Linking Glasgow Central and Queen Street

[Altnabreac]

I think the mistake is to think of it as a tunnel from Glasgow Central to Glasgow Queen Street. The project when it goes ahead will be required as it is the best way to create additional capacity at Glasgow Central.

Central and Queen Street are too close together to justify serving both stations so it will only have a station at one of them. The business case for that one station being at Glasgow Central will be much stronger unless there is some overwhelming geological or technical reason that makes an underground station much easier at Queen Street.

There might be a business case for a second city centre underground station on the new line but it would be somewhere like High Street or Cathedral to link services to the growth and regeneration areas in the east end. My preferred scheme would also have additional stations in the west around Hydro, Govan and the QE2UH but I realise that's getting into crayon territory.

The Scotland Route Study 2043 Indicative Timetable shows how many services it is anticipated will be required to run from Central High Level:
4tph Gourock
2tph Wemyss Bay
2tph Largs
1tph Ardrossan Harbour
1tph Kilwinning
4tph Ayr
2tph Paisley Canal
2tph Barrhead
3tph Kilmarnock (Barassie/Dumfries included)
4tph East Kilbride
4tph Neilston
4tph Newton
4tph Cathcart Circle (2tph each way but needs 4tph capacity at Central)
2tph Lanark
6tph Carstairs (WCML London, WCML Birmingham, WCML Manchester, WCML Liverpool, Scotrail to Edinburgh, Cross Country via Edinburgh etc)
45tph in total.

That's before anyone starts trying to find paths for more semi fast services via Shotts, High Speed Rail to Edinburgh, Glasgow Airport Rail link or new lines for Renfrew / Bridge of Weir. They could be another 16tph or more.

Queen Street at that point is also in need of more capacity. The 2043 Indicative Timetable shows:
6tph Falkirk High - Edinburgh
2tph Larbert
2tph Alloa
4tph Perth (Inverness / Dundee / Aberdeen)
2tph Edinburgh via Cumbernauld / Garhamston
1tph West Highland (occasional hours only)

It also has 2tph Anniesland / Maryhill diverted to Queen Street Low Level via Springburn which is probably politically unacceptable these days.

So something like 16-20tph through a central tunnel would be easy to achieve on those timetables.

Queen St High Level would feel a bit empty though as it would probably only serve the West Highland line and 4tph to Perth / Dundee / Aberdeen / Inverness. Still be a busy station with the Low Level usage though.

 

[route:oxford]

Cant see them ever connecting the two stations . Would be massive task . Edinburgh is better for them connections .

Oddly enough, my elderly parents prefer Glasgow - despite the walk, it's level access with luggage between the two stations.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think the mistake is to think of it as a tunnel from Glasgow Central to Glasgow Queen Street. The project when it goes ahead will be required as it is the best way to create additional capacity at Glasgow Central.

Central and Queen Street are too close together to justify serving both stations so it will only have a station at one of them. The business case for that one station being at Glasgow Central will be much stronger unless there is some overwhelming geological or technical reason that makes an underground station much easier at Queen Street.
though.

That was very close to what I was thinking when I saw this thread. The biggest justification for a tunnel is that it would remove many of the suburban trains from Central, freeing up a lot of badly needed capacity there. Presumably you'd also remove quite a few of the conflicting moves that any big terminus has with trains trying to get in and out, which may somewhat improve journey times (not sure how much of an issue that is specifically at Glasgow Central?). Ditto for Queen Street high level, though I don't think capacity is such a big problem there? As a bonus, a lot of different journeys across Glasgow become much more feasible by rail, which would probably lead to quite a few people swapping from car to train.

If the tunnel was built, I think there would be some justification for building platforms at both Queen Street and Central, purely because of the connections to other train services at both stations, which would be one of the big attractions to passengers - although I realise it would add considerably to the expense of a tunnel. Any alternative is going to make connections less attractive, though perhaps you could minimise that problem by building just one new underground station in any new tunnel halfway between Central and Queen Street, with underground walkways to both existing stations?

As always, the problem is that it would be a hugely expensive project, though also one that would be hugely useful.

 

[MarkyT]

A new north-south axis underground station in Glasgow could have entrances at both extremities of the platforms like London's Crossrail stations. Thus could it be linked to both Central and Queen St stations as well as potentially providing a covered link between them, perhaps with travelators.

 

[92002]

Oddly enough, my elderly parents prefer Glasgow - despite the walk, it's level access with luggage between the two stations.

There is no need to walk between the two Stations. SPT provide the 398 bus most of the day. Which is free to through rail ticket holders. It also serves the Buchanan Bus station.

 

[MarkyT]

There is no need to walk between the two Stations. SPT provide the 398 bus most of the day. Which is free to through rail ticket holders. It also serves the Buchanan Bus station.

At just over 500m, it's difficult to beat walking for journey time door to door between the stations. Google maps claims a 7 minute walk via Gordon and Buchanan Streets. A fast walker might do it in 5. The 398 bus is every 12 minutes during the day (every 20 in the evening) then takes 7 or so minutes so in reality if you set off at any random time you are fairly likely to be at your destination before the next bus has even departed! It's good the bus is there for those who can't walk the distance but while (God willing) I can, I would always walk it, and did when I was working in the area. The other plus point is it is a pleasant, secure walk with few major traffic crossings along (arguably) Scotland's premier pedestrianised shopping street for the most part, not at all like (for comparison) the similar distance transfer between Euston and St Pancras International in London along the filthy urban canyon that is Euston Road.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I think the best comparison scheme would be the Leipzig City Tunnel. In the UK the only real comparison is with the Elizabeth line, but that's quite a different beast given that it's about relieving the London Underground more than a real need to connect up the Great Western and Great Eastern networks. Some of the decisions which make sense for London won't make sense for Glasgow, and vice-versa.

 

[QueensCurve]

Perth and onwards, you would go via Coatbridge.

Ah, the former route of The Clansman. Such fond nostalgia. Locomotive change at Mossend then.

Wot he just said. Making through journeys possible between places north and south of the Clyde opens up a lot of new work and recreational possibilities. The cross-Glasgow walk isn't the end of the world (many on the forum can do it in under 10 minutes) but it's definitely an inconvenience, especially when it's raining or snowing.

I have always enjoyed that walk. Could do it in 5m with my heavy rucksack 35y ago. Last did it (with a light rucksack) 9 July 2016. Early 80s doing it on a Sunday evening I was almost always adopted by a drunk but never felt threatened.

And then the money ran out and Manchester failed to get its tunnel.

It wasn't that the money ran out, it was that control of the Greater Manchester Council fell to a party that believe it was wrong to spend "taxpayers'" money on infrastructure improvements. Manchester dipped out on the improvements secured by Liverpool and Newcastle via cross-city tunnels.

Glasgow is the westernmost city.

The only one of the "seven cities" whose waters drain to the west coast and not the east.

Again, it's come up several times in official government transport planning documents. It's not just some daft idea a bored train enthusiast came up with one day.

Indeed not. Avoiding turnbacks at city termini makes more efficient use of rolling stock and opens up improved journey opportunities. This is the principle of the S-Bahns found in on the Continent, Thameslink, Crossrail, Merseyrail, Tyne and Weir Metro etc.

 

[greyman42]

At just over 500m, it's difficult to beat walking for journey time door to door between the stations. Google maps claims a 7 minute walk via Gordon and Buchanan Streets. A fast walker might do it in 5. The 398 bus is every 12 minutes during the day (every 20 in the evening) then takes 7 or so minutes so in reality if you set off at any random time you are fairly likely to be at your destination before the next bus has even departed! It's good the bus is there for those who can't walk the distance but while (God willing) I can, I would always walk it, and did when I was working in the area. The other plus point is it is a pleasant, secure walk with few major traffic crossings along (arguably) Scotland's premier pedestrianised shopping street for the most part, not at all like (for comparison) the similar distance transfer between Euston and St Pancras International in London along the filthy urban canyon that is Euston Road.

Perhaps an improvement that could be made would be better signposting for passengers that are not familiar with the walk.

 

[clc]

.

If the tunnel was built, I think there would be some justification for building platforms at both Queen Street and Central, purely because of the connections to other train services at both stations, which would be one of the big attractions to passengers - although I realise it would add considerably to the expense of a tunnel. Any alternative is going to make connections less attractive, though perhaps you could minimise that problem by building just one new underground station in any new tunnel halfway between Central and Queen Street, with underground walkways to both existing stations?
.

The only journeys requiring a transfer to Queen St would be Inverness, Aberdeen, WHL and Edinburgh via Airdrie/Bathgate. I’m not sure the passenger numbers involved would justify the cost of two sets of platforms.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The only journeys requiring a transfer to Queen St would be Inverness, Aberdeen, WHL and Edinburgh via Airdrie/Bathgate. I’m not sure the passenger numbers involved would justify the cost of two sets of platforms.

I don't think that's quite true. Services to Springburn, Cumbernauld etc. to the East are primarily served from Queen Street low level, while to the West, services beyond Partick are served either from Central or Queen Street, but changing at Central may require either a longish wait or a 2nd change at Partick. Also, Edinburgh via Bathgate encompasses a lot of intermediate destinations, including suburban stations within Glasgow, and the other routes that you correctly list also encompass a lot of destinations if you include intermediate stations. Given that if the tunnel was built, it would be used for journeys from much of the South of Glasgow and just about everywhere in SouthWest Scotland to these destinations, that would add up to quite a lot of passengers.

Still, I agree that it is arguable whether that would justify the high cost of a 2nd set of platforms if there are other possible solutions. And perhaps MarkyT's solution of a single station with entrances at both extremities would be adequate.

 

[route101]

Im sure a lot of people connect from Ayrshire and East Kilbride services . Trouble with Shotts service is that its one an hour , does make a handy connection from one of East Kilbride services.

 

[clc]

perhaps MarkyT's solution of a single station with entrances at both extremities would be adequate.

Ideally the station would be as close to Central as possible but then you’d still have a longish walk to Queen Street. As an alternative to having an entrance to Queen St there is Altnabreac’s suggestion of an additional station on the new line at High St. This would provide the missing connections to the North Electric routes, leaving just the long distance routes requiring a transfer to QS. Expensive option but lots of regeneration benefits.

 

[Senex]

It wasn't that the money ran out, it was that control of the Greater Manchester Council fell to a party that believe it was wrong to spend "taxpayers'" money on infrastructure improvements. Manchester dipped out on the improvements secured by Liverpool and Newcastle via cross-city tunnels.

Wasn't it a two-stage process? At the end of 1975 the Wilson government refused to provide adequate funding for work to go ahead, and then 18 months later the new GMC local government scrapped the project even though a Westminster committee had just backed it very strongly?
The Guardian reported (18.xij.1975 page 7 column 6):
"Greater Manchester Council's proposals for a city centre underground railway line from Piccadilly to Victoria were effectively killed, at least for the foreseeable future, by the Government's announcement yesterday of transport expenditure for next year.
"The county has been told it can spend £43.1 millions on transport improvements of all kinds in 1976-7. This is about £15 millions short of what the GMC had asked for.
"Councillor George Mann, the chairman of the council's transportation committee, said “The county has the largest conurbation railway system outside Greater London, and because of its special problems we had hoped for special consideration."
Interesting that Labout failed to fund it. Whilst Liverpool and Newcastle seem to be Labour favourites, Manchester, like Leeds and Sheffield, never seems to have done too well out of Labour, despite all three of them being strongly Labour-supporting cities.

 

[edwin_m]

Ideally the station would be as close to Central as possible but then you’d still have a longish walk to Queen Street. As an alternative to having an entrance to Queen St there is Altnabreac’s suggestion of an additional station on the new line at High St. This would provide the missing connections to the North Electric routes, leaving just the long distance routes requiring a transfer to QS. Expensive option but lots of regeneration benefits.

The crow-flies distance between the nearest parts of Central and Queen Street is about 400 metres. Since an underground station would have to have exits both ends for safety reasons it seems by far the most sensible option to have these surfacing in or near the two main stations. There's a slight complication that a straight line between the two stations is about 45 degrees different from the likely alignment of the tunnel, so one or both exits would have to go off to one side, and the most obvious rail alignment equidistant from the two would coincide with the Subway. I'd have thought somewhere around the line of West Nile Street would be best, with the northern end of the station tying into the Buchanan Street Subway complex.

 

[QueensCurve]

Wasn't it a two-stage process? At the end of 1975 the Wilson government refused to provide adequate funding for work to go ahead, and then 18 months later the new GMC local government scrapped the project even though a Westminster committee had just backed it very strongly?

Thank you for the additional background.

 

[gsnedders]

The crow-flies distance between the nearest parts of Central and Queen Street is about 400 metres. Since an underground station would have to have exits both ends for safety reasons it seems by far the most sensible option to have these surfacing in or near the two main stations. There's a slight complication that a straight line between the two stations is about 45 degrees different from the likely alignment of the tunnel, so one or both exits would have to go off to one side, and the most obvious rail alignment equidistant from the two would coincide with the Subway. I'd have thought somewhere around the line of West Nile Street would be best, with the northern end of the station tying into the Buchanan Street Subway complex.

Given it has to avoid the Low Level lines as well as the station, I'd expect it to be sufficiently deep that it could likely run under the Subway. I'd also expect it to be wider than Buchanan Street (and the Subway tunnels) given I'd be amazed if it were built with fewer than half a dozen platforms, which means it needs to be clear of building foundations too (which IIRC the Subway isn't at the southern end).

 

[najaB]

I'd be amazed if it were built with fewer than half a dozen platforms

Since it's a through station, why the large number of platforms?

 

[gsnedders]

Since it's a through station, why the large number of platforms?

Future capacity, given underground stations are often ever harder to enlarge than normal. The goal, after all, is to increase capacity for both Queen Street and Central, and for longer distance services if they run to smaller stations in the outskirts (like Berlin Hbf (tief)) I'd expect relatively long stops there (again like Berlin Hbf).

 

[najaB]

Future capacity, given underground stations are often ever harder to enlarge than normal. The goal, after all, is to increase capacity for both Queen Street and Central, and for longer distance services if they run to smaller stations in the outskirts (like Berlin Hbf (tief)) I'd expect relatively long stops there (again like Berlin Hbf).

I'd think that four platforms (at the most) would be enough - an island in either direction.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Even four platforms is unnecessary. A tunnel should serve the trains which would gain most from running across Glasgow. There are plenty of suburban and regional services that would use 380/385 style trains and have short dwell times in the busy core station(s). Having only one platform in each direction would save a significant amount of money and tunnelling effort, especially in a city with underground conditions as variable as Glasgow. Queen Street would have plenty of capacity for the remaining WHL, Aberdeen and Inverness trains to be serviced and reloaded.

 

[edwin_m]

Given it has to avoid the Low Level lines as well as the station, I'd expect it to be sufficiently deep that it could likely run under the Subway. I'd also expect it to be wider than Buchanan Street (and the Subway tunnels) given I'd be amazed if it were built with fewer than half a dozen platforms, which means it needs to be clear of building foundations too (which IIRC the Subway isn't at the southern end).

I guess the Subway is below the low level lines, and it must also be below the Clyde where they cross, but it may start climbing when it gets under the QS LL line somewhere around Buchanan Street station. Some tricky gradient issues here given that the QS line is climbing at near the maximum comfortable gradient up to Cowlairs and the new line would have to reach its elevation somewhere not too far away to minimise the amount of infrastructure needed.

 

[MarkyT]

One platform in each direction is a minimum clearly. An additional pair would probably be more than doubling the excavation required because of the throat junction caverns at either end. Going beyond 4 tracks on two islands would require extra access shafts and tunnels. A two platform station designed for short dwells at approx. 20TPH is most plausible I suggest. That should be equivalent to adding perhaps 4 surface terminal platforms to both north and south side networks while saving rolling stock over the turnback operation and providing new through journey and interchange opportunities. The tunnel alignment needn't follow the street pattern above so could trace a SW-NE trajectory between the two terminals. See attached, showing a new route tied into Cumbernauld line to north and Paisley-Ayr lines to south.

 

[gsnedders]

I guess the Subway is below the low level lines, and it must also be below the Clyde where they cross, but it may start climbing when it gets under the QS LL line somewhere around Buchanan Street station. Some tricky gradient issues here given that the QS line is climbing at near the maximum comfortable gradient up to Cowlairs and the new line would have to reach its elevation somewhere not too far away to minimise the amount of infrastructure needed.

The Subway passes under the North Clyde Line just to the north of Buchanan Street station (and indeed you can often hear the mainline trains rumble from the tunnel); the Argyle Line is passed to the north of St Enoch (Subway) station (under the Buchanan Street/Argyle Street intersection, as both are running in cut-and-cover under the streets), though I'm not sure which way around they are there? (Whatever it is, the Subway has a 1:20 descent under the Clyde.) I know the Argyle Line is going down from Anderston to Central, and I think starts rising again before Argyle Street, so maybe it passes under the Subway?

One platform in each direction is a minimum clearly. An additional pair would probably be more than doubling the excavation required because of the throat junction caverns at either end. Going beyond 4 tracks on two islands would require extra access shafts and tunnels. A two platform station designed for short dwells at approx. 20TPH is most plausible I suggest. That should be equivalent to adding perhaps 4 surface terminal platforms to both north and south side networks while saving rolling stock over the turnback operation and providing new through journey and interchange opportunities. The tunnel alignment needn't follow the street pattern above so could trace a SW-NE trajectory between the two terminals. See attached, showing a new route tied into Cumbernauld line to north and Paisley-Ayr lines to south.

It won't go to the Paisley/Ayr lines, unless those are quadrupled, I'd guess, because there's no capacity for more trains there.

 

[MarkyT]

It won't go to the Paisley/Ayr lines, unless those are quadrupled, I'd guess, because there's no capacity for more trains there.

I'm not suggesting significantly more trains on that axis, but rather routing all of the existing traffic on that line via the new tunnel, thus freeing up their platforms at Central for other services.

 

[Highlandspring]

Bear in mind there is a deep level large diameter telecoms cable tunnel running from Telephone House in Pitt Street to Castle Street, near the Royal Infirmary, which passes directly under Queen St station.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Bear in mind there is a deep level large diameter telecoms cable tunnel running from Telephone House in Pitt Street to Castle Street, near the Royal Infirmary, which passes directly under Queen St station.

Issues like this are why it's so hard for someone to draw up a definitive scheme. Until there are detailed geological surveys done, we can't know what might be feasible from a civil engineering perspective. If there are significant geological issues between Queen Street and Central that might make it impossible to put the large cavern station there, then meaning there needs to be two separate stations.

Queen Street tunnel and incline has a 1-in-40 gradient. The Elizabeth line has a maximum gradient of 1-in-32, and since the tunnel would only see modern EMUs I don't think that's going to be a problem here.

 

[Highlandspring]

The other issue of note is that the closer to the river you go the closer to the surface the water table gets. The Argyle line is pumped 24/7 due to constant water ingress, as are parts of the subway.

 

[MarkyT]

The other issue of note is that the closer to the river you go the closer to the surface the water table gets. The Argyle line is pumped 24/7 due to constant water ingress, as are parts of the subway.

True, and a modern tunnel could be designed with all that in mind, to be more watertight and have sufficient drainage and pumping capacity.

 

[Dryce]

The only journeys requiring a transfer to Queen St would be Inverness, Aberdeen, WHL and Edinburgh via Airdrie/Bathgate. I’m not sure the passenger numbers involved would justify the cost of two sets of platforms.

There is a significant suburban network attached to each station. So Lenzie to Motherwell or Milngavie to Ayr require change of station.