.”

Ayrshire to Stirling/beyond? Really? I can't believe that there's a huge market for this, particularly as the proposed service will effectively bypass the biggest settlement on its route!

There are elements of Crossrail that do make sense, of course. Electrification creates scope for ECS movements, and West Street interchange connects Ayrshire and Inverclyde to the Subway network, and hence the West End of the city. But diverting trains on a slow line away from Glasgow City Centre at (inevitably) the expense of existing services is folly. Wasting money reconstructing High Street at great expense and disruption to create capacity for... nothing, as far as I can see, will only serve to extend journey times.

 

[Altnabreac]

I hope we don't waste money on Crossrail. I've spent plenty of time on here explaining my thoughts as to why it will be a colossal waste of money. And I'll happily break apart some of the nonsense spouted in the Scotsman article.

Here's the big problem. Let me make this clear. Crossrail (as proposed) will never provide a link between Central and Queen Street Stations. Many arguments claim that it is the "missing link" between the North and South of the City, yet despite publicity coming close to claiming that it will link the two stations it does no such thing.

Besides, walking between Central and Queen Street is perfectly manageable. For those who can't manage to walk, there's a bus. I'd agree that connectivity could be massively improved, but Crossrail simply does not deliver on this in any way. (I had suggested that a hypothetical tram service on Clyde Fastlink could run non-stop from Gordon Street to George Square, for example).

But services from Ayr to Edinburgh do operate. Yes, they require a reverse at Central and take a while, but they exist. I don't think that diverting trains away from Glasgow and onto the North Clyde/Airdrie-Bathgate route is going to be highly beneficial. I suspect journey times would be comparable to walking to Queen Street and catching the fast EMUs that will be running on the Falkirk High line. Or by taking one of the at least 3tph from Central to Edinburgh. The proposed route is relatively slow and would not effectively compete with road journeys. It would require existing services (presumably, fast Edinburgh-Milngavie and fast Ayr-Glasgow runs) to be diverted away from the largest city in Scotland to serve a small number of passengers.

True. It also does a fantastic job of bypassing just about anywhere in the City Centre that you'd want to go to. West Street - Gorbals - Glasgow Cross - Bellgrove misses the heart of the City Centre and, crucially, actually removes a huge number of connection opportunities from the passenger compared to the existing interchanges in the City Centre. Furthermore, given that discussions surrounding Crossrail often focus on the creation of capacity at Glasgow Central, it's reasonable to assume that there will be no new services, rather existing services will be diverted onto the new line. This will decrease connectivity to one of the most important economic hubs in Scotland. OK, so there's a connection to the Subway at West Street. That adds significant time and (under the current pricing model) cost to peoples journeys, which will be poorly received.

Of course, it's also proposed that a chord can be constructed to divert trains to Queen Street Low Level and beyond. However, this would be a very tight chord with a steep gradient, and would involve relocating High Street Station into a tunnel. This would be costly both in financial terms and in extending journey times to the City Centre. And where do the trains go then? Patrick, inevitably. Which is already also at capacity. You could build the Kelvinhaugh turn back, but that adds cost and minimises connectivity.

Besides - I've yet to hear anyone actually suggest what services would use the increased capacity at Central.

Ayrshire to Stirling/beyond? Really? I can't believe that there's a huge market for this, particularly as the proposed service will effectively bypass the biggest settlement on its route!

There are elements of Crossrail that do make sense, of course. Electrification creates scope for ECS movements, and West Street interchange connects Ayrshire and Inverclyde to the Subway network, and hence the West End of the city. But diverting trains on a slow line away from Glasgow City Centre at (inevitably) the expense of existing services is folly. Wasting money reconstructing High Street at great expense and disruption to create capacity for... nothing, as far as I can see, will only serve to extend journey times.

I agree with a lot of what you said here. Glasgow City Council's incompetent promotion of Crossrail really makes me angry.

The reason it annoys me though is that I think the City Union Line could be a really useful part of Glasgow's Rail Infrastructure.

• West Street does have the potential to be a very useful interchange, linking Ayrshire and Renfrewshire to the west end.
• A station in the Gorbals would support regeneration in the area and make the Gorbals feel more connected.
• A Glasgow Cross station with low level platforms on the Argyll Line would improve connectivity and assist with regeneration around the Saltmarket area.

However none of this makes any sense as part of an Edinburgh - Ayr cross country service, or by diverting existing trains away from Central station where existing passengers want to go.

As a new local service however it could be really useful and if it created capacity for say a new service to Renfrew & Braehead then people would accept the lack of a connection to Central because of lack of capacity for new services.

A 4tph service from Springburn - Renfrew would be a really useful local link, without any need to try and justify it by running spurious, slow through services from Ayr - Edinburgh. I suspect the main reason these through services are suggested is to try and justify it as a national scheme so Glasgow City Council doesn't have to fund it.

 

[po8crg]

Surely a sensible Glasgow Crossrail would be to bore a tunnel from north of Queen Street, under Queen Street (with new QS low-level platforms on the N-S axis), under Central (with new Central low-level platforms on the N-S axis), under the Clyde and connect back to the above ground railway south of the river.

That would allow through services to stop at both Glasgow stations, and release space in the high-level stations for longer-distance services.

 

[me123]

^ I think we've had this suggestion before. I think someone (perhaps myself in part?) suggested diverting trains from North of Glasgow to a new Buchanan Street station under the City Centre, through to Central, South Glasgow Hospital/Govan, Renfrew, Glasgow Airport, and on to Ayrshire & Inverclyde. Of course, the cost of such a scheme would make it inherently unviable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A 4tph service from Springburn - Renfrew would be a really useful local link, without any need to try and justify it by running spurious, slow through services from Ayr - Edinburgh. I suspect the main reason these through services are suggested is to try and justify it as a national scheme so Glasgow City Council doesn't have to fund it.

Agreed. This provides connections to/from the North Clydes at Bellgrove, potentially the Argyles at Glasgow Cross, and the Subway at West Street. It meets many of the more realistic aspirations of Crossrail - to link services from Lanarkshire to Ayrshire & Inverclyde whilst bypassing the City Centre, and simultaneously providing new local links in the South East of the city (Gorbals etc). The biggest benefit would be linking Paisley to the North Clyde and Argyle Lines IMHO, although it would be difficult and convoluted to serve both Paisley and Renfrew using this plan and existing infrastructure.

I would tentatively suggest that this could form part of a revitalised GARL, however there is the issue that not serving Glasgow Central directly would disincentive use (particularly by those not familiar with the city and carrying luggage), and I'd imagine it would markedly decrease the BCR.

 

[po8crg]

I think we've had this suggestion before. I think someone (perhaps myself in part?) suggested diverting trains from North of Glasgow to a new Buchanan Street station under the City Centre, through to Central, South Glasgow Hospital/Govan, Renfrew, Glasgow Airport, and on to Ayrshire & Inverclyde. Of course, the cost of such a scheme would make it inherently unviable.

Absolutely, it's a multi-billion pound tunnel.

But when people talk about Glasgow Crossrail, I suspect that a tunnel from QS to Central is what comes to mind for most people who know about London's Crossrail.

Certainly, when the Scotsman writes about connecting Queen Street and Central together, you'd think that the proposal would connect Queen Street and Central together!

 

[Altnabreac]

Surely a sensible Glasgow Crossrail would be to bore a tunnel from north of Queen Street, under Queen Street (with new QS low-level platforms on the N-S axis), under Central (with new Central low-level platforms on the N-S axis), under the Clyde and connect back to the above ground railway south of the river.

That would allow through services to stop at both Glasgow stations, and release space in the high-level stations for longer-distance services.

Any tunneled Crossrail almost certainly wouldn't have stations at Queen St and Central as they are too close together.

It would either be a very simple solution with a single underground station at Central or perhaps something more SW - NE with stations at say QE2 Hospital, Govan, SECC, Central, High St with portals at Arkleston & Cowlairs.

My preference would be the latter but I suspect the former is more likely.

 

[snowball]

Any tunneled Crossrail almost certainly wouldn't have stations at Queen St and Central as they are too close together.

Have an underground station with an exit to Central at one and and an exit to Queen Street at the other.

 

[adrock1976]

I hope we don't waste money on Crossrail. I've spent plenty of time on here explaining my thoughts as to why it will be a colossal waste of money. And I'll happily break apart some of the nonsense spouted in the Scotsman article.

The New Labour vanity project of the Edinburgh Trams ran over budget remember. Perhaps the planners and design teams from Manchester should have been involved?

Here's the big problem. Let me make this clear. Crossrail (as proposed) will never provide a link between Central and Queen Street Stations. Many arguments claim that it is the "missing link" between the North and South of the City, yet despite publicity coming close to claiming that it will link the two stations it does no such thing.

Besides, walking between Central and Queen Street is perfectly manageable. For those who can't manage to walk, there's a bus. I'd agree that connectivity could be massively improved, but Crossrail simply does not deliver on this in any way. (I had suggested that a hypothetical tram service on Clyde Fastlink could run non-stop from Gordon Street to George Square, for example).

A minimum 30 minute interchange between stations remember. I'm aware of various proposals to convert the Cathcart District Railway and the Glasgow & SW Railway line to East Kilbride into a tram system. It could also connect Mearns Cross and possibly Castlemilk too.

The south west could have the trams extended over Clyde Arc Bridge to Partick and Pacific Quay, continuing on to Govan Cross and the Southern General Hospital.

But services from Ayr to Edinburgh do operate. Yes, they require a reverse at Central and take a while, but they exist. I don't think that diverting trains away from Glasgow and onto the North Clyde/Airdrie-Bathgate route is going to be highly beneficial. I suspect journey times would be comparable to walking to Queen Street and catching the fast EMUs that will be running on the Falkirk High line. Or by taking one of the at least 3tph from Central to Edinburgh. The proposed route is relatively slow and would not effectively compete with road journeys. It would require existing services (presumably, fast Edinburgh-Milngavie and fast Ayr-Glasgow runs) to be diverted away from the largest city in Scotland to serve a small number of passengers.

When factoring in the minimum interchange time of 30 minutes, there is hardly any difference regarding journey times from Ayr and points south of the Clyde, therefore direct Ayr - Edinburgh via Glasgow Crossrail may not be much use in that aspect.

True. It also does a fantastic job of bypassing just about anywhere in the City Centre that you'd want to go to. West Street - Gorbals - Glasgow Cross - Bellgrove misses the heart of the City Centre and, crucially, actually removes a huge number of connection opportunities from the passenger compared to the existing interchanges in the City Centre. Furthermore, given that discussions surrounding Crossrail often focus on the creation of capacity at Glasgow Central, it's reasonable to assume that there will be no new services, rather existing services will be diverted onto the new line. This will decrease connectivity to one of the most important economic hubs in Scotland. OK, so there's a connection to the Subway at West Street. That adds significant time and (under the current pricing model) cost to peoples journeys, which will be poorly received.

The City Union Railway does not bypass the city centre in the true sense, as Glasgow Cross is the historic centre when the city was founded in medieval times. Using that logic, do we tear up the Trent Valley Railway and funnel everything through Birmingham New Street instead? Do we also close down Harlow Mill station in Essex, as that is the historic village and not the New Town? The same with East Kilbride, as that is the old village and not the New Town? Also, west of Glasgow Cross, there are residential flats in the Merchant City area, and to the east of the Cross, there is a residential area there. Continuing 100 yards along London Road, you come to the Calton.

Also, Glasgow Cross and the Merchant City is G1 postcode. West Street and Cumberland Street are G5. When Glasgow used compass point postcodes, the present day G1 to G5 were formally C1 to C5 - with the "C" meaning Central.

Furthermore, I've never bought into the phrase "want to go to". Everybody's needs are different, and I most certainly do not want to do the walking interchange between Queen Street and Central on the Saturday before the 12th July, nor when either the Parkhead crowd or the Ibrox mob have been playing at home, or most recently ealier in the summer when Glasgow City Council hosted the Orangefest jamboree in George Square.

Of course, it's also proposed that a chord can be constructed to divert trains to Queen Street Low Level and beyond. However, this would be a very tight chord with a steep gradient, and would involve relocating High Street Station into a tunnel. This would be costly both in financial terms and in extending journey times to the City Centre. And where do the trains go then? Patrick, inevitably. Which is already also at capacity. You could build the Kelvinhaugh turn back, but that adds cost and minimises connectivity.

Besides - I've yet to hear anyone actually suggest what services would use the increased capacity at Central.



Ayrshire to Stirling/beyond? Really? I can't believe that there's a huge market for this, particularly as the proposed service will effectively bypass the biggest settlement on its route!

There are elements of Crossrail that do make sense, of course. Electrification creates scope for ECS movements, and West Street interchange connects Ayrshire and Inverclyde to the Subway network, and hence the West End of the city. But diverting trains on a slow line away from Glasgow City Centre at (inevitably) the expense of existing services is folly. Wasting money reconstructing High Street at great expense and disruption to create capacity for... nothing, as far as I can see, will only serve to extend journey times.

The services could be alternated between Queen Street (from the north)/Central (from the south) and Glasgow Crossrail. In London, the South Eastern Railway manages fine alternating between Charing Cross and Cannon Street, with the London, Brighton, & South Coast Railway alternating between London Bridge and Victoria.

For example, the 2 limited stop Gourock - Glasgow Central remain as is, with the 2 all stations services running to Springburn (or Croy - if an additional platform or turnback is installed) via Glasgow Crossrail. Also, the additional 2 trains to East Kilbride could run via Glasgow Crossrail as well, while leaving the 2 existing tph running to Central.


Apologies if I may have come across as being harsh - I would like to reassure you that is not intended. What I do get annoyed about more than anything is that we should be making use of what exists, look at how things can be improved, and to simply get on with it. In regards to Glasgow Crossrail, there have been various consultations and studies done sporadically over the years, usually (this is my cynical side) whenever politicians are using Glasgow Crossrail as a toll for vote canvassing, then doing nothing while feathering their own nests.

On a final note, I've seen a late 1980s/early 1990s publicity of Glasgow Crossrail online somewhere. That format was billed as the "Tron Line", with a curve from Pollokshields West to West Street, then along the City Union to High Street (with a west curve to Queen Street), and continuing to Croy via Springburn. The missing track at Gushetfaulds did not feature, neither did the reopening of Glasgow Cross station, but there was a plan to site a station in the Briggait (near the former Paddy's Market).

I think when it was realised that the eastern flank of the motorway box would not be constructed from Royal Infirmary down the High Street and to just south of the Clyde (the platform on the Glasgow Central Railway would have been used for the pillars to support the elevated motorway above), the proposal for a station at the Briggait was dropped and switched to reopening Glasgow Cross instead.

I might have saved that flyer somewhere. If I can dig it out, I will post it here so as you can see what I'm referring too.

 

[Altnabreac]

Have an underground station with an exit to Central at one and and an exit to Queen Street at the other.

It is an option as the north end of Central is only around 500m from Queen St. I certainly would expect any station to be towards the north of Central both to avoid the existing low level platforms and to improve interchange with Queen St,

Once you have the majority of Queen St High Level services going through the tunnel however the importance of Queen St would me much reduced. North Electrics can change at Partick, West Highland at Dalmuir and Aberdeen at Stirling. So the only line without easy interchange is really Airdrie.

I suspect the extra cost of a double ended station would not be justified.

The City Union Railway does not bypass the city centre in the true sense, as Glasgow Cross is the historic centre when the city was founded in medieval times. Using that logic, do we tear up the Trent Valley Railway and funnel everything through Birmingham New Street instead? Do we also close down Harlow Mill station in Essex, as that is the historic village and not the New Town? The same with East Kilbride, as that is the old village and not the New Town? Also, west of Glasgow Cross, there are residential flats in the Merchant City area, and to the east of the Cross, there is a residential area there. Continuing 100 yards along London Road, you come to the Calton.

Also, Glasgow Cross and the Merchant City is G1 postcode. West Street and Cumberland Street are G5. When Glasgow used compass point postcodes, the present day G1 to G5 were formally C1 to C5 - with the "C" meaning Central.

Furthermore, I've never bought into the phrase "want to go to". Everybody's needs are different, and I most certainly do not want to do the walking interchange between Queen Street and Central on the Saturday before the 12th July, nor when either the Parkhead crowd or the Ibrox mob have been playing at home, or most recently ealier in the summer when Glasgow City Council hosted the Orangefest jamboree in George Square.



The services could be alternated between Queen Street (from the north)/Central (from the south) and Glasgow Crossrail. In London, the South Eastern Railway manages fine alternating between Charing Cross and Cannon Street, with the London, Brighton, & South Coast Railway alternating between London Bridge and Victoria.

For example, the 2 limited stop Gourock - Glasgow Central remain as is, with the 2 all stations services running to Springburn (or Croy - if an additional platform or turnback is installed) via Glasgow Crossrail. Also, the additional 2 trains to East Kilbride could run via Glasgow Crossrail as well, while leaving the 2 existing tph running to Central.


Apologies if I may have come across as being harsh - I would like to reassure you that is not intended. What I do get annoyed about more than anything is that we should be making use of what exists, look at how things can be improved, and to simply get on with it. In regards to Glasgow Crossrail, there have been various consultations and studies done sporadically over the years, usually (this is my cynical side) whenever politicians are using Glasgow Crossrail as a toll for vote canvassing, then doing nothing while feathering their own nests.

On a final note, I've seen a late 1980s/early 1990s publicity of Glasgow Crossrail online somewhere. That format was billed as the "Tron Line", with a curve from Pollokshields West to West Street, then along the City Union to High Street (with a west curve to Queen Street), and continuing to Croy via Springburn. The missing track at Gushetfaulds did not feature, neither did the reopening of Glasgow Cross station, but there was a plan to site a station in the Briggait (near the former Paddy's Market).

I think when it was realised that the eastern flank of the motorway box would not be constructed from Royal Infirmary down the High Street and to just south of the Clyde (the platform on the Glasgow Central Railway would have been used for the pillars to support the elevated motorway above), the proposal for a station at the Briggait was dropped and switched to reopening Glasgow Cross instead.

I might have saved that flyer somewhere. If I can dig it out, I will post it here so as you can see what I'm referring too.

Everyone realises that Glasgow Cross is in the historic City Centre, it is also undeniable that there would be reasonable residential and leisure demand in that area of the city.

However Crossrail as currently proposed would have much poorer connectivity than Glasgow Central station and would be further from the commercial and commuting demand generators that are all around the western edge of the traditional city centre.

Splitting services between 2 city centre termini is not a satisfactory solution either as you create uncertainty over which termini to catch a service from and lose the benefits of higher frequencies. This only really works in places like London where you can run 4-6tph from each termini. A 2tph / 2tph split from Glasgow would be very unsatisfactory for any destination and nowhere south of Central has more than 4tph to split across termini.

Your proposed service patterns would not match well to demand from Gourock / East Kilbride.

Other stations are inconveniently located it's true. But if the East Kilbride line currently terminated under the shopping centre and you were proposing moving it to the village I would equally say it was a bad idea. Making journey times longer for the vast majority of people in order to benefit the small number of people travelling from Gourock - Edinburgh would not be a sensible idea.

I still think Crossrail could be a useful service but it needs to be very different from the currently proposed scheme before it is likely to persuade funders it is worthwhile.

It has been appraised multiple times and had a poor business case each time. I'd hoped by now Glasgow City Council might have considered changing it around a bit but obviously not.

 

[QueensCurve]

IBesides, walking between Central and Queen Street is perfectly manageable. For those who can't manage to walk, there's a bus. I'd agree that connectivity could be massively improved, but Crossrail simply does not deliver on this in any way. (I had suggested that a hypothetical tram service on Clyde Fastlink could run non-stop from Gordon Street to George Square, for example).

I always used to enjoy that walk. Even on the Sunday evenings travelling back to Dundee when I was adopted by a drunk en-route.

 

[me123]

A minimum 30 minute interchange between stations remember.

Yes, but we all know in reality that 30 minutes is overkill for the vast majority of people. I have rarely made this connection (when I lived in the West, I had the choice of the Whifflet line or the North Clydes about equidistant from my home), but I know that I can make the walk quite easily in under 10 minutes, as will those who do it regularly.

The City Union Railway does not bypass the city centre in the true sense, as Glasgow Cross is the historic centre when the city was founded in medieval times. Using that logic, do we tear up the Trent Valley Railway and funnel everything through Birmingham New Street instead? Do we also close down Harlow Mill station in Essex, as that is the historic village and not the New Town? The same with East Kilbride, as that is the old village and not the New Town? Also, west of Glasgow Cross, there are residential flats in the Merchant City area, and to the east of the Cross, there is a residential area there. Continuing 100 yards along London Road, you come to the Calton.

Also, Glasgow Cross and the Merchant City is G1 postcode. West Street and Cumberland Street are G5. When Glasgow used compass point postcodes, the present day G1 to G5 were formally C1 to C5 - with the "C" meaning Central.

We've had the discussion about postal codes before IIRC - with respect, it means nothing when it comes to thinking about actual destinations. For example, parts of Caithness have a KW postcode - this does not make them Orkney. Both Livingston stations are in the EH54 postcode area, yet this does not make them convenient for Livingston Town Centre (again, in the EH54).

If we think about where the bulk of Glasgow's traffic is directed, I could identify a few areas. Shopping in Buchanan Street (the "style mile"). Entertainment to the West of that, still in the City Centre. Financial/office jobs further West again in the Anderston/Charing Cross areas. The true West End with the University of Glasgow. The University of Strathclyde, between Queen Street and High Street. Major healthcare facilities at South Glasgow University Hospital (Govan) and Glasgow Royal Infirmary (High Street).

Whilst I don't mean to simplify a complex commuting network, I would suggest that a proposed Glasgow Cross station doesn't actually feed traffic into any of these areas directly. It would skirt past Argyle Street, and would be handy for the Tron theatre, but beyond this I can't see that much in the way of existing employment or leisure in the area that would attract a significant passenger flow without necessitating a transfer. I think the project would ultimately be a white elephant if I'm being brutally honest, and I think that there are much more deserving infrastructure projects that can be funded using this money.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is an option as the north end of Central is only around 500m from Queen St. I certainly would expect any station to be towards the north of Central both to avoid the existing low level platforms and to improve interchange with Queen St.

I think that this has come up before, and again I'd be supportive of this as part of a hypothetical North-South Crossrail project.

I have in my head a vision of a station not dissimilar to the Times Square/42nd street complex in Manhattan, albeit hopefully a bit less grim inside! Let's have moving walkways between Queen Street and Central, with interchanges to Buchanan Street Subway station and our hypothetical new city centre station (let's call it Buchanan Street too). You'll also have retail opportunities to let. Sounds like a plan. (BTW, no, I don't know where the money's going to come from for this multi-billion pound project!)

 

[clc]

.
the City Union Line could be a really useful part of Glasgow's Rail Infrastructure.

• 
  []West Street does have the potential to be a very useful interchange, linking Ayrshire and Renfrewshire to the west end.

.

Re-open the Botanics line and you would connect not only Renfrewshire and Ayrshire to the West End but also the entire south Glasgow network. It would avoid the Partick bottleneck and there's enough capacity east of Finnieston for such a service. Many a time I've wished I could board a train at Kelvinbridge or Botanic Gardens bound for Central for onward connection to my local station.

A cheaper but less beneficial option would be to just build West St interchange as a stand alone project without Crossrail.

.
A 4tph service from Springburn - Renfrew would be a really useful local link, without any need to try and justify it by running spurious, slow through services from Ayr - Edinburgh. I suspect the main reason these through services are suggested is to try and justify it as a national scheme so Glasgow City Council doesn't have to fund it.

The Glasgow Subway upgrade is being funded by Scottish Govt even though it's a local scheme and was rejected by the STPR.