Future demand for services bypassing Glasgow

[Senex]

The core of the Caledonian Railway infrastructure, when viewed on a map, seems to be designed for trains to bypass Glasgow by way of Coatbridge. The Mossend route is built to as high an infrastructure standard, if not one higher than, the Cambuslang route. 4 service patterns for long-distance trains stand out:

1. Left at Motherwell, via Uddingston, Cambuslang and Rutherglen, into Central (which nearly everything from the south does today)
2. Right at Motherwell, via Mossend and Coatbridge Central, into Buchanan Street (of questionable use as Buchanan Street only had 6 platforms. The modern equivalent since the St Rollox alignment was closed would augment this with a right turn at Sighthill to enter Queen Street by way of Springburn, best avoided as this probably isn't the best use of capacity in the narrow tunnel)
3. Right at Motherwell, via Mossend, Coatbridge Central and Cumbernauld, missing Glasgow entirely (plenty of trains used to do this, now next to none)
4. Right at Glenboig into Buchanan Street (now via Springburn into Queen Street. Believe it or not, some of these reverse to platforms [8/9] so as not to use up tunnel capacity)

Remember that the original Caledonian main-line route into Glasgow was the route through Mossend and Coatbridge to Buchanan Street (and not through the present Motherwell station).

 

[Clansman]

I see no demand for this really, unless London is involved. So a Clansman-type service, running from Stirling to Motherwell (calls at both and Cumbernauld), Lockerbie, Carlisle and fast stops to London, maybe just Preston and Crewe. Early departing Inverness etc.

To Carlisle alone is not worthwhile, it's a nowhere place and people don't want to change on very long journeys like this, and Manchester alone might not be enough demand. As it would be split with Lancs and Liverpool, and other places. Birmingham you're into flying distances - perhaps Birmingham via Manchester, but that's slow.

A second daytime Highland service seems like a great thing to push for, and this routing is obvious.

If I remember rightly were there no a few 156 workings from Motherwell to Stirling 15-20 year ago? Or perhaps it was just Cumbernauld?

Either way I could never recall if they were ever much used.

 

[route101]

If I remember rightly were there no a few 156 workings from Motherwell to Stirling 15-20 year ago? Or perhaps it was just Cumbernauld?

Either way I could never recall if they were ever much used.

Can only recall them going as far as Cumbernauld on an hourly basis

 

[tbtc]

Is this about some huge demand from one side of Glasgow to the other? I'm not sure that there is?

Or the operational convenience of freeing up terminal platforms (in the way that London's Thameslink can run dozens of services per hour through a central core, rather than have them all occupying terminal platforms at Kings Cross/ London Bridge etc)?

Or just some general nostalgia for the days when there was space on the timetable to accommodate quirky once-a-day services like the Clansman?

Some kind of Central - Queen Street tunnel would mean that places would still retain their service to central Glasgow (rather than the City Union Line idea which seems to work on the assumption that passengers will be happy enough being dumped out at West Street to catch the Subway).

But you'd need it to be pretty high frequency to justify the expense of all that tunnelling - you wouldn't do it for just (say) four trains per hour.

If you assume that anything going through the "core" would be a fairly "metro" train (wide doors etc like the existing Queen Street/ Central low level routes plus London's 345/700s and the 172s going through Birmingham's Snow Hill tunnels), what through services would there be in Glasgow? Plenty of suitable candidates from the Central side (short distance EMUs from the Cathcart lines, electrify to East Kilbride too, could easily throw in Paisley Canal and other routes).

Queen Street services though - that's tougher. Anniesland, obviously. Probably Dunblane/Alloa too. But that's still just four/hour. Running the Edinburgh services (via Cumbernauld and/or Falkirk High) seems asking for trouble (importing delays from one side of the country to the other).

There's also the question of how you get an alignment suitable for heavy rail (which can't cope with significant gradients) below the Clyde, below the Central Low Level line, below the Queen Street Low Level line and back up again to join the line somewhere around Springburn/ Eastfield? Is this going to stay entirely east of the Subway (from West Street to Buchanan)? In which case it's going to be a walk away east of the existing station at Central (but threading it under the Subway line at two places is going to make it even more complicated).

However, running some long distance services via Mossend seems less attractive. I appreciate the sentimentality for the Clansman but any Euston - Mossend - Inverness service comes at the cost of a Euston - Central service and Queen Street - Inverness service. Constraints on the WCML and HML mean a limited number of paths - so it's a case of opportunity cost. IF there's to be a second daytime service from London to Inverness then it'd make more sense as an ECML one (since that way it wouldn't come at the cost of a London - Edinburgh service or an Edinburgh - Inverness service).

Motherwell - Stirling maybe has some merits (if you stopped more "English" services at Motherwell), but it's never going to be that busy (and, even if you assume there's a massive market for something like Birmingham - Inverness, changing twice may not be that much more attractive than walking across central Glasgow - TBH I'd prefer the city centre walk over sitting at Motherwell for a connection.

It won't go away though - it's like Bradford Crossrail - a cross-city Solution In Need Of A Problem.

 

[Meerkat]

If you are going for a tunnel option a people mover of some sort between the stations would surely be much better value?! 500m is moving walkways territory, airport style.

 

[edwin_m]

If you are going for a tunnel option a people mover of some sort between the stations would surely be much better value?! 500m is moving walkways territory, airport style.

A tunnel has the benefit that services that currently terminate in Central and Queen Street can be linked Thameslink-style, freeing up more platforms at the termini than are needed in the tunnel and potentially allowing better services even on the lines that don't run through the tunnel.

 

[JonathanH]

A tunnel has the benefit that services that currently terminate in Central and Queen Street can be linked Thameslink-style, freeing up more platforms at the termini than are needed in the tunnel and potentially allowing better services even on the lines that don't run through the tunnel.

Whilst that is true, how many services at Central (or indeed Queen Street) actually require an increase in frequency? Central appears to cope for the time being as will Queen Street following the recent changes.

 

[GLC]

I’m not going to pretend this solution is in any feasible, likely and perhaps even possible, but i thought it fun to think about! Replacing the St Enochs and Buchannan Street Subway station and tunnel with a new tunnel, aligned so that direct calls at Central and Queen Street are possible, and the ability for the subway tracks to be shared with full sized stock. A spur near West Street to go between the Subway and above ground NR tracks, and another to go from the Subway into Cowlairs tunnel. This gives you two more National Rail interchanges for the Subway, along with a through route so that services no longer need to terminate in the city centre

All this needs is a brand new tunnel that dodges all the old ones, a system for standard gauge OHLE trains to share track and stations with whatever gauge and powered rail setup the Subway uses, shareable signalling infrastructure, knocking down the recently refurbished St Enochs Subway station, all without effecting the rest of the rail infrastructure in Glasgow

How hard could it be?

 

[GLC]

Whilst that is true, how many services at Central (or indeed Queen Street) actually require an increase in frequency? Central appears to cope for the time being as will Queen Street following the recent changes.

I don’t believe there is much need for frequency increases (for now anyway), but I believe the capacity of Central is limited as the extremities of the network which are single track/single platform, mean more stock sits in Central waiting to be used on a later service in the day. A through route would let this stock carry on to some other put of the way station, instead of taking up space in a busy terminus

 

[route101]

East Kilbride service may get a service freq increase.

 

[d9009alycidon]

If you are going for a tunnel option a people mover of some sort between the stations would surely be much better value?! 500m is moving walkways territory, airport style.

This for me this is the answer, the two stations are not far enough apart to warrant a link line, and as has already been pointed out the tunnel option is scuppered due to the need to get from the high ground around Cowlairs to under the Clyde in a fairly short distance resulting in severe gradients. Most commentators are quick to dismiss the City Union link as it doesn't serve the buisness district of Glasgow which is generally recognised as being to the north of Central Station, however that line passes through an area of Glasgow where there is massive development possibilities currently being assessed around the Candleriggs and comes close to the residential part of the Strathclyde University campus, it has multiple interchange possibilities at West Street/Shileds road and Bellgrove. The link line has the major advantage of already being in place therefore the costs of bringning it up to passenger standard are miniscule compared with the tunnel

 

[Clansman]

Is this about some huge demand from one side of Glasgow to the other? I'm not sure that there is?

Or the operational convenience of freeing up terminal platforms (in the way that London's Thameslink can run dozens of services per hour through a central core, rather than have them all occupying terminal platforms at Kings Cross/ London Bridge etc)?

Or just some general nostalgia for the days when there was space on the timetable to accommodate quirky once-a-day services like the Clansman?

To clarify, this has nothing to do with nostalgia or any of your points.

I'd like to think that I'm one of those at the back of the queue of members on this forum who base everything on their longing for the past or 'on paper' reasoning. It's not something I'm on this forum to achieve, nor is it something I'm interested in.

Mainly just meaningful discussion on things which aren't pie in the sky fantasies.

To answer, the thread is not solely based on solving the interchange between Glasgow Central and Queen Street, however it does in effect solve this by default - granted on it's own, it's very much a solution to a problem (but it's not where I'm coming from).

What I meant by this thread was to discuss the extent to which there could be demand for such a cross Glasgow service (ie to hook up Carlisle with the central belt) either now or in the future; which would cut Dumfrieshire journey times from north of Glasgow, give Motherwell, Lockerbie, and Cumbernauld (and surrounding communities on local lines) direct services to the north, potentially aid the interchange for WCML services, and provide scope to connect communities along the WCML which will almost certainly have stations opened in the next decade or two.

Hope that clears it up