Expansions for Scotland's rail network proposed

[jeemac]

The Maryhill and Cathcart Circle lines would be ideal for tram-train conversion, using high floor tram trains of the same standard that will be procured for Metrolink and the Tyne & Wear Metro. Glasgow City Centre is relatively narrow in a north-south direction, so the street-running section wouldn't need to be very long, and as both ends are already commuter routes there would be a flow of passengers immediately.

Yes they would, especially with the benefit of freeing up capacity not just at Central but QS too.

 

[me123]

No buses, no timescale for launch & no requirement for any sort of baseline service per hour?

It's been a catastrophe of a project from start to finish. SPT should be answering serious questions about its mismanagement.

I doubt it'll ever see the light of day to be honest. There's little to no information about the plans available.

It was a key part of the Commonwealth Games plans and, perhaps now that the Games have gone, it won't ever come to fruition (SPT's own website still promises the services in time for the Commonwealth Games; I assume they can change the laws of physics).

The worrying thing for me, however, is the upcoming opening of South Glasgow University Hospital later this year, which will see services transferred from the Victoria Infirmary, Western General and the Gartnaval Hospitals. Access to the Southern General hospital is currently dire, being solely provided by slow bus services. My experience of these services is that they tend to get cut back just about every time I go to use them.

Journey times to the City Centre are in excess of 30mins on a slow bus taking you on a tour of Govan Services to Partick have been cut back from over 6 buses an hour to just two, with no onward connections to the rest of the West End (for whom this is going to be their local hospital). And NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde's parking policy means that improved public transport is going to be needed for staff and visitors alike (according to NHSGGC, parking your car at work is considered gross misconduct). I have yet to see any plans for this to come to fruition.

This is why I would argue that a Fastlink Tram would be the ideal solution. I would suggest the following route:

George Square (for Queen Street Station/Buchanan Street Subway) - Buchanan Street - Gordon Street - Hope Street - Broomielaw (off road) - SECC/Hydro - Riverside Museum/Yorkhill - Partick Interchange - Govan (via a new bridge) - South Glasgow University Hospital - Braehead - (several stops in Renfrew) - Glasgow Airport (via new bridge over the Whitecart Water).

This fills a few needs I think:

• Glasgow Central - Queen Street direct link
• Access to the Clydeside regeneration area
• Fast, frequent access to South Glasgow Univerity Hospital
• Link from South Glasgow University Hospital and other Southside ammenities to the West End, via a connection at Partick Interchange
• A link from Braehead Shopping Centre & Leisure Complex to both the West End and City Centre
• Fast, frequent service from Renfrew to the City Centre
• A modern and frequent link to Glasgow Airport; From the City Centre, West End and South Side.

It should be kept off-road as much as possible, aside from the City Centre portions (and I don't know Renfrew well enough to comment). Even in the city centre, I think that this route would have minimal contact with the core traffic, instead using the pedestrianised Buchanan Street for a short section, and the pedestrianised & lightly trafficked Gordon Street.

Connections to and from other parts of the city could be made at:

• Glasgow Queen Street (rail)
• Buchanan Street Subway
• Glasgow Central (rail)
• Partick Interchange (rail, bus, subway)
• Govan (bus, subway)

Which, between them, actually covers the city pretty well.

The link could potentially be extended to Paisley Town Centre, not intended as a direct Glasgow-Paisley link, but to link Paisley with the intermediate stations.

In addition to ticketing as part of the system (smartcard ticketing, integrated with Zonecard and the Subway), it should accept rail tickets, perhaps to "Glasgow Fast Link" for intermediate stations, including Renfrew, and "Glasgow Airport". Furthermore, rail journeys requiring a transfer from Central - Queen Street (and vice versa) should be allowed to make use of the line, as is the case with the London Underground.

It ain't happening, though.

 

[clc]

I suspect that any plans to reroute Renfrewshire commuters into the low level at Queen Street would be met with similar resistance. It would be slower than going to Central HL and therefore shunned in favour of the direct fast trains which would continue to pick up the slack (although Renfrew wouldn't likely have that problem, being a new route). So, 2tph Renfrew-Springburn and 2tph Renfrew-Charing Cross(-somewhere in the West, if paths allow) might work, but would be expensive.

I take your point (also made by Altnabreac on previous occasions) that Crossrail has to be new services because of the disbenefits that arise if diverting existing services. So what other new services apart from Renfrew could you run through Queen St to Charing Cross? How about doubling frequency on the East Kilbride, Kilmarnock and Neilston lines and running the additional 6tph to Charing Cross? Could the low level line handle another 8tph, turning back west of Charing Cross? You'd need a new chord at Muirhouse to connect the Neilston and EK trains to West St and the City Union line:

Neilston - Central - 2tph
Neilston - Charing X - 2tph
East Kilbride - Central - 2tph
East Kilbride - Charing X - 2tph
Kilmarnock - Central - 2tph
Kilmarnock - Charing X - 2tph
Renfrew - Springburn - 2tph
Renfrew - Charing X - 2tph
Any other possibilities?

Ayrshire/Inverclyde services would interchange at West St for QS/Charing Cross. With 8tph heading that way the waiting time would be minimal.

Don't suppose you'd get much change out of £300m for all that but you'd be adding 10tph to one of the busiest suburban networks in the Uk. Seems good value compared with Borders Rail for example.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Possibly something to do wih those 10,000 people being well spread across the fourth largest island in the British Isles? Although to be fair, a railway to Uig would make a useful railhead for the approximately 20,000 people of Lewis and Harris. Still, if the Victorian engineers and promoters couldn't make a business case, little hope of it happening now.

There is also the issue of maintaining the sea lane out of Loch Alsh (hence the elevation of the road bridge).

A tunnel would be possible over such a short distance, and given the elevation.

And they are spread out, although 70-80% of the population is along that one road, and therefore the best place to put the railway.

 

[Railsigns]

Crossrail isn't all that cheap. Not if it's going to be done well. In addition to the chord and expensive relocation of High Street into the oldest rail tunnel in Glasgow, you've also got Glasgow Cross (including, ideally, an interchange with the Argyle Line, so that's a station above and below ground level), a good interchange at West Street for the Subway, and probably a station at Ibrox too.

I don't have any costings for relocating High Street, but I can't imagine that building a station inside the oldest tunnel in Scotland and underneath the University of Strathclyde is going to be cheap.

I'm confused by this claim, since the line between High Street and Stobcross via Queen Street Low Level station opened as late as 1886, whereas the E&G line into Queen Street High Level station, through the tunnel of the same name, had opened in 1842.

 

[Scotrail84]

If be happy if they sorted Perth-Edinburgh first

What's wrong with it?

 

[Altnabreac]

You'd need a new chord at Muirhouse to connect the Neilston and EK trains to West St and the City Union line.

Don't think that it's possible for a Muirhouse chord to connect to the Cathcart Circle for Neilston trains.

They're on completely different vertical alignments. It really isn't at all simple to connect either Neilston or Newton trains to the City Union Line in any way.

All plans involving the circle therefor usually end up as street running options (technically this is official policy as set out in the Strategic Transport Projects Review).

Crossrail options are realistically Renfrew, Barrhead, EK and Paisley Canal.

The problem for all of the options you either end up with an increased frequency but serving two different terminals or diverting all the services from a destination and extending journey times.

It just isn't easy to make Crossrail work, which is why it never gets off the ground.

 

[clc]

.

The problem for all of the options you either end up with an increased frequency but serving two different terminals or diverting all the services from a destination and extending journey times.
.

Would serving two terminals be a bad thing? I work 5 mins walk from Queen St and 15 mins from Central. I live in the south side but the long walk from Central puts me off so I get the bus instead. If there was a direct train to QS I'd switch to that.

 

[Altnabreac]

Would serving two terminals be a bad thing? I work 5 mins walk from Queen St and 15 mins from Central. I live in the south side but the long walk from Central puts me off so I get the bus instead. If there was a direct train to QS I'd switch to that.

Well there is potential for it being more convenient for some people but it's effectively two separate 2tph services instead of one 4tph service, so you're losing the turn up and go benefit of 4tph while still doubling your running costs.

The question is whether the extra costs would be covered by the limited number of extra people who want to travel to Queen St (slowly).

The business case would almost certainly be better to increase lines to 4tph on the same route but divert another route entirely to create this capacity (while also increasing frequency).

At present this seems most likely to be via street running of Neilston/Newton/Circle trains to create capacity at Central. Where they run to beyond Central is unclear but you'd probably have 8-10 tph or so assuming frequency increases so Maryhill is a slight capacity mismatch.

 

[me123]

I'm confused by this claim, since the line between High Street and Stobcross via Queen Street Low Level station opened as late as 1886, whereas the E&G line into Queen Street High Level station, through the tunnel of the same name, had opened in 1842.

Hmm... was probably thinking that the oldest underground railway in Glasgow is what we now know as the North Clyde Line through Queen Street LL. Perhaps I've been a bit over-enthuiastic in my claims!

Regardless, it's an old tunnel.

Would serving two terminals be a bad thing? I work 5 mins walk from Queen St and 15 mins from Central. I live in the south side but the long walk from Central puts me off so I get the bus instead. If there was a direct train to QS I'd switch to that.

I don't think it's the case that serving two terminals is in any way bad. On the contrary, it's quite good. I used to live in Coatbridge I'm sorry to say, and it was actually quite handy having the option of the Whifflet or North Clyde lines to Central HL (as it was then) and Queen Street LL respectively (I had the particular benefit of being about equidistant from both).

The "problem" with two terminals is that you're not necessarily going to divide the flow evenly between the two routes. Let's take EK. It currently has lots of demand, and can justify 4tph to Central in the peaks. However, if EK had to divide between Central and Queen Street, you'd probably find that the customers are going to preferentially choose Central, because that's the way they've always gone and because people will have adjusted to commuting to Central, for example by choosing jobs closer to Central station. Furthermore, I suspect that the QS service would be perceived to be slower with more stops, and potentially a less attractive option.

If we were to change this to 2tph Central 2tph QS, you're not going to guarantee that the flow is divided evenly between the two. I'm sure that a direct service to QS, High Street and Charing Cross would benefit plenty of people. But if in doing this you change the 4tph to Central in the peaks to 2tph, you run the risk of the Central trains being overcrowded, necessitating the need to go back to 4tph to Central.

Plus, one of the difficulties of this is that it's more difficult to simply turn up at the station and get on the next train. If you're trying to get a train home from Central with 4tph, you can turn up and get on the next one. But with two to each station, you have to stop and think which one to go to, e.g. it leaves Central at xx:10, then QS at xx:22 - people then have to think about which one to go to, making it unnecessarily complicated. (Can I make the Central train, or should I go to QS? But if I miss the Central train I'm stuck until xx:40, etc). The North Clyde Line to the West avoids this to some degree by allowing an easy interchange at Partick, but I can't see an equivalent station here.

I'm not saying that using both stations is a bad idea, but I think it would have to be done carefully. And I don't think that EK is the best choice, given that it already has 4tph to GLC in the peaks (that are pretty well loaded).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It just isn't easy to make Crossrail work, which is why it never gets off the ground.

I completely agree. I suspect that there are lots of people who would enthusiastically promote the scheme, however ask them to endure a longer journey with more stops (and possibly a reversal) and they'll complain that their train is no longer as good.

One thing I've just thought about as well - I've never actually been on the City Union Line as a passenger (I suspect few have - I think only railtours have used the route in recent years?) but I'm pretty sure you'll be able to see Central HL from the line. Isn't that going to be attractive to Paisley Canal punters (for example)?

"And if you look to your left, there's the architecturally stunning big mainline station you used to get to go to, with great links for onward travel to the South. You don't get to go there any more. We're now going to spend 10 minutes crawling through the East End, dumping you into the bowels of Queen Street station. Please ensure that you take your luggage and personal belongings with you when leaving the train."

 

[tranzitjim]

Would it be time to enlarge the tunnels for the Glasgow Underground, so at least you shall have trains of a decent size operating within them.

Would the current crossrail proposal compete much with the Glasgow Underground?

You could then better connect the city with the suburbs by having existing above ground trains operate in a circle before heading out again, and do so via the current underground route.

 

[adrock1976]

I would like to mention that in some of the comments referring the City Union Line (Shields Road to Bellgrove section) does not run through the east end.

Glasgow Cross and its environs started out (and is) as the historic centre of Glasgow when the city was founded in medieval times, hence the name of Glasgow Cross.

The true east end of the city is the present day postcode areas of G31 to G34 (formerly E1 to E4 when Glasgow experimented with compass point postcodes). Glasgow Cross and High Street lies in the G1 and G4 postcode area (former C1 and C4 - the "C" being a shorthand for Central) with West Street and Cumberland Street being in G5 (former C5).

In peace

Adam

 

[Altnabreac]

The worrying thing for me, however, is the upcoming opening of South Glasgow University Hospital later this year, which will see services transferred from the Victoria Infirmary, Western General and the Gartnaval Hospitals. Access to the Southern General hospital is currently dire, being solely provided by slow bus services. My experience of these services is that they tend to get cut back just about every time I go to use them.

Journey times to the City Centre are in excess of 30mins on a slow bus taking you on a tour of Govan Services to Partick have been cut back from over 6 buses an hour to just two, with no onward connections to the rest of the West End (for whom this is going to be their local hospital). And NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde's parking policy means that improved public transport is going to be needed for staff and visitors alike (according to NHSGGC, parking your car at work is considered gross misconduct). I have yet to see any plans for this to come to fruition.

This is why I would argue that a Fastlink Tram would be the ideal solution. I would suggest the following route:

George Square (for Queen Street Station/Buchanan Street Subway) - Buchanan Street - Gordon Street - Hope Street - Broomielaw (off road) - SECC/Hydro - Riverside Museum/Yorkhill - Partick Interchange - Govan (via a new bridge) - South Glasgow University Hospital - Braehead - (several stops in Renfrew) - Glasgow Airport (via new bridge over the Whitecart Water).

This fills a few needs I think:

• Glasgow Central - Queen Street direct link
• Access to the Clydeside regeneration area
• Fast, frequent access to South Glasgow Univerity Hospital
• Link from South Glasgow University Hospital and other Southside ammenities to the West End, via a connection at Partick Interchange
• A link from Braehead Shopping Centre & Leisure Complex to both the West End and City Centre
• Fast, frequent service from Renfrew to the City Centre
• A modern and frequent link to Glasgow Airport; From the City Centre, West End and South Side.

Connections to and from other parts of the city could be made at:

• Glasgow Queen Street (rail)
• Buchanan Street Subway
• Glasgow Central (rail)
• Partick Interchange (rail, bus, subway)
• Govan (bus, subway)

Which, between them, actually covers the city pretty well.

I think this idea has a lot of merit and serves the right areas of the city that need new transport links (especially the South Glasgow University Hospital).

I'm on record as suggesting a similar route as a tunneled heavy rail alignment linking the Glasgow - Paisley corridor at Hillingdon to Springburn / Cowlairs with stations at:

• South Glasgow University Hospital
• Govan (bus, subway)
• Clydeside regeneration area / SECC
• Glasgow Central (rail)
• Cathedral / GRI / Townhead (rail - walking interchange to High St)

This would obviously be a much more expensive solution but would provide a step change in capacity increase at Central (by diverting virtually all Ayrshire and Inverclyde services into the tunnel) and at Queen St High Level (by diverting most central belt services into the tunnel leaving only Aberdeen / Inverness etc at Queen St.

I don't think something like this is likely to happen to be honest but I'd prefer a proper step change increase solution like this to a still expensive but tinkering round the edges solution like Crossrail or tram.

 

[SignalSighting]

Never mind your Glasgow Crossrail, Garngad Chord, Cathcart Circle tram-trains etc... I would like to see proper investment in rail outside the Central Belt. Not just a train shaped plant pot here and a new footbridge there but decent money being spent to improve the network. Laurencekirk station was a good start but when you look at the billions being ploughed into EGIP then it's clear the rail nework outside the Central Belt gets next to nothing. The planned resignalling of the Aberdeen Inverness line will save NR a bit of money in the long run but it doesn't encourage passenger growth or improve the travelling experience.

 

[SkinnyDave]

What's wrong with it?

You have to ask?

 

[Scotrail84]

You have to ask?

Yes, hourly service. What more do you want?

 

[SkinnyDave]

And how long does said hourly service take?

 

[Scotrail84]

80 minutes give or take. Would be longer if they throw in the intermediate stations as stops.

 

[SkinnyDave]

80 minutes give or take. Would be longer if they throw in the intermediate stations as stops.

Exactly far too long a journey for such an important corridor, they should be investing in bringing the original route back between the two cities thus decreasing journey times and to Inverness, instead of faffing about with Crossrail ideas which will never come to fruition.

 

[Scotrail84]

Exactly far too long a journey for such an important corridor, they should be investing in bringing the original route back between the two cities thus decreasing journey times and to Inverness, instead of faffing about with Crossrail ideas which will never come to fruition.

No chance of the original route going back in. The track bed has been long lost to the M90 amongst other things.

What do you propose they do?

 

[SkinnyDave]

They looked at it recently again and debated it in parliament but as per usual cost was the issue

Nothing is impossible if there is political will to sort it! Scotrail themselves do best they can and HSTs coming in etc should help but this is a government issue there is life outside the Central belt

 

[clc]

The worrying thing for me, however, is the upcoming opening of South Glasgow University Hospital later this year, which will see services transferred from the Victoria Infirmary, Western General and the Gartnaval Hospitals. Access to the Southern General hospital is currently dire, being solely provided by slow bus services.
.

Considering the huge cost of the new hospital (£850m) and the fact that it will employ 10,000 people it seems absurd that public transport provision will be decided solely by privately owned bus companies.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think it's the case that serving two terminals is in any way bad. On the contrary, it's quite good. I used to live in Coatbridge I'm sorry to say, and it was actually quite handy having the option of the Whifflet or North Clyde lines to Central HL (as it was then) and Queen Street LL respectively (I had the particular benefit of being about equidistant from both).

The "problem" with two terminals is that you're not necessarily going to divide the flow evenly between the two routes. Let's take EK. It currently has lots of demand, and can justify 4tph to Central in the peaks. However, if EK had to divide between Central and Queen Street, you'd probably find that the customers are going to preferentially choose Central, because that's the way they've always gone and because people will have adjusted to commuting to Central, for example by choosing jobs closer to Central station. Furthermore, I suspect that the QS service would be perceived to be slower with more stops, and potentially a less attractive option.

If we were to change this to 2tph Central 2tph QS, you're not going to guarantee that the flow is divided evenly between the two. I'm sure that a direct service to QS, High Street and Charing Cross would benefit plenty of people. But if in doing this you change the 4tph to Central in the peaks to 2tph, you run the risk of the Central trains being overcrowded, necessitating the need to go back to 4tph to Central.

Plus, one of the difficulties of this is that it's more difficult to simply turn up at the station and get on the next train. If you're trying to get a train home from Central with 4tph, you can turn up and get on the next one. But with two to each station, you have to stop and think which one to go to, e.g. it leaves Central at xx:10, then QS at xx:22 - people then have to think about which one to go to, making it unnecessarily complicated. (Can I make the Central train, or should I go to QS? But if I miss the Central train I'm stuck until xx:40, etc). The North Clyde Line to the West avoids this to some degree by allowing an easy interchange at Partick, but I can't see an equivalent station here.

I'm not saying that using both stations is a bad idea, but I think it would have to be done carefully. And I don't think that EK is the best choice, given that it already has 4tph to GLC in the peaks (that are pretty well loaded).

If the Busby-EK section was double tracked could the line handle 6tph during the peak (4tph to Central plus 2tph to Charing X)?

The Charing X trains (peak and off peak) could skip several stops, namely Pollokshaws West, Crossmyloof, Gorbals and High St. The Barrhead-Charing X services would call at these stations so they wouldn't lose out. A skip stop EK-Queen St service might only be 5-6 mins longer than typical EK-Central services.

I take the point that you wouldn't get the benefit of turn up and go. Hopefully this would be offset by the benefits of taking many people closer to their destination thereby reducing walking time/effort.

 

[deltic08]

No chance of the original route going back in. The track bed has been long lost to the M90 amongst other things.

What do you propose they do?

Last time I travelled the M90 in September was on the top deck of a shuttle bus from Gleneagles Ryder Cup. I was able to have a really good look here with reinstatement in mind.

Not much of the total route is lost to the M90. A mile at the former Glenfarg station and a mile of Glenfarg bank just to the north of Glenfarg tunnel.

Rock was removed at Falahill for construction aggregate on Borders railway and the quarry infilled afterwards. Why not create a long thin quarry at former Glenfarg station for construction aggregate but lay rails along it instead of filling it in!!! Simples.

Glenfarg bank would be a more complicated solution having to tunnel under or bridge over the M90.

The current journey time from Edinburgh to Perth by train is far too long by either route to be competitive/attractive. Edinburgh-Perth should be no longer than Edinburgh-Glasgow of similar length.

 

[me123]

Considering the huge cost of the new hospital (£850m) and the fact that it will employ 10,000 people it seems absurd that public transport provision will be decided solely by privately owned bus companies.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


If the Busby-EK section was double tracked could the line handle 6tph during the peak (4tph to Central plus 2tph to Charing X)?

The Charing X trains (peak and off peak) could skip several stops, namely Pollokshaws West, Crossmyloof, Gorbals and High St. The Barrhead-Charing X services would call at these stations so they wouldn't lose out. A skip stop EK-Queen St service might only be 5-6 mins longer than typical EK-Central services.

I take the point that you wouldn't get the benefit of turn up and go. Hopefully this would be offset by the benefits of taking many people closer to their destination thereby reducing walking time/effort.

It is, of course, possible that having two termini will create new journey opportunities, and if EK was to go to 6tph then perhaps that would be excellent for rail users.

However, I am wary that, in general, one route will always win out. Look at Edinburgh to Glasgow. Whilst trains between EDI and GLC are now very competitive for quite a few people (since the Shotts expresses and increased Motherwell frequency came along), particularly those making a transfer at Central, a lot of passengers still go via Queen Street and walk across to Central for their connecting train.

As for the public transport to the Southern General... it's up to First Bus and McGill's (and anyone else, if they wanted to expand into the area). It's not really on that bus passengers are totally at the mercy of the private companies, and I would argue that there needs to be much better regulation to provide essential services, such as services to hospitals in Glasgow, where parking is universally abysmal. If you've ever been to the Southern at the moment, you'll find parked cars on the streets all around the hospital, and a shiny new multi-story car park that's only 10% full. There's a mismatch between the NHS, who try to encourage use of public transport, and the bus companies who'd rather be shuttling old ladies to the shops at the expense of the taxpayer. I'd argue that operating a rail-like model for franchising out some essential bus routes would be a good thing to ensure that these services are operated to the needs of the users, and not just

First bus have spent the last few years cutting back services, particularly to the Southern General. Since I've last worked there, the service from Partick has been cut from 5 bph to just two, for example. And McGill's buses to the city centre were 1) often delayed by issues out to the West 2) frequently overcrowded when they were late and 3) took you on a magical mystery tour of the back streets of Govan. And the service becomes almost skeletal in the early evening; with NHS staff often finishing between 7-9pm at night, how are they expected to get home?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The current journey time from Edinburgh to Perth by train is far too long by either route to be competitive/attractive. Edinburgh-Perth should be no longer than Edinburgh-Glasgow of similar length.

An additional benefit would be reducing journey time to Inverness, hence improving traffic on the A9 (although the A9 will definitely be dualled before any of this comes to fruition).

Perhaps, though, a faster route through Fife would solve not only this problem, but also make the Aberdeen - Edinburgh trains faster and more competitive? Most of these trains already run non-stop Haymarket - Leuchars.

 

[deltic08]

Perhaps, though, a faster route through Fife would solve not only this problem, but also make the Aberdeen - Edinburgh trains faster and more competitive? Most of these trains already run non-stop Haymarket - Leuchars.

I am surprised any trains pass through Inverkeithing or Kirkcaldy without stopping.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I would like to see Neiston-Lugton reinstated with trains extended to Kilmarnock through Uplawmoor.

Only 50 yards of the trackbed has been lost to a new road crossing at grade on the outskirts of Neilston so should not cost megabucks but the business case would probably be weak.

 

[Buttsy]

It has always seemed to me that when the major closures occurred in the 60s and opportunity was missed to focus most of Glasgow's rail services on one station (the exception being the Airdrie/Springburn line. With sufficient will, most services south of the river could have been focussed on St Enoch with the additional of a few additional curves to connect with the City Union line. A further connection from the bridge over the Clyde to St Enoch and connecting with the south of the station would have allowed a circular suburban service for Greenock, Newton & Cathcart circle lines.

Services from the north could have run into an expanded north side (same number of platforms as Queen Street), running via Springburn to gain the current routes and Bellgrove being the connecting station for the North Clyde lines.

With the opening of the Argyle line, Argyle Street would have been the interchange station.

Wishful thinking, but would have linked up Glasgow better than the current arrangements.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I would like to see Neilston-Lugton reinstated with trains extended to Kilmarnock through Uplawmoor. Only 50 yards of the trackbed has been lost to a new road crossing at grade on the outskirts of Neilston so should not cost megabucks but the business case would probably be weak.

Not being totally au fait with the actualities of the area, it appears from what my historical researches as part of running the Closed Stations Journey quiz that two former railway companies had lines with stations in the area of Lugton and that one of these lines had the now-demolished Gree Viaduct upon it:-

Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway
Lugton High...Opened in May 1903 and closed in July 1932 (83 years ago)

Glasgow, Barrhead and Kilmarnock Joint Railway
Lugton...Opened in March 1871 and closed in 1966 (49 years ago)

 

[me123]

I am surprised any trains pass through Inverkeithing or Kirkcaldy without stopping.

It's now common throughout the day that Edinburgh-Aberdeen services run non-stop between Leuchars and Haymarket. (In fact, at least one runs non-stop Haymarket to Dundee!). Local stops are largely taken over by the Edinburgh - Perth service, as well as a new hourly Edinburgh - Dundee semi-fast run.

 

[Scotrail12]

Here's what I would do:
- Run trains as normal from Central and QST LL.
- Add a new line between Charing Cross and Cardonald with stops at West Street and Bellahouston Park and it would then become part of the Inverclyde/ Ayrshire Coast Line.
- Close Charing Cross Station for rebuilding, make it a more pleasant place to catch a train and build a new station concourse and Crossrail platforms.
- West Street Subway would also close for rebuilding of a new interchange station so there would be a quick change of train if you wanted to travel from, say; Shettleston to Cathcart.
- Then at the end:
2tph- Glasgow Central to Ayr
2tph- Edinburgh Waverley to Ayr
2tph- Glasgow Central to Ardrossan Harbour
2tph- Glasgow Central to Largs
1tph- Glasgow Central to Wemmys Bay (2tph at Peak)
1tph- Glasgow Central to Gourock (fast)
1tph- Glasgow Central to Gourock (all stations)
1tph- Cumbernauld to Gourock (all stations)
It would take time, but it would work.

 

[clc]

Just going back to the issue of increased journey times if diverting services via the City Union line to Queen St LL, I was reading SPT's Memorandum in support of the original GARL (as you do) and it stated the journey time to Central would be 15 mins compared with 21 mins for Queen St LL via the City Union line. So if diverted services were run skip stop so that they had the same number of stops as services to Central the journey time to QS LL would only be 6 mins longer than to Central, which isn't that much.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Another factor which we haven't mentioned is the redevelopment of Queen St station. In 5 years it will be bigger and the passenger experience will be much improved. It will also be linked to a massive new shopping centre extension in such a way that, as well as direct access to the centre itself, passengers will be able to walk from the concourse to Sauchiehall St, Cathedral St and Killermont St (for Bus station) via covered walkways and escalators. All this will add to the appeal of the Queen St option.