Expansion of Glasgow Subway

clc · 22 Apr 2017

There's an interesting paper from 2012 by Tony Hughes, an adviser to Glasgow City Council setting out his vision for Glasgow's rail network. Relevant to this thread is a section on how the Argyle Line could be converted to high frequency LRT which would then be extended north west to Maryhill and east to Tollcross via disused tunnels. Here are some extracts

3.5 Finnieston - Hyndland
Immediately west of Finnieston station, the low level Argyle line tracks join those of the Queen Street low level line. West of Hyndland station, separate branches continue via Jordanhill and Anniesland stations. This bottleneck' between Finnieston and Hyndland limits the number of trains travelling east-west across the city and halves the potential maximum capacity for services on both the Argyle and Queen Street low level lines. It also requires that this section of track operates at its maximum capacity, such that any slight problem has a disproportionate impact on the reliability of the network and threatens service punctuality.

The bottleneck is an unfortunate consequence of the success of the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive's 1970's Clyderail' scheme. At a time when rail usage was in general decline, this bold scheme re-instated cross-river heavy rail services and integrated these with Glasgow's Underground (now Subway), forming a connection between the Central (Argyle) and Queen Street low level lines at Finnieston. Presumably, at the time, it was considered that a single pair of twin tracks running east-west between Finnieston and Hyndland would provide all the capacity needed.

This has proved not to be the case and both Strathclyde Partnership for Transport and Network Rail have examined ways to remove, or at least reduce, what is now a major capacity constraint. An appraisal undertaken in 20075 concluded that, while it is not feasible to provide four tracks to remove the bottleneck, some additional capacity could be provided by reconfiguring the tracks at Hyndland East junction and/or rebuilding Hyndland station.

This reconfiguration is being progressed as part of the EGIP, which originally also included proposals to turn back' some Queen Street low level services east of the congested section. Current EGIP proposals are for a turn back at Hyndland station but this will do little to reduce congestion through the bottleneck and will certainly not maximise the potential joint capacities of the Argyle and Queen Street Low Level lines.

On the other hand, removal of the current connection between the Argyle Line and the Queen Street Low Level line at Finnieston would enable trains to run at minimum headways on both the low level lines through the city centre. For this connection to be severed with no detrimental effect on the existing services running on the Clyderail' routes and between Larkhall and Milngavie, it is necessary first to identify an alternative route for these services.

3.6 The Bridgeton Link

Just such a solution construction of the Bridgeton Link' joining the former Bridgeton Central line to the Dalmarnock line was originally proposed by the Greater Glasgow Passenger Transport Authority as a second stage of the Clyderail proposals but not progressed. The link would connect Dalmarnock and Queen Street Low Level stations via High Street station and would run mainly in existing unused tunnels. At Bridgeton, a short length of new heavy rail track would be required. The connection with the Argyle line running westwards could be severed and the disconnected section, running between Bridgeton and Finnieston, converted to Light Rail Transit (LRT) operation.

Conversion of the Argyle line to LRT operation would bring significant benefits in addition to the potential for more frequent trains. Chief among these is the potential for additional station stops at St Enoch, Glasgow Cross, Greendyke Street and Glasgow Green. Further benefits would arise from extending the line at each end, westwards via disused rail reservations to Whiteinch, Botanic Gardens, Maryhill and beyond and eastwards via the London Road tunnel and then on-road to Tollcross and beyond.

One potential disadvantage, the loss of direct rail services from South Lanarkshire via Dalmarnock to the SECC, could be overcome by re-opening the former Finnieston station on the Queen Street low level line. This would improve accessibility between the SECC, Queen Street station and all stations to Edinburgh via Airdrie.

5.4 City Centre and Suburban Rail Services
The existing heavy rail service on the Argyle Line will be replaced by lighter LRT rolling stock running every few minutes, initially between Bridgeton and Finnieston. This will provide easy interchange to the Subway at St Enoch and local rail services at Central Station, while also providing convenient access to the southern half of the city centre at frequent station stops.

A combination of semi-fast cross-Scotland services and local heavy rail trains will similarly run every few minutes on the Queen Street low level line, providing connections to local rail services at Queen Street High Level station and access to the northern half of the city centre at Queen Street and Charing Cross stations

Link to full paper: http://www.starconference.org.uk/star/2012/Hughes.pdf

RailUK Forums

NotATrainspott · 22 Apr 2017

clc said:
There's an interesting paper from 2012 by Tony Hughes, an adviser to Glasgow City Council setting out his vision for Glasgow's rail network. Relevant to this thread is a section on how the Argyle Line could be converted to high frequency LRT which would then be extended north west to Maryhill and east to Tollcross via disused tunnels. Here are some extracts

Link to full paper: http://www.starconference.org.uk/star/2012/Hughes.pdf

Those are interesting ideas but I feel that they really won't make that much of a difference. First of all, the main limitation on services is the flat junction at Hyndland - when the Argyle Line opened the number of services west of there remained the same while being divided across the two cross-Glasgow lines. Moving the connection to Dalmarnock and beyond from Finnieston to High Street wouldn't actually make any measurable difference and could make things worse if the junction there wasn't grade-separated. The number of trains per hour between High Street and Partick would increase, certainly, but that's not going to make a radical improvement to the rail network. The city isn't dense enough to require heavy rail passenger capacity for moving people around the core, while there are significant numbers of people in the outer suburbs and satellite towns who need a fast service into the city centre. Trying to force a line to perform both regional and urban transport duties can make it worse at both of them.

The other aspect to remember is that LRT works best if it's not in tunnels. The sort of frequency he wants to see run in the Argyle Line tunnels means short trains but it also means competing against buses for short distance hops. People do not like having to go down into tunnels for short distance hops, especially when the stations aren't ideally designed in the first place. They're pretty dark and dingy places and unless you want to spend huge sums of money rebuilding them, they'll always be that way. For competition against buses you're best off with a surface tram line with low floors like in Edinburgh. On a busy route you can hop on and off just as freely as you can with a bus, without the need to go up or down onto platforms which are distinct from the rest of the urban environment.

I think there is a long term case for two low-floor east-west and one north-south high-floor tram lines in Glasgow. The southern one would end up following Argyle Street after Anderston - the trunk road nature of the Clydeside Expressway makes a riverfront approach along Anderson Quay suitable until that point. Such a line would inevitably end up duplicating the route of the Argyle Line to Bridgeton, before running on the surface along London Road. Argyle Street station would stick out like a sore thumb in that network because it's too close to Central and then leaves a gap. Where a surface tram would follow the train underneath you would expect to have two or more tram stops for every train station. Reopening Glasgow Cross station and closing Argyle Street would mean the station pattern could return to normality.

LeeLivery · 23 Apr 2017

DarloRich said:
I would say this is pre electoral guff designed to hook the simple minded.

but the issue for Glasgow is gauge. It creates a curates egg. Having already let contracts for new rolling stock for the existing lines do you:

build any new extensions to the existing gauges to offer interoperability with the current system BUT accept that rolling stock costs more as it is bespoke

build any new extension to a different ( standard) gauge and accept that while train orders may be cheaper you have to buy & maintain two sets of everything

rebuild the existing system to standard gauge and expand, accepting you have chucked away millions on a refurbishment you now don't need.

Any choice wastes money that could be spent elsewhere.

But think of all the metros around the world with different gauge sizes. London, Barcelona, New York etc. I don't see why a different gauge should be a barrier.

What I see as a barrier is the big suburban network in Glasgow. Converting the Cathcart or Canal services into the subway then built it underground to Madrid or Barcelona standards would be good. I don't know much about Glasgow but going underground from Pollokshields East to Central/St Enoch, Vincent St, Charing Cross, St Georges Cross then following the Maryhill Road to Bearsden seems reasonable.

Glasgow (and Newcastle) is a perfect place for population and economic growth like what is being seen in Manchester. Everything proposed in this country seems to be called a waste of money these days. If they had this attitude before, quite a few very successful lines, both national and underground, probably wouldn't exist.

NotATrainspott · 23 Apr 2017

LeeLivery said:
But think of all the metros around the world with different gauge sizes. London, Barcelona, New York etc. I don't see why a different gauge should be a barrier.

What I see as a barrier is the big suburban network in Glasgow. Converting the Cathcart or Canal services into the subway then built it underground to Madrid or Barcelona standards would be good. I don't know much about Glasgow but going underground from Pollokshields East to Central/St Enoch, Vincent St, Charing Cross, St Georges Cross then following the Maryhill Road to Bearsden seems reasonable.

Glasgow (and Newcastle) is a perfect place for population and economic growth like what is being seen in Manchester. Everything proposed in this country seems to be called a waste of money these days. If they had this attitude before, quite a few very successful lines, both national and underground, probably wouldn't exist.

Manchester has a street running metro system which actually runs an operational profit. Its system demonstrates the benefits of using off-the-shelf light rail technology. Out in the suburbs it was just a simple conversion of many existing BR lines while in the city centre it can run cheaply on the streets. With the low cost of construction and operation it has been possible to expand the network, thereby making it even more useful and then justifying more works in the city centre. I very much doubt that we would see a second city crossing if the Picc-Vic tunnel were ever built. In the long term though there is no reason why sections can't then be converted to tunnelled as and when it becomes necessary. As far as I'm aware that is the plan for Piccadilly, as the expected interchange numbers when HS2 opens are going to be enough that a new underground tram station in between the Victorian and HS2 train sheds with a concourse on top will be necessary. However, the trams will then venture out onto the streets as normal.

clc · 23 Apr 2017

NotATrainspott said:
.

The other aspect to remember is that LRT works best if it's not in tunnels. The sort of frequency he wants to see run in the Argyle Line tunnels means short trains but it also means competing against buses for short distance hops. People do not like having to go down into tunnels for short distance hops, especially when the stations aren't ideally designed in the first place. They're pretty dark and dingy places and unless you want to spend huge sums of money rebuilding them, they'll always be that way. For competition against buses you're best off with a surface tram line with low floors like in Edinburgh. On a busy route you can hop on and off just as freely as you can with a bus, without the need to go up or down onto platforms which are distinct from the rest of the urban environment.

I think there is a long term case for two low-floor east-west and one north-south high-floor tram lines in Glasgow. The southern one would end up following Argyle Street after Anderston - the trunk road nature of the Clydeside Expressway makes a riverfront approach along Anderson Quay suitable until that point. Such a line would inevitably end up duplicating the route of the Argyle Line to Bridgeton, before running on the surface along London Road. Argyle Street station would stick out like a sore thumb in that network because it's too close to Central and then leaves a gap. Where a surface tram would follow the train underneath you would expect to have two or more tram stops for every train station. Reopening Glasgow Cross station and closing Argyle Street would mean the station pattern could return to normality.

I don't think going in and out of underground stations is a major issue for most people even for short journeys as long as the stations are clean and modern, ie. the same standard as the recently renovated stations on the Glasgow Subway. High frequency and fast journey time is what it's about, trams could obviously match the underground lines on the former but generally not the latter in central Glasgow.

Under the proposal there'd be additional stops at St Enoch and Glasgow Cross giving you 5 stations over a distance of 1 mile in the city centre, which is similar spacing to what you'd likely have on a city centre tram line.

backontrack · 23 Apr 2017

Surely extending the Edinburgh trams to Leith is a higher priority? Clearly this has just been rolled out so that the SNP don't lose votes in Labour target seats.

NotATrainspott · 23 Apr 2017

clc said:
I don't think going in and out of underground stations is a major issue for most people even for short journeys as long as the stations are clean and modern, ie. the same standard as the recently renovated stations on the Glasgow Subway. High frequency and fast journey time is what it's about, trams could obviously match the underground lines on the former but generally not the latter in central Glasgow.

Under the proposal there'd be additional stops at St Enoch and Glasgow Cross giving you 5 stations over a distance of 1 mile in the city centre, which is similar spacing to what you'd likely have on a city centre tram line.

Remember that all transport modes are still competing against the bus. If you just wanted to pop along Argyle Street would you really rather go down and back up from an underground system rather than just hopping on the first bus? I've said this plenty of times but it's vital to remember that rails are not the be-all and end-all of public transport planning.

Also, underground stations are extremely expensive to build. The Argyle Line stations are already pretty cheaply done, with narrow platforms and no escalators. To have any chance of competing against buses you would need to rebuild all of them, and that would incur massive expenditure as they would need to match all modern fire and access regulations. Expensive is bad.

When I talk about competition I don't even mean about individual private companies trying to snipe business off of one another. In the most suitable transport system you have one ticket you can use on any mode of transport. Even when run by the same company people will pick the bus over the metro or train, or vice-versa, for certain journeys because it's a better way of doing that journey. Trying to fight this is a total waste of time. If you want an optimal transport network, you need to have all of the modes concentrating on the sort of thing that they're good for, with good interchanges so that journeys are as easy as possible.

Another factor in favour of street running in the city centre is that you can then use street running everywhere else. As soon as you've got any street running at all you need to design the entire system around it. While 90% of the former railway line route might be available out into the suburbs, it's that final 10% that will incur the greatest cost. Having to build massive new structures or tunnels or knocking down other development to complete a metro line is not ideal, especially when it's a fairly marginal part of the whole route. Street running means you can do it on the cheap without actually disadvantaging people. It means being able to bring the stations closer to where people actually want to go without requiring even more expensive civil engineering works. Sorting these things out in the suburbs is just as vital for the line as the city centre parts.

A significant part of the success of Metrolink is that it is just as useful for people to do their daily activities in the suburbs as it is when they go into Manchester for their weekends. You can practically take a tram to get to the shops for a few bags of groceries, while you won't take a metro for the same journey if you then need to walk a longer distance. All of those unsexy journeys made by boring working class or retired normal people are just as or more important for the funding of the line as the commuting done by professionals into the city centre. Because east-west professional commuting travel is already largely accommodated by the heavy rail lines any new east-west metro system has no real choice but to focus on these more day-to-day concerns.

NotATrainspott · 23 Apr 2017

backontrack said:
Surely extending the Edinburgh trams to Leith is a higher priority? Clearly this has just been rolled out so that the SNP don't lose votes in Labour target seats.

In the short term, yes. Once the Edinburgh line is extended to Leith it'll turn a profit and they'll never need to go begging to the government. Any extra government funding can be done on basically a commercial basis, if it's not the case that the private sector would want to do it anyway.

The Glasgow Metro ideas are of interest to the Scottish Government though because they're one of the three main options for increasing terminal stations capacity in Glasgow. Some capital funding would be needed anyway and a metro system has the possibility of allowing ScotRail to focus on more profitable regional services while dispensing of the heavily subsidised urban commuter ones.

PaulLothian · 23 Apr 2017

There are so many issues with the idea of extending the Subway in its present format. For me, one is the fact that it was designed so long ago with the average height of Glasgow residents being probably 6 inches less than now! At my tallest (I have shrunk about 2.5 inches since!), 40 years ago, I could look over the heads of the average Glasgow crowd, but now at 5' 11", I am frequently not the tallest person in the vicinity by some way. Yet I still have to crouch on the Subway if standing near the door.

clc · 23 Apr 2017

One downside of Tony Hughes' proposal is that the connection between Partick and Central would be severed (heavy rail services would be re-routed through Queen St Low Level). However, a suggestion Altnabreac made a while ago could offer a solution to this problem, ie. build a new station to serve the SEC where the 2 existing lines meet. In this scenario the Argyle line would terminate at the new station and passengers coming from Helensburgh, Balloch etc would change here for LRT to Central and other city centre stations on the Argyle Line. They'd obviously continue to change at Partick for the subway.

Even more ambitious plans might involve extending the LRT Argyle Line over the Clydeside Expressway to the Riverside Museum and Glasgow Harbour.

Camden · 23 Apr 2017

Shouldn't all this be in the "other transport" forum area?

tranzitjim · 24 Apr 2017

#1, That map suggests three new routes to the network, is that correct?

#2, They could build the new tunnels to the larger size, and stick with existing size rolling stock. That way, they can rebuild the existing tunnels at their leisure as each bit needs to be renewed, and then they can buy second hand S-stock for the whole Glasgow network?

MatthewRead · 24 Apr 2017

tranzitjim said:
#1, That map suggests three new routes to the network, is that correct?

#2, They could build the new tunnels to the larger size, and stick with existing size rolling stock. That way, they can rebuild the existing tunnels at their leisure as each bit needs to be renewed, and then they can buy second hand S-stock for the whole Glasgow network?

Or what about second hand D stock

clc · 12 May 2017

Now that the SNP has taken control of the council when can we expect the TBMs to arrive? :lol:

On a serious note, the SNP said it would investigate possible extensions to the east and north. However, a cheaper solution would be to re-open the tunnel to Parkhead Stadium, thereby benefitting the East End.
Maryhill is sort of north'ish so reopening the Botanics line would tick that box too. Maryhill to Parkhead would be a useful service I think.

Vespa · 25 Feb 2020

A thought has occurred to me, I'm in Glasgow at the moment and riding the underground.

Some of the stations are a bit out of the way, obviously the neighbourhood have changed in the intervening years apart from city centre stations.

There is no integrated ticketing system, third rail would be dangerous for on street travel and further tunnelling is very expensive.

My suggestion would be to use third rail in tunnels and use overhead wiring above ground running in the street above on reserved tracks and old rail alignments connecting them all up with the underground and transport hubs, integrate the travel ticket to incorporate bus and rail with underground in one single travel pass zone, this would increase cross ridership and flexibility.

You would have a mix of merseyrail/Metrolink style network that would realise the potential of the underground link.

Much cheaper than tunnelling.

AM9 · 25 Feb 2020

Vespa said:
A thought has occurred to me, I'm in Glasgow at the moment and riding the underground.

Some of the stations are a bit out of the way, obviously the neighbourhood have changed in the intervening years apart from city centre stations.

There is no integrated ticketing system, third rail would be dangerous for on street travel and further tunnelling is very expensive.

My suggestion would be to use third rail in tunnels and use overhead wiring above ground running in the street above on reserved tracks and old rail alignments connecting them all up with the underground and transport hubs, integrate the travel ticket to incorporate bus and rail with underground in one single travel pass zone, this would increase cross ridership and flexibility.

You would have a mix of merseyrail/Metrolink style network that would realise the potential of the underground link.

Much cheaper than tunnelling.

I doubt that trains small enough to run the clockwork orange could have roof mounted power collection hardware (pantographs etc.) that complied with even the most relaxed safety standards in terms of distance from passengers standing on platforms.

Vespa · 25 Feb 2020

AM9 said:
I doubt that trains small enough to run the clockwork orange could have roof mounted power collection hardware (pantographs etc.) that complied with even the most relaxed safety standards in terms of distance from passengers standing on platforms.

You can have an articulated unit in between passenger carriages with recessed pantograph, its been done before.

That's the way round it, otherwise you would have to close the entire system and rebore to LU standard and regauge to 4ft 8 1/2 in, we're dealing with legacy issues due to the decision to have 4ft gauge in the first place.

hexagon789 · 25 Feb 2020

Vespa said:
A thought has occurred to me, I'm in Glasgow at the moment and riding the underground.

Some of the stations are a bit out of the way, obviously the neighbourhood have changed in the intervening years apart from city centre stations.

There is no integrated ticketing system, third rail would be dangerous for on street travel and further tunnelling is very expensive.

My suggestion would be to use third rail in tunnels and use overhead wiring above ground running in the street above on reserved tracks and old rail alignments connecting them all up with the underground and transport hubs, integrate the travel ticket to incorporate bus and rail with underground in one single travel pass zone, this would increase cross ridership and flexibility.

You would have a mix of merseyrail/Metrolink style network that would realise the potential of the underground link.

Much cheaper than tunnelling.

I honestly doubt the Subway will ever be expanded, it's been talked about for years, but to be fair the suburban rail network covers a significant section of Glasgow as it is. There doesn't seem to be the desire to expand within the council other than as a trotted-out "suggestion" come election time

clc · 25 Feb 2020

The political focus is now on the ‘Clyde Metro’ which would link Paisley Gilmour Street - Airport - AMIDS - Renfrew - Braehead - Queen Elizabeth Hospital - Financial District - Central Station. Any old rail alignments in that corridor would likely be used for the metro.

greyman42 · 25 Feb 2020

clc said:
The political focus is now on the ‘Clyde Metro’ which would link Paisley Gilmour Street - Airport - AMIDS - Renfrew - Braehead - Queen Elizabeth Hospital - Financial District - Central Station. Any old rail alignments in that corridor would likely be used for the metro.

What area would you class as the financial district?

hexagon789 · 25 Feb 2020

greyman42 said:
What area would you class as the financial district?

Presumably the Broomielaw

Altnabreac · 26 Feb 2020

greyman42 said:
What area would you class as the financial district?

hexagon789 said:
Presumably the Broomielaw

International Financial Services District (IFSD) Glasgow is the term used. Scottish Enterprise run project promoting the Broomielaw and Tradeston areas for inward investment with a focus on financial services companies but also other Class 4 office uses.
http://www.ifsdglasgow.co.uk/

Barclay's Buchanan Wharf development in Tradeston is the biggest project currently underway:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-44910560
https://www.buchananwharf.com/

Expansion of Glasgow Subway

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member