Cross-Glasgow Tunnel

[najaB]

Let's take it as read that there needs to be a cross-Glasgow connection to join the rail network south of the city to the network north of the city, and further that the best option involves tunneling (so not Glasgow Crossrail).

Where would your tunnel portals be, what station(s) would you open/close/combine and what services would you propose to make best use of the new capacity?

 

[tbtc]

what services would you propose to make best use of the new capacity?

That's the most interesting question for me - I think that a cross-city project that links Queen Street to Central (rather than skirting round the outskirts and failing to serve the city centre proper like "Crossrail") is something that most people would welcome but that can take many forms. A bit like Brexit, you might find people supporting the concept but for very different reasons.

If it ever happens I can only see it as a two coach railway (using the low level stations at Central/ Queen Street and also London's Thameslink/ Crossrail as examples), which limits the number of services.

Should the focus be on the long distance stuff (like through trains from Aberdeen/ Inverness to the south, as happens on the ECML in Edinburgh) or on "metro" services so that there's a relatively high frequency through the tunnel but without creating many long distance links?

I'd go with the latter option, personally, but this then creates the problem that there's a clear imbalance of services - now that the Cumbernauld trains run through to Edinburgh, the only "local" service from Queen Street is the half hourly Anniesland service. It'd be an expensive project if that was the only one to use it!

I'll stick my finger in the air and say that eight services per hour through the tunnel would be an optimal frequency to start with, so what about linking the "Paisley" and "Croy" corridors? Ayr to Edinburgh and Greenock to Anniesland/ Alloa/ Dunblane?

I think that I'd be reluctant to put anything involving single track through the tunnel (so no West Highland or Inverness services) and would want to try to match up "electric" with "electric" at both ends (since it'd make the project even more expensive if you were relying on also paying for wires to, e.g., Aberdeen as part of the project).

But would the flagship Edinburgh - Glasgow service be diluted by extending it through to Ayrshire (and therefore potentially causing more delays)? Might be an interesting political argument to have.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The report this discussion roots from (https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-central-queen-street-tunnel-unveiled.181893/) sets out the creation of a Glasgow metro system alongside this tunnel. That means the tunnel wouldn't need to perform local metro roles. At the other end of the spectrum, there won't be any InterCity trains running that way either, as Glasgow is not on the route to any other city destination. Edinburgh is a much more suitable place for InterCity trains to run through or even to reverse, since it's closer to the other parts of Scotland which need Anglo-Scottish links. Any InterCity route via Glasgow would be a complete waste of time. That means the tunnel would only serve the sort of exurban/regional routes the 380/385 fleet are designed for where there's an expectation of getting a seat and toilets are worthwhile.

Remember that in the worst-case scenario you can just turn back regional trains at the edge of the city once they've gone through the tunnel. Then they'd serve a wider area of the city without needing to go too far out where there's not enough demand or capacity.

 

[Altnabreac]

So here's my two pennorth:

South Western portal at Arkleston north of Barshaw Park between Paisley and Glasgow. This brief area of open country gives space for a decent sized lay down area for TBMs and allows for grade separation of the Inverclyde and Ayrshire lines with four tracking extended from the portal to Paisley Gilmour St.

Northern portal would be at south side of Cowlairs to allow the tunnel trains to access Springburn, Maryhill and Croy lines. Ideally grade separation for the Springburn direction.

Intermediate stations at:
"Queen Elizabeth University Hospital" - at the transport hub just north of the main building
"Govan" (for Subway connection to the west end),
"Clydeside" on the flat car park next to Hydro / Armadillo broadly serving the SECC, Hydro, BBC etc,
"Glasgow Central" (even lower level?) I'd aim for having a secondary entrance. Possibly somewhere around Buchanan St / Exchange Square (CPO the All Saints Spitalfield - former Borders Books?)
"Cathedral" two entrances, one on George St to allow easy interchange with High Street station and one on Rottenrow for Strathclyde Uni and GRI.

Stock - 8 coach fixed formation 100mph DMUs with 1/3 2/3 door spacing but decent quality interurban specification (toilets, 1st class etc).

Services - I think you'd need something in the region of 16tph to justify this level of investment.
South side services could be:
4tph Gourock
2tph Wemyss Bay
2tph Largs
2tph Ardrossan Harbour / Kilwinning
4tph Ayr
2tph Johnstone (or a reopened Bridge of Weir, a reopening that rarely gets mentioned but I suspect has an excellent business case)

I'd probably also like to keep a 2tph express service from Ayr that continues to serve Glasgow Central High Level calling at Prestwick Town, Troon, Irvine and Kilwinning only.

North side services could be:
4tph Edinburgh via Falkirk High
2tph Edinburgh via Cumbernauld
2tph Cumbernauld
2tph Larbert (picking up the Lenzie / Bishopbriggs calls)
2tph Stirling / Dunblane / Alloa / Perth
2tph Anniesland
2tph Motherwell via Stepps / Coatbridge Central.

Glasgow Queen St High Level would continue to serve Perth / Dundee / Aberdeen and West Highland Services as well as a 2tph Express service to Edinburgh (probably calling Falkirk High only).



What we'll actually get is almost certainly Shields Road to Cowlairs with a single station at Glasgow Central.

 

[318266]

I would start it at around Shields Depot, with a line to the left that goes down until it is below the bottom height of the River Clyde & the Argyle + North Clyde lines. It then continues until just underneath Glasgow Central, where there will be a station. Then it continues underneath Glasgow until we get to under Glasgow Queen Street, where there will be a station. It then continues to just after the Queen Street tunnel, where the tunnel ends. It will be electrified with 25kV overhead AC.

 

[mcmad]

Have we really learned nothing from Airdrie-Bathgate and that combining services to run from the West to the East (and vice versa) does nothing but import risk into the timetable as any incident on the line is carried far wider than the local area.

Is there really a service need for Greenock to Dunblane or Ayr to Edinburgh via Cumbernauld?

 

[CM]

A tunnel between Glasgow Central and Glasgow Queen Street is not needed. The stations are about 10 minutes walk away from each other and for those who are mobility impaired there is a bus service that links both stations as well as Buchanan Bus Station. There is also a huge queue of black taxis outside both stations and the fare would probably be less than £6. I fail to understand this stupid obession that SPT etc etc have with wanting a tunnel between both stations, it's idiotic!

 

[najaB]

A tunnel between Glasgow Central and Glasgow Queen Street is not needed. The stations are about 10 minutes walk away from each other and for those who are mobility impaired there is a bus service that links both stations as well as Buchanan Bus Station.

Simple, really. People are more likely to choose public transportation when their journey is: taxi - (wait) - train - taxi than they will when their journey is: taxi - (wait)- train - walk (or wait - bus) - (wait) - train - taxi.

 

[NotATrainspott]

A tunnel between Glasgow Central and Glasgow Queen Street is not needed. The stations are about 10 minutes walk away from each other and for those who are mobility impaired there is a bus service that links both stations as well as Buchanan Bus Station. There is also a huge queue of black taxis outside both stations and the fare would probably be less than £6. I fail to understand this stupid obession that SPT etc etc have with wanting a tunnel between both stations, it's idiotic!

It is anything but idiotic. It means you can add in more trains on both the Central and Queen Street HL networks, as the terminus is currently the biggest bottleneck on both. You really don't need many people to actually cross the city for the line to be worthwhile.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Have we really learned nothing from Airdrie-Bathgate and that combining services to run from the West to the East (and vice versa) does nothing but import risk into the timetable as any incident on the line is carried far wider than the local area.

Is there really a service need for Greenock to Dunblane or Ayr to Edinburgh via Cumbernauld?

We also learned from Airdrie-Bathgate that through services are generally quite desirable for passengers. The benefit of A-B well exceeds the costs, and most of the disruption can be managed through infrastructure improvements along the North Clyde line.

 

[CM]

It is anything but idiotic. It means you can add in more trains on both the Central and Queen Street HL networks, as the terminus is currently the biggest bottleneck on both. You really don't need many people to actually cross the city for the line to be worthwhile.

And how much would this tunnel cost for the sake of a slightly improved service at Central/Queen Street? It just wouldn't be worth the cost and disruption.

 

[jagardner1984]

Surely the advantage is, whilst a pair of 385s comes into Queen Street, is serviced, cabs swapped, service departs 10 mins later, with this version, imagine you get the tunnel station somewhere north east of Central / south west of Queens Street, with portals from each, make it 12 car for future growth (think St Pancras Thameslink box), you can have a single stop in Glasgow with a minute dwell time, and (with appropriate ATO and signalling developments) a huge number of trains per hour. Removing the regularity of the turnarounds at termini presumably makes stock utilisation much higher too.

If we are to be ambitious in our desire to tackle Glasgow’s air quality, it’s exactly the connectivity we need. If nothing else, running as many Inverclyde / Ayr services as possible to Edinburgh would surely reduce the 2-3 miles of crawling traffic coming from the west through the city each day ?

 

[Peter Kelford]

My version is as follows:
Starting at a triangle at Gorbals/Southern Necropolis, the line would pass under Laurieston and Glasgow Central and the on to Queen Street. At the northern portal of Queen Street tunnel, the line would join the existing one in a 4-track formation as far as Cowlairs Junction.

On the south side, perhaps relief lines could be built on the Hamilton via Cambuslang as well as a new platform at Paisley St. James. A relief line between Paisley and Glasgow might help as well. On the north end, a relief line towards Clydebank could be built, with an additional platform at Kilpatrick

 

[mcmad]

We also learned from Airdrie-Bathgate that through services are generally quite desirable for passengers. The benefit of A-B well exceeds the costs, and most of the disruption can be managed through infrastructure improvements along the North Clyde line.

Not seen any evidence that there are significant additional flows from West of Glasgow through to Edinburgh or vice versa, most trains empty out at Queen St and reload.

 

[d9009alycidon]

As I posted on the original thread you are revisiting a proposal made by the SPT back in the 1980s which never say the light of day. I have to ask the question - why go to the expense of digging a tunnel when there is a parallel rail route that could be developed? There seems to be a consensus in earlier posts that this will not be intended as a shuttle between Queen Street and Central, indeed I think that the proposal is for an underground platform with access at one end from the vicinity of Queen Street and at the other from Central, (the direct distance measured on Google Maps between the two stations is about 318m and the length of platform required for an eight car class 385 EMU is around 200m). If there was a parallel underground pedestrian tunnel they time to transit on foot would be 4 minutes or less, which could be improved by an airport style moving walkway
The alternative route is from Shields Junction then over the City Union Line to Bellgrove then up the Springburn branch to Cowlairs, at the moment this is not laid out for high speed services and conflicting junctions would need to be resolved but I believe that there is the land there to improve this route as a true cross city corridor

1. The pair of former freight only tracks between Bellgrove Junction and High Street would be relaid as fast lines bypassing Bellgrove Station, and Bellgrove Junction remodelled. At High Street these tracks would take a new formation to reach the existing freight only tracks to Shields Junction. If the "metro" idea is combined with this, street level trams would replace stopping services on the Springburn branch to clear the line for fast through services
2. The existing Airdrie to Queen Street Low Level tracks would be realigned through the former Barrack Street Freight Terminal to burrow under the new link and rejoin the existing route at High Street Station. This would provide a grade separated junction preventing congestion where these two routes cross. Crossovers would be provided to link the two routes.
3. A new "Trongate" Station on the link service the Saltmarket area.
4. Re-instatement of the former G&SWR line from Gorbals Junction to Strathbungo junction.
5. Reopening Shields Road Station as a new interchange between Glasgow to Ayrshire (& any future Glasgow Airport) services and services over the Crossrail Link, with a link to Shields Road Underground Station
6. Interconnection to the current routes to Ayrshire and Renfrewshire lines to provide possible onward through services.
7. New connection in the Garngad area to provide access to the Crossrail Link from the former Caledonian Main line from Cumbernauld.

All total Pie in the sky of course, but no less fanciful as the learned gentlemens' proposals

 

[sannox]

A tunnel between Glasgow Central and Glasgow Queen Street is not needed. The stations are about 10 minutes walk away from each other and for those who are mobility impaired there is a bus service that links both stations as well as Buchanan Bus Station. There is also a huge queue of black taxis outside both stations and the fare would probably be less than £6. I fail to understand this stupid obession that SPT etc etc have with wanting a tunnel between both stations, it's idiotic!

It's not idiotic at all. A connection is a disincentive to people in terms of time and hassle especially with kids and luggage. A connection involving a bus/walk/taxi is further bad.

This will allow services to go from Paisley-Edinburgh direct opening up connections and connectivity. It's a easy win.

 

[sannox]

The alternative route is from Shields Junction then over the City Union Line to Bellgrove then up the Springburn branch to Cowlairs, at the moment this is not laid out for high speed services and conflicting junctions would need to be resolved but I believe that there is the land there to improve this route as a true cross city corridor

It has a lower cost benefit though which is why crossrail doesn't move forward. It moves the services away from the key markets served by existing terminii (IFSD districts) towards the east which is lower demand.

 

[Stopper]

Not seen any evidence that there are significant additional flows from West of Glasgow through to Edinburgh or vice versa, most trains empty out at Queen St and reload.

Would have to agree with this. No evidence on ScotRail of any real significant ‘through flows’ on any of ScotRail’s through services (A-B, E-G via Cumbernauld, Fife-Borders, North Berwick-Edinburgh-Glasgow Central-Ayr). The vast majority of flows on these services are what already existed, with certain increases in those flows such as Bathgate/Livi-Edinburgh and the new Bathgate-Glasgow link. The only big through flows are ones from the east of Edinburgh through to Haymarket or South Gyle.

 

[d9009alycidon]

It has a lower cost benefit though which is why crossrail doesn't move forward. It moves the services away from the key markets served by existing terminii (IFSD districts) towards the east which is lower demand.

If you read the current report, one of the aims is to improve connectivity in the areas that are currently not well served by rail, the Merchant City and Gorbals are perfect example of areas where access to good rail services is currently poor, create the access and you will create demand

 

[tbtc]

Surely the advantage is, whilst a pair of 385s comes into Queen Street, is serviced, cabs swapped, service departs 10 mins later, with this version, imagine you get the tunnel station somewhere north east of Central / south west of Queens Street, with portals from each, make it 12 car for future growth (think St Pancras Thameslink box), you can have a single stop in Glasgow with a minute dwell time, and (with appropriate ATO and signalling developments) a huge number of trains per hour. Removing the regularity of the turnarounds at termini presumably makes stock utilisation much higher too.

If we are to be ambitious in our desire to tackle Glasgow’s air quality, it’s exactly the connectivity we need. If nothing else, running as many Inverclyde / Ayr services as possible to Edinburgh would surely reduce the 2-3 miles of crawling traffic coming from the west through the city each day ?

I agree with this - my only question is about the "single stop in Glasgow".

The city already has two main heavy rail stations (as well as stations on the Low Level lines towards Partick/ Rutherglen/ Easterhouse) plus Subway stations that are separate (Buchanan Street and St Enoch are close to Queen Street/ Central but not *at* Queen Street/ Central).

So, for me, any cross-Glasgow line would have to either serve one or both of the two main stations (Queen Street/ Central). Otherwise you're creating a mess.

Question is whether a London-Crossrail solution would work, where a double ended station has a Queen Street entrance and a Central entrance (and you potentially even use the pedestrian tunnel to get from Queen Street to Central even if not using a low level train).

But then, any Glasgow Crossrail would presumably have to be pretty deep underground, given the need to avoid the existing low level lines at Queen Street/ Central, the Subway, the Clyde... I don't know how deep that would end up being.

The alternative route is from Shields Junction then over the City Union Line to Bellgrove then up the Springburn branch to Cowlairs, at the moment this is not laid out for high speed services and conflicting junctions would need to be resolved but I believe that there is the land there to improve this route as a true cross city corridor

That would cross the city but without actually serving the proper city centre, which means that any services diverted that way would lose their existing links into the centre (forcing people down onto the Subway as a replacement will turn them away from public transport).

 

[najaB]

But then, any Glasgow Crossrail would presumably have to be pretty deep underground, given the need to avoid the existing low level lines at Queen Street/ Central, the Subway, the Clyde... I don't know how deep that would end up being

Quite deep, but the Tube has deep lines (and stations) without it being a huge problem.

 

[MarkyT]

This is my idea for Glasgow. A long twelve car subterranean station, with entrances at either end linking to the two existing terminals. Connecting to the Ayrshire network in the south west and to the Cumbernauld line in the north east. Could also incorporate a covered travellator link between the old terminals for ease of transfer between trains that still terminated. Little interference with existing service while being built.

 

[d9009alycidon]

Only comment I would have about that proposal is that by my calculations the gradient from the platform end to a tunnel mouth at St Rollox would be around 1:20 for 2 km, not impossible but a tough ask even for modern stock

 

[MarkyT]

Only comment I would have about that proposal is that by my calculations the gradient from the platform end to a tunnel mouth at St Rollox would be around 1:20 for 2 km, not impossible but a tough ask even for modern stock

Maybe the north portal could be a little further east, just Glasgow side of Steppes. Or near Lenzie on the other line might be a better bet as it doesn't seem to keep on climbing so steeply. Cadder Yard could be a good brownfield launch site for TBMs, and there's plenty of room there to slew the Queen Street lines around the portal ramp to create a grade separated junction.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Or maybe a people mover akin to those in airports could move people between the two stations?

 

[MarkyT]

Or maybe a people mover akin to those in airports could move people between the two stations?

That could work I agree but it would almost certainly have to be underground even as a standalone and it's a bit short to have to wait for a pod, at just over 300 metres between the nearest corners. When I worked in Glasgow I always walked between the stations. It's no more than a few minutes really so a direct covered link would be particularly convenient. It's almost close enough that just a pedestrian subway without any mechanical assistance could be practical. The greatest benefit of a 'Crossrail' approach (incorporating a pedestrian link) could be in taking large numbers of trains out out both Central and Queen Street, maybe up to 20 plus trains an hour from each. That could generate a lot of capacity for future growth on other routes, and even allow parts of Central high level to be closed for a while to allow rebuilding, for HS2 for example.

 

[najaB]

The greatest benefit of a 'Crossrail' approach (incorporating a pedestrian link) could be in taking large numbers of trains out out both Central and Queen Street, ma

I agree. The freeing up of terminating platforms at Central and Queen Street is an even bigger benefit than the new direct journeys that will be made possible.

 

[d9009alycidon]

That could work I agree but it would almost certainly have to be underground even as a standalone and it's a bit short to have to wait for a pod, at just over 300 metres between the nearest corners. When I worked in Glasgow I always walked between the stations. It's no more than a few minutes really so a direct covered link would be particularly convenient. It's almost close enough that just a pedestrian subway without any mechanical assistance could be practical. The greatest benefit of a 'Crossrail' approach (incorporating a pedestrian link) could be in taking large numbers of trains out out both Central and Queen Street, maybe up to 20 plus trains an hour from each. That could generate a lot of capacity for future growth on other routes, and even allow parts of Central high level to be closed for a while to allow rebuilding, for HS2 for example.

About 300m is what I calculated it as well, to put that into context, it is about the same walking distance from the security area to the end of either of the piers at Glasgow Airport or walking the length of a Pendolino to get to the first class carriages and a moving walkway (airport style) would reduce the transit time to 3 minutes. The most massive benefit would be to avoid the wind and rain

 

[mcmad]

Quite deep, but the Tube has deep lines (and stations) without it being a huge problem.

It does, but they don't link into existing surface lines within a mile or so of the deep tunnel

 

[d9009alycidon]

Posted by Andrew Stephen on Facebook, again from the 1980s, trains to run in opposite direction to normal