Expansions for Scotland's rail network proposed

[Stopper]

I like the way they carefully don't mention the loss of cross-falkirk local service.

I know of someone that regularly travels Larbert-Polmont, taking an e-bike with him. Having to change, even with the same-platform change, will be a pain for him. Driving isn't an option for medical reasons and there aren't buses that will get him between his actual start and finish in any sensible way

I previously commuted Linlithgow to Stirling, and I still travel there once or twice a week for meetings. I know plenty of other commuters that do this same journey every day, as well as some that travel to Larbert. A change and sizeable wait at Grahamston is pushing myself, and likely many other commuters from Linlithgow and Polmont to the car. That’s before you get to the fact that E-G services are still full and standing....and nothing much has been improved at all.

 

[Altnabreac]

A new terminus will have to happen if they want to expand as there's no room at Central or QS. The distance between St Enoch and central isn't far.

It's a case of invest and expand or do nothing.

Build a tunnel underneath the city centre, linking services that currently run into Central and QS clears space at both termini. There would be a single underground station with pedestrian access to both of them to make changing trains easier. Much more sensible that rebuilding a station closed in the 1960s and dividing services between three termini.

Why not go the whole hog - build a station in the tunnel and shut Queen Street?

Depends on the cost I suppose, but there'll always be a need to terminate long distance trains from the north in the city centre.

The proposed long term solution to capacity issues at both Central and Queen Street is likely to be a tunnel with a city centre station.

Central and Queen Street are too close together to justify two stations and too far apart for them to be linked by one underground station. It is therefore likely to be a single station underground at Central.

You wouldn't close Queen Street though as it would still be needed for the long distance services to Dundee / Aberdeen / Inverness and West Highland Line services.

 

[adrock1976]

A medium term capacity solution for Glasgow Central would be for Glasgow to bring back trams.

Phase 1 could be a brand new route from running something like Queen Street - Central - Broomielaw - Clyde Arc Bridge (make use of the bus lanes, being as no bus services use it) - Pacific Quay - Govan Cross (interchange with underground) - New Southern General Hospital - Braehead Centre - Renfrew Cross - Glasgow International Airport - Abbotsinch - Love Street - Paisley Gilmour Street - Paisley Cross - Canal Station - Royal Alexandra Hospital.

Phase 2 - convert the Cathcart and Neilston lines to tram operation to enable a Queen Street - Central - Bridge Street - West Street - then rejoining the existing alignment somewhere near Eglinton Toll.

For the design, construction, and conversions, I would recommend bringing in the people from Manchester, as they are the experts and would ensure that it is done properly within reasonable timescales and a reasonable budget.

 

[Altnabreac]

A medium term capacity solution for Glasgow Central would be for Glasgow to bring back trams.

Phase 1 could be a brand new route from running something like Queen Street - Central - Broomielaw - Clyde Arc Bridge (make use of the bus lanes, being as no bus services use it) - Pacific Quay - Govan Cross (interchange with underground) - New Southern General Hospital - Braehead Centre - Renfrew Cross - Glasgow International Airport - Abbotsinch - Love Street - Paisley Gilmour Street - Paisley Cross - Canal Station - Royal Alexandra Hospital.

Phase 2 - convert the Cathcart and Neilston lines to tram operation to enable a Queen Street - Central - Bridge Street - West Street - then rejoining the existing alignment somewhere near Eglinton Toll.

For the design, construction, and conversions, I would recommend bringing in the people from Manchester, as they are the experts and would ensure that it is done properly within reasonable timescales and a reasonable budget.

Once Cathcart and Neilston commuters get 385s they aren't going to be keen to see them replaced by trams I suspect.

 

[GrimShady]

The proposed long term solution to capacity issues at both Central and Queen Street is likely to be a tunnel with a city centre station.

Central and Queen Street are too close together to justify two stations and too far apart for them to be linked by one underground station. It is therefore likely to be a single station underground at Central.

You wouldn't close Queen Street though as it would still be needed for the long distance services to Dundee / Aberdeen / Inverness and West Highland Line services.

An underground station won't be cheap at all. The better solution is to expand Central Low Level to its former glory or a new St Enoch.

 

[Altnabreac]

An underground station won't be cheap at all. The better solution is to expand Central Low Level to its former glory or a new St Enoch.

Not cheap but it is the only solution that works to resolve issues at both Queen Street and Central and fully links the two sides of the Glasgow network together.

 

[InOban]

The replacement Kerse Road Bridge will open on Friday 19th, a few days earlier than originally planned.

 

[Southsider]

An underground station won't be cheap at all. The better solution is to expand Central Low Level to its former glory or a new St Enoch.

Two problems with Central low level.
Even expanded to its original size it would be no where near big enough
It runs at 90 degrees to what is required.

 

[snookertam]

I think if Glasgow 's transport networks were to expand then I agree with others that there's not necessarily an inexpensive solution. However I'd be amazed if there was any thought given to a new terminal station. Any expansion in the city centre would have to be accompanied with expansion elsewhere (eg. new routes radiating from the city) and I'm not sure about that happening any time soon either.

The most likely, and IMO realistic expansion in Glasgow may be increasing service frequencies on certain routes - that would on certain routes need resignalling to increase capacity. That might be done without the need to increase platform occupation at the major terminii, otherwise options may include a crossrail type set up using a through service across the city union, and/or an increase of services through Central LL and bringing into use the old platforms. Another potential option could be to bring some of the old tunnels into use. One such tunnel many of you will be aware of runs from the Argyle Line at Exhibition Centre, under Kelvingrove Park and then Great Western Road, and so could be used in connection with any expansion of services through Central LL.

A side effect of a City Union based project could be increased frequencies elsewhere. So for example, if the EK and GBK routes could be connected back up to the City Union, a side effect would be the ability to increase frequencies on the Cathcart lines into GLC with more paths through Muirhouse.

So there are options there and possibly the need to consider how the authorities deal cater for any future expansion. I'd just be amazed if it involved any new major terminal station in the City Centre. Any CU based project would also have the issue of diverting away from Central which could be a difficult sell for people. Expansion doesn't always mean more platforms, stations or routes, it could just be more intensive use of the existing network (if it was possible) and I think that is likely to be the way that things develop.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I think if Glasgow 's transport networks were to expand then I agree with others that there's not necessarily an inexpensive solution. However I'd be amazed if there was any thought given to a new terminal station. Any expansion in the city centre would have to be accompanied with expansion elsewhere (eg. new routes radiating from the city) and I'm not sure about that happening any time soon either.

The most likely, and IMO realistic expansion in Glasgow may be increasing service frequencies on certain routes - that would on certain routes need resignalling to increase capacity. That might be done without the need to increase platform occupation at the major terminii, otherwise options may include a crossrail type set up using a through service across the city union, and/or an increase of services through Central LL and bringing into use the old platforms. Another potential option could be to bring some of the old tunnels into use. One such tunnel many of you will be aware of runs from the Argyle Line at Exhibition Centre, under Kelvingrove Park and then Great Western Road, and so could be used in connection with any expansion of services through Central LL.

A side effect of a City Union based project could be increased frequencies elsewhere. So for example, if the EK and GBK routes could be connected back up to the City Union, a side effect would be the ability to increase frequencies on the Cathcart lines into GLC with more paths through Muirhouse.

So there are options there and possibly the need to consider how the authorities deal cater for any future expansion. I'd just be amazed if it involved any new major terminal station in the City Centre. Any CU based project would also have the issue of diverting away from Central which could be a difficult sell for people. Expansion doesn't always mean more platforms, stations or routes, it could just be more intensive use of the existing network (if it was possible) and I think that is likely to be the way that things develop.

More intensive use of the existing network isn't really a solution when the primary bottleneck is capacity at Central and Queen Street. That's where passengers want to go, so adding extra trains which don't go there doesn't really solve any problems. Passenger loadings on new or reopened routes are more suited for a light rail than a heavy solution.

 

[clc]

The cross city tunnel ticks all boxes. The cost would be huge but the Scottish Government has pledged to increase infrastructure spending by £1.5 billion per annum by 2026. The A9 dualling project will be complete by then and the next mega project can begin.

 

[Clansman]

You could argue that a new St.Enoch would help free up capacity by integrating Intercity services away from Central and Queen Street and instead into the same interchange, by the time HSR is built up here.

 

[Stewart2887]

Build another tram network in Scotland.? Really? Ask anyone in Edinburgh..

 

[clc]

Build another tram network in Scotland.? Really? Ask anyone in Edinburgh..

Edinburgh trams are proving very popular and an extension looks likely to be approved in December.

 

[adrock1976]

Build another tram network in Scotland.? Really? Ask anyone in Edinburgh..

That's why I have always said to get the people from Manchester who designed, constructed, and converted the Metrolink as they are the experts.

 

[GrimShady]

That's why I have always said to get the people from Manchester who designed, constructed, and converted the Metrolink as they are the experts.

Trams would be wonderful, they worked for the Victorians, they can work again.

Maybe in concert with reopening the old Glasgow Central Railway via Botanic Gardens.

 

[clc]

Trams would be wonderful, they worked for the Victorians, they can work again.

Maybe in concert with reopening the old Glasgow Central Railway via Botanic Gardens.

I’d like to see it reopened but the flat junctions at Exhibition Centre would probably limit you to 2tph to Botanics. If you want a metro service one possibility would be to close the Argyle line between Exhibition Centre and Partick and divert existing services via Queen St low level. You could then convert the Argyle line to metro, reopen Parkhead and Botanics and build a new line to Whiteinch. Huge cost but you’d have a high frequency metro service with 14-16tph through Central LL and 14tph through Queen St LL.

 

[JohnR]

That's why I have always said to get the people from Manchester who designed, constructed, and converted the Metrolink as they are the experts.

It always struck me that there seemed to be a determination in Edinburgh to NOT get in expertise from elsewhere in the UK (Manchester, Nottingham, even Sheffield), and go it alone. Whether that was a "We know better" attitude I dont know, it it seemed to be the obvious solution, especially after the first signs of trouble.

 

[Grinner]

The area served by the Glasgow Central Railway is perfectly well served by the Subway, and re-opening it does nothing for relieving pressure on Queen Street and Central Stations. I prefer a solution based on a new tunnel under the city centre rather than re-opening old railways just because they are there.

 

[Altnabreac]

I like the way they carefully don't mention the loss of cross-falkirk local service.

I know of someone that regularly travels Larbert-Polmont, taking an e-bike with him. Having to change, even with the same-platform change, will be a pain for him. Driving isn't an option for medical reasons and there aren't buses that will get him between his actual start and finish in any sensible way

I previously commuted Linlithgow to Stirling, and I still travel there once or twice a week for meetings. I know plenty of other commuters that do this same journey every day, as well as some that travel to Larbert. A change and sizeable wait at Grahamston is pushing myself, and likely many other commuters from Linlithgow and Polmont to the car. That’s before you get to the fact that E-G services are still full and standing....and nothing much has been improved at all.

There has been some discussion on the HST thread about the new service pattern including a link to a presentation given by Scotrail to TACTRAN (who are of course the Transport Partnership covering the Stirling council area).
https://www.tactran.gov.uk/cms-assets/2018 09 25 Item 5 ScotRail Presentation.pdf

This is a very interesting document and it makes clear that there are losers as well as winners:

A minority of journeys are poorer under the new timetable structure:

• Dunblane express
• Broughty Ferry to Perth & Glasgow – will be addressed during 2019
• Carnoustie to Aberdeen – will be improved during 2019
• Gleneagles to Edinburgh – will be improved during 2019
• Stirling to Polmont & Linlithgow

There are also some numbers specifically about journeys from Polmont and Linlithgow to Larbert / Stirling / Dunblane.

The following journey pairs appear in the Top 10 for each station shown:
POLMONT - STIRLING Annual Journeys 37,930 Daily Journeys 120
STIRLING - LINLITHGOW Annual Journeys 26,783 Daily Journeys 85
LARBERT - LINLITHGOW Annual Journeys 7,370 Daily Journeys 23
BRIDGE OF ALLAN - LINLITHGOW Annual Journeys 3,342 Daily Journeys 11

So we can see there are people seeing a slower service as a result of the change.

Ultimately however we can see why the choice that has been made and the reasons that justify it when we see the cumulative impact on customers:
c5,000 daily journeys between Stirling area and Edinburgh are 10-15min faster. Impact on c300 journeys per day

16 times more people benefit from the faster journey times between Stirling and Edinburgh than lose out from extended journeys on the Linlithgow - Stirling corridor. Even if no-one uses the services from Stepps / Gartcosh / Cumbernauld to Edinburgh (unlikely) and even if there is no benefit for travellers from Falkirk Grahamston who have service frequency doubled to Edinburgh with 50% of those services running faster than before (again very unlikely) then it appears the decision is reasonable just based on those numbers.

It is unfortunate for Linlithgow - Stirling customers but I can see why this decision has been made for the greater good.

 

[route101]

Im sure there will be custom going from Greenfaulds/Cumbernauld to Edinburgh instead of Croy .

Is there any plans to refurbish Glasgow Central Low Level?

 

[route:oxford]

There has been some discussion on the HST thread about the new service pattern including a link to a presentation given by Scotrail to TACTRAN (who are of course the Transport Partnership covering the Stirling council area).
https://www.tactran.gov.uk/cms-assets/2018 09 25 Item 5 ScotRail Presentation.pdf

This is a very interesting document and it makes clear that there are losers as well as winners:



There are also some numbers specifically about journeys from Polmont and Linlithgow to Larbert / Stirling / Dunblane.

The following journey pairs appear in the Top 10 for each station shown:
POLMONT - STIRLING Annual Journeys 37,930 Daily Journeys 120
STIRLING - LINLITHGOW Annual Journeys 26,783 Daily Journeys 85
LARBERT - LINLITHGOW Annual Journeys 7,370 Daily Journeys 23
BRIDGE OF ALLAN - LINLITHGOW Annual Journeys 3,342 Daily Journeys 11

So we can see there are people seeing a slower service as a result of the change.

Ultimately however we can see why the choice that has been made and the reasons that justify it when we see the cumulative impact on customers:
c5,000 daily journeys between Stirling area and Edinburgh are 10-15min faster. Impact on c300 journeys per day

16 times more people benefit from the faster journey times between Stirling and Edinburgh than lose out from extended journeys on the Linlithgow - Stirling corridor. Even if no-one uses the services from Stepps / Gartcosh / Cumbernauld to Edinburgh (unlikely) and even if there is no benefit for travellers from Falkirk Grahamston who have service frequency doubled to Edinburgh with 50% of those services running faster than before (again very unlikely) then it appears the decision is reasonable just based on those numbers.

It is unfortunate for Linlithgow - Stirling customers but I can see why this decision has been made for the greater good.

It's not so good for Dunblane to Edinburgh commuters either.

For years there has been 3 trains from DBL to EDI between 07:00 and 08:00. This has been slashed to just one which arrives at 08:45. Hopeless.

 

[och aye]

Not to be rude, but some of these posts aren't really relevant to the thread title.

Perhaps a new thread could be created in the Timetables sub-forum?

https://www.railforums.co.uk/forums/allocations-diagrams-timetables.44/

 

[Stopper]

Majority of people use Croy instead of Cumbernauld/Greenfaulds because of it's faster journey times to Glasgow, not just because of the better frequency and trains to Edinburgh. Even when Cumbernauld gets the same frequency as Croy, the journey times will remain much slower, added to the fact it's in a terrible location, and Croy will remain the far busier station, meaning that the new Cumbernauld services are almost pointless.

The entire Dunblane/Cumbernauld timetabling has been an absolute disaster, there are a lot of points to made against the changes.

— Dunblane-Larbert going from 3tph to 1tph towards Edinburgh between 7am and 8am
— Camelon seeing an unnecessary 4tph to Edinburgh
— Polmont and Linlithgow seeing Larbert, Stirling & Dunblane links cut replaced in favour of a magical mystery tour train round Cumbernauld, which nobody needs or wants
— Linlithgow remaining at 4tph towards Edinburgh is going backwards in the current climate, given how busy it is
— Dunblane services will likely be 6 coaches in the long run, which is unnecessary given the removal of 2 of the busiest stops, and those 2 stops (Linlithgow & Polmont) will likely be left with 3 or 4 car 385s, hardly increasing capacity.
— Cross Falkirk links broken
— An extra 2tph (now 12tph) through Newbridge Junction, meaning more trains held there every morning, ruining the problem electrification was supposed to fix
— Long journey times on the Cumbernauld services likely to result in skip-stopping, meaning less reliability for Linlithgow & Polmont commuters

All of these are very valid points, and while there are a few points that could be argued the other way, I don't see the argument FOR this timetable change, which is rightly being derided by commuters.

 

[InOban]

Where is the proposed timetable posted? Then we can argue it on its own thread.

 

[Stopper]

If the mods want to move the last few posts to the timetable change thread, then that would be better.

 

[yorkie]

If the mods want to move the last few posts to the timetable change thread, then that would be better.

It would be much better if people can please post in the correct thread. If anyone spots someone going off topic, please reply in the correct thread (or make a new one if there isn't one already) and alert us to the off topic posts by reporting them.

Please do not contact moderators within threads; use the report button at the bottom of each post instead. If a report is submitted with a list of posts to move, and a proposed thread to move them into, we will consider the request.

This thread is to discuss the proposed expansions for Scotland's rail network. Thanks

 

[Hackneyite]

Am I right that Polmont/Linlithgow will get 4tph to Glasgow? Seems like progress to me!

 

[Stopper]

Am I right that Polmont/Linlithgow will get 4tph to Glasgow? Seems like progress to me!

Yes, however 2tph of those will go a long way round via Cumbernauld, and nobody will use them to travel to Glasgow as the shuttles will overtake them. The complete opposite of progress.

 

[InOban]

Not the opposite of progress, that would mean that the service was worse than came before. Already (failures excepted) the trains have higher capacity, and this will further increase when the QS rebuild is complete. And the trains will be faster, just not more frequent.