Linking Glasgow Central and Queen Street

[NotATrainspott]

My ideal tunnel setup would have two stations, each located at the country end of the two termini. The key is to extend the city centre northwards and southwards, rather than keeping it locked in between Argyle Street and Sauchiehall Street. The southern entrance to Central would front onto the Clyde waterfront while the northern entrance to Queen Street would be up at Buchanan Bus Station. One of the advantages of stations further from the city centre is that it'll be easier to dig down and then regenerate, rather than needing to replace existing development in and around Buchanan Street.

In my mind I hope that the Buchanan Galleries work doesn't go ahead until a tunnel plan is drawn up. That whole area around Queen Street could be transformed by a tunnel project.

 

[Altnabreac]

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?


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 think the Paisley / Ayr lines are much the best fit, both because there would be cross city demand and you have about the right number of services. By running out a bit further in tunnel (Arkleston is perfect) you can effectively four track and provide a new grade separated junction for Gourock / Ayr.

Equally running east a little to High St reduces the gradient issues as you double back towards Cowlairs.

 

[tranzitjim]

Would it be possible to add to the Glasgow subway, with a new line of it operating directly between these two locations?

 

[Altnabreac]

Would it be possible to add to the Glasgow subway, with a new line of it operating directly between these two locations?

That would not be possible or sensible. It’s about capacity and through services not about a link between the two as such.

St Enoch isn’t that far from Central if you really want to use the Subway but it just isn’t worth it for the distance.

 

[clc]

The inter station bus service could be greatly improved. According to the timetable it takes 4 minutes to get from Central to Queen St but the return journey via Buchanan Bus Station takes 13 minutes, which is slower than walking. The timetable states departures from Central are at 0800 and 0812 and then ‘at frequent intervals’ (whatever that means) until 1800 after which it’s a 20 minute frequency. I’d be tempted to drop the bus station call and have a couple of electric buses shuttling back and forth at 5 minute intervals with a 4 minute journey time each way. I’m surprised the buses aren’t electric given the Scottish Government’s low carbon aspirations.

 

[route101]

The inter station bus service could be greatly improved. According to the timetable it takes 4 minutes to get from Central to Queen St but the return journey via Buchanan Bus Station takes 13 minutes, which is slower than walking. The timetable states departures from Central are at 0800 and 0812 and then ‘at frequent intervals’ (whatever that means) until 1800 after which it’s a 20 minute frequency. I’d be tempted to drop the bus station call and have a couple of electric buses shuttling back and forth at 5 minute intervals with a 4 minute journey time each way. I’m surprised the buses aren’t electric given the Scottish Government’s low carbon aspirations.

Think its due to Street layout it takes longer one way .

 

[MarkyT]

Some kind of pod vehicle system running on the shortest predefined surface route in both directions. Able, autonomously, to drive itself through low speed and density road traffic and pedestrian areas effectively and above all safely, cheap enough to buy and operate multiple vehicles, adding to the fleet as necessary to keep up with demand. In Glasgow the route could make an intermediate stop between the rail stations and be extended at the north end to the bus station. By adopting a shuttle line rather than a one-way loop configuration times would be equalised for both directions of a particular journey, and the line is more understandable and more obvious to riders. It could even be marked on the pavement surface by coloured road markings. Heck, I don't object to embedded rails but a rubber-tyred version would probably be more realistic for such a limited system. Marking the route well could be part of a strategy to promote fit young millennials walking between the stations in five minutes, 'but hey, jump on our pod if it's raining, we've got free wifi!' So the bottom line is in any form it would probably not beat journey time against a determined walking commuter, especially when you add in at least say even five minutes maximum waiting time, but it would be an essential mobility link for those who cannot otherwise cover the distance and a reassuring and popular backup for strangers, occasional users in the rain who don't want to get their outfit wet, or those carrying shopping or luggage, or escorting children. Without dedicated staff, longer operating hours (even 24/7) should be possible, with an 'on demand' mode being possible for very quiet times to reduce effective waiting time while not moving fresh air back and forth needlessly.

 

[47271]

Some kind of pod vehicle system running on the shortest predefined surface route in both directions. Able, autonomously, to drive itself through low speed and density road traffic and pedestrian areas effectively and above all safely, cheap enough to buy and operate multiple vehicles, adding to the fleet as necessary to keep up with demand. In Glasgow the route could make an intermediate stop between the rail stations and be extended at the north end to the bus station. By adopting a shuttle line rather than a one-way loop configuration times would be equalised for both directions of a particular journey, and the line is more understandable and more obvious to riders. It could even be marked on the pavement surface by coloured road markings. Heck, I don't object to embedded rails but a rubber-tyred version would probably be more realistic for such a limited system. Marking the route well could be part of a strategy to promote fit young millennials walking between the stations in five minutes, 'but hey, jump on our pod if it's raining, we've got free wifi!' So the bottom line is in any form it would probably not beat journey time against a determined walking commuter, especially when you add in at least say even five minutes maximum waiting time, but it would be an essential mobility link for those who cannot otherwise cover the distance and a reassuring and popular backup for strangers, occasional users in the rain who don't want to get their outfit wet, or those carrying shopping or luggage, or escorting children. Without dedicated staff, longer operating hours (even 24/7) should be possible, with an 'on demand' mode being possible for very quiet times to reduce effective waiting time while not moving fresh air back and forth needlessly.

A traffic cone planted on the roof of one of the pods whilst in motion would be the least of the system's worries. Seriously, wobbly little self guiding cars going down Buchanan Street at 11 o'clock on a Friday night?

The railway may as well do a deal with Glasgow Taxis for through tickets to include a free transfer off the rank between the two stations. And how about the Scottish Government throws in a fare premium of £2 per journey to those drivers using hybrid or electric vehicles? That might get rid of a few nasty old TX1s or TX2s (and at least one 1994 Fairway, I couldn't believe my eyes last week) at a stroke.

 

[Clansman]

The tube platforms at Kings Cross underground are probably a further walk away from Kings Cross station itself than what St. Enoch is to Glasgow Central. Yet people will happily take the tube between Euston and Kings Cross without a care in the world, rather than walk for roughly the same time, and save a quid. IMO, a direct underground travelator walkway from St. Enoch to the Central low level concourse and a bit of tinkering with the map to include the interchange for Central should be enough to give people the illusion that the subway is an alternative and direct route between Queen Street and Central, until a more substantial rail infrastructure project linking the stations is seen to be worthy of the great investment needed to do so.

 

[route101]

A traffic cone planted on the roof of one of the pods whilst in motion would be the least of the system's worries. Seriously, wobbly little self guiding cars going down Buchanan Street at 11 o'clock on a Friday night?

The railway may as well do a deal with Glasgow Taxis for through tickets to include a free transfer off the rank between the two stations. And how about the Scottish Government throws in a fare premium of £2 per journey to those drivers using hybrid or electric vehicles? That might get rid of a few nasty old TX1s or TX2s (and at least one 1994 Fairway, I couldn't believe my eyes last week) at a stroke.

Theres a few M and N reg fairway taxis in Glasgow , There was an F reg though not seen that in a year , the other one i seen was old W reg but im sure thats a private reg .

 

[adrock1976]

Rather than pods, I would go one better here regarding linking the stations at street level.

Bring back trams.

The first phase could see a route from Glasgow Queen Street to Paisley Cross (or Canal Street) running via Central Station, Broomielaw, Clyde Arc Bridge (this bridge was designed with bus lanes, but no buses use it at all), Pacific Quay, Govan Cross, the new Southern General Hospital, Braehead Centre, Glasgow International Airport, Love Street, Gilmour Street Station, and Paisley Cross (with the possibility of continuing to Canal Street at the vicinity of Canal Station).

I would also suggest that Glasgow City Council, Renfrewshire Council, and Strathclyde PTE get in the people who designed the tram system in Manchester, as they are the experts and would also reduce the risks that led to the construction of the tram line in Auld Reekie becoming a fiasco.

 

[mcmad]

I suspect after the fiasco that was Edinburgh trams it'll be a long time (at least until after the extension is built with less disruption and to budget if it happens) before another council considers trams in Scotland.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I suspect after the fiasco that was Edinburgh trams it'll be a long time (at least until after the extension is built with less disruption and to budget if it happens) before another council considers trams in Scotland.

The Trams are quickly redeeming themselves in Edinburgh. The 2017 passenger numbers are what were expected for 2020, or thereabouts.

Local councils aren't the only bodies which can promote a tram scheme. If a tram is the solution for Glasgow's heavy rail capacity problems, then Transport Scotland would be the main driving force behind it. Glasgow City Council is hardly going to stand in the way of hundreds of millions of pounds' worth of government investment in transport, aren't they?

The Edinburgh system was a chiefly local affair, except for the money. Trams in Edinburgh are great for the city but don't have any immediate impact on people elsewhere. The key thing about any likely Glasgow system is that it would have heavy rail capacity relief as a key goal, making room for more trains for the whole of Scotland. That's why Transport Scotland would be interested. Glasgow City Council doesn't need to care about it very much at all. If a tram bill is passed by the Scottish Parliament, they have no real grounds to stop it happening.

 

[gazthomas]

I suspect after the fiasco that was Edinburgh trams it'll be a long time (at least until after the extension is built with less disruption and to budget if it happens) before another council considers trams in Scotland.

I don't agree with that. In that case it was appalling business case/business benefits realisation along with poor delivery governance. If these lessons are learned (time and again they're not I accept) then Glasgow or other schemes should be in better shape.

 

[Grinner]

I think a tram could well offer an excellent way to improve transport in underserved parts of the Glasgow region, but it's not going to be used for journeys between the two stations. I certainly hope that a tram is not offered instead of a truly transformational project like the tunnels schemes suggested up the thread: they would offer much better cross-city links, basically providing those of us south of the Clyde with an equivalent to the low-level services.

 

[clc]

I think a tram could well offer an excellent way to improve transport in underserved parts of the Glasgow region, but it's not going to be used for journeys between the two stations. I certainly hope that a tram is not offered instead of a truly transformational project like the tunnels schemes suggested up the thread: they would offer much better cross-city links, basically providing those of us south of the Clyde with an equivalent to the low-level services.

There’s no reason a tram couldn’t connect the two stations. From Broomielaw the route could run along Argyle St with a stop under the Hielanman's Umbrella for Central, continuing along Argyle St then up Queen St to QS station, circumnavigating George Square then back down Queen St.

 

[Grinner]

There’s no reason a tram couldn’t connect the two stations. From Broomielaw the route could run along Argyle St with a stop under the Hielanman's Umbrella for Central, continuing along Argyle St then up Queen St to QS station, circumnavigating George Square then back down Queen St.

It could, but realistically that doesn't offer much improvement because the distance is so short. Then time and inconvenience of changing twice adds too much time to nourneys to really link the north and south rail networks.