Glasgow Queen Street refurbishment and remodelling

Discussion in 'Infrastructure & Stations' started by Bodiddly, 16 Apr 2015.

  1. Bodiddly

    Bodiddly Member

    Messages:
    609
    Joined:
    7 Feb 2013
    From today's Glasgow Evening Times;
    http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/...losure-on-glasgow-to-edinburgh-lin.1429180251

    New crossover at Anniesland linking the Kelvindale chord with the North Electric line and double track planned between Anniesland and Maryhill Junction. This, if done correctly, would give Glasgow a Northern loop line with trains able to leave Queen St low level in any direction to reach the E&G. Something tells me though that in NR's infinite wisdom, it will only be a temporary measure during the works and will be mothballed soon after.
     
    Last edited: 17 Apr 2015
  2. Registered users do not see these banners - join or log in today!

    Rail Forums

     
  3. LNW-GW Joint

    LNW-GW Joint Veteran Member

    Messages:
    12,562
    Joined:
    22 Feb 2011
    Location:
    Mold, Clwyd
    Diesels in Queen St LL tunnel then...
     
  4. Bodiddly

    Bodiddly Member

    Messages:
    609
    Joined:
    7 Feb 2013
    Last edited: 17 Apr 2015
  5. PHILIPE

    PHILIPE Established Member

    Messages:
    9,586
    Joined:
    14 Nov 2011
    Location:
    Caerphilly
    There is fairly length thread on this to which you would like to read up. It hasn't been used since October 2013 and subsequently locked so no posts can be made but available for useful reading.
     
  6. Bodiddly

    Bodiddly Member

    Messages:
    609
    Joined:
    7 Feb 2013
    Thanks PHILIPE. Could you post a link to save me trawling for it?
     
  7. PHILIPE

    PHILIPE Established Member

    Messages:
    9,586
    Joined:
    14 Nov 2011
    Location:
    Caerphilly
  8. Deepgreen

    Deepgreen Established Member

    Messages:
    4,070
    Joined:
    12 Jun 2013
    Location:
    Betchworth, Surrey
    No mention of West Highland line services?
     
  9. PHILIPE

    PHILIPE Established Member

    Messages:
    9,586
    Joined:
    14 Nov 2011
    Location:
    Caerphilly
    No doubt will use Low Level as has been done in the past.
    --- old post above --- --- new post below ---
    I have read somewhere but can't quite turn it up now that modifications have been made to the system and that trains can now be powered. Perhaps a member could enlighten us further on this.
     
  10. D6975

    D6975 Established Member

    Messages:
    2,019
    Joined:
    26 Nov 2009
    Location:
    Bristol
    It was discussed on a thread about the Fort Bill sleepers runnning through Central LL. The fire alarm systems have all been upgraded on the underground sections.
     
  11. matchmaker

    matchmaker Member

    Messages:
    884
    Joined:
    8 Mar 2009
    Location:
    Central Scotland
    In other words, back to how it used to be! And Maryhill Junction used to be called Maryhill Park Junction. The 'box used to have a semaphore distant signal over a mile away - it was some pull...:(
     
  12. Railsigns

    Railsigns Established Member

    Messages:
    1,764
    Joined:
    15 Feb 2010
    The line between Anniesland and Maryhill won't be re-doubled.
    --- old post above --- --- new post below ---
    It still is.
     
    Last edited: 16 Apr 2015
  13. Bodiddly

    Bodiddly Member

    Messages:
    609
    Joined:
    7 Feb 2013
    If only the old BR linemen had made the decisions back in the day and not the railway accountants! I remember my old team leader who was involved with the plain lining at the old Knightswood South Junction saying he was amazed that they were getting rid of it. He also said it would come back one day!
    I suppose the same can be said for original closures of the Borders line and the Larkhall branch.
     
  14. ADRboy

    ADRboy Member

    Messages:
    160
    Joined:
    13 Jul 2008
    Yep it's being redoubled. Was surprised at this too.
     
  15. me123

    me123 Established Member

    Messages:
    8,520
    Joined:
    9 Jul 2007
    I think this year's disruption at Winchburgh will be key to ascertaining what is needed here. Granted, it will be for a shorter time period and involve much less services, but it will show us how passengers are going to get around the main line closing (using A-B, going to Central, driving, bus...), therefore giving Scotrail a better idea how to cope with it.

    Anniesland has always annoyed me, and I can't see why the North Clyde Line wasn't ever linked to Maryhill in the first place. It's a link that could prove useful, and I'd hope it is kept.

    However, I think we should be cautious about just what is possible here. The line through Partick is already very busy, and you're realistically not going to get more than 2tph through this line, maybe 4tph if you cancelled the Anniesland-Maryhill local route. Furthermore, you have to have a plan for where they go once they terminate in the low level, because they have to go somewhere (probably Springburn?)

    Overall, you've got:
    • 2tph to Stirling and Dunblane/Alloa
    • 1tph to Falkirk via Cumbernauld
    • 2tph to Anniesland
    • Up to 2tph to Dundee, 1 continuing to Aberdeen every hour
    • 4tph to Edinburgh via Falkirk
    • +WHL
    This gives us at least 11tph.

    So I'd probably suggest that this could be reduced temporarily
    • 2tph local to Stirling are needed to serve the intermediate stops
    • Edinburgh services need to continue to serve stations en route, I'd propose 2tph would be enough. Run 6tph between Glasgow and Edinburgh via A-B, with two local services and four fast services.
    • 1tph to Aberdeen is needed, cancel the Dundee/Arbroath services and integrate stops into the existing Aberdeen runs, with strengthening as needed
    • Cancel the FKG-GLQ run. If electrified, run 1tph from Cumbernauld on to FKG (if not, bustitute).
    • Cancel Anniesland via Maryhill local trains, bustitute (with apologies to the good people of Maryhill)
    • Terminate WHL at Dalmuir, connecting to local electric services (turn back at Yoker depot).

    This leaves us with just 5tph to find paths for into Glasgow. (One to Aberdeen, Two to Stirling local, Two to Edinburgh via Falkirk)

    Could the Aberdeen run be diverted to Central via Coatbridge & Carmyle? If so, we could then be looking at running Stirling-GLQ LL local, running via Maryhill, and then onto Edinburgh via Springburn. (You could even add a call at Maryhill to appease the locals!).
     
  16. Bodiddly

    Bodiddly Member

    Messages:
    609
    Joined:
    7 Feb 2013
    On your point of Queen Street Low Level terminating trains, isn't the whole idea of the new Anniesland works to create a new access to the North of Glasgow? As I mentioned earlier, this will create a new Northern loop line so in theory, there is a two pronged entry to the low level station (and also a two pronged exit) thus sharing the capacity between an inner and an outer circle. There would then be no need to turn around services. An example would be an Aberdeen arrival via Anniesland would drop the passengers at QSLL, and form, say, an Inverness service via Bellgrove and Springburn. The problem that would occur is the extra services planned to go via the A&B to Edinburgh would rapidly fill up any capacity on the low level lines. It will be a bottleneck which will become quickly choked if something goes wrong and it probably will!
    Eastfield depot could be used as a suitable staging post for redundant units with easy access to QSLL via Bellgrove and Anniesland.
     
  17. clc

    clc Established Member

    Messages:
    1,081
    Joined:
    31 Oct 2011
    Have I understood this correctly - the plan is to redouble the line from Anniesland Station to Kelvin Viaduct? That sounds expensive for a temporary measure.
     
  18. me123

    me123 Established Member

    Messages:
    8,520
    Joined:
    9 Jul 2007
    If you read my final plan above, you'll see that I proposed just such a service pattern!
    --- old post above --- --- new post below ---
    If there's a path available, could we be seeing services in the future running along that line then onto Partick and through the low-level lines?
     
  19. Railsigns

    Railsigns Established Member

    Messages:
    1,764
    Joined:
    15 Feb 2010
    The plan I've seen shows no double tracking between Anniesland and Maryhill. The new connecting line at Anniesland would however be long enough to accommodate a 6-car set and would run parallel with the Anniesland platform line for a distance, giving the appearance of double track.
     
  20. route:oxford

    route:oxford On Moderation

    Messages:
    4,722
    Joined:
    1 Nov 2008
    Ok, it won't happen, but would it be impossible to build a temporary station on the car park off Osborne Street next to St Enoch Shopping Centre.

    Pile up the earth for embankments, temporary platforms...
     
  21. Altnabreac

    Altnabreac Established Member

    Messages:
    2,137
    Joined:
    20 Apr 2013
    Location:
    Salt & Vinegar
    That sounds more plausible. No need for full double track when you're only running one way round the loop.


    That fits with my understanding of the plan is that the services will run anti-clockwise around the loop Croy - Anniesland - Queen St Low Level - Springburn - Croy.

    My guess would be that Edinburgh passengers will be encouraged to use Airdrie - Bathgate and Shotts semi fast services.

    I would guess as you suggest the loop line service would consist of 5tph:
    • 2tph Stirling
    • 2tph Edinburgh via Falkirk High
    • 1tph Aberdeen

    • Falkirk Grahamston services to terminate at Springburn.
    • Inverness services to terminate at Perth / divert to Edinburgh for the duration of the works.
    • Either Aberdeen services to pick up the extra stops in the Dundee/Perth semi fast extras or some Dunblanes extended to Perth to cover these stops.
    • Maryhill services to run as an Ashfield - Anniesland shuttle.
    • West Highland Line to terminate at Dalmuir.

    If you implemented some sort of single line working / bi-di arrangement then in theory the Maryhill shuttle service could be almost entirely isolated from the loop line by running only on the UP line from Maryhill - Ashfield and reversing to return to the up platform at Maryhill. It would then only share track capacity with the loop services through Kelvindale.

    An alternative would be to stop (some of) the loop services in Maryhill for the duration of the works and run a shuttle only from Ashfield - Maryhill on the UP line with no interaction whatsoever with the loop services. Passengers could then change at Maryhill for Queen St.
     
  22. Bodiddly

    Bodiddly Member

    Messages:
    609
    Joined:
    7 Feb 2013
    Whatever happens, there looks like there will be a major timetable change for the duration of the tunnel works but creating the new Anniesland loop certainly gives scope for numerous alternatives. I hope NR have the cahunas to spend that little bit extra turning the line into a permanent fixture that can be used rather than a temporary measure. I'm not sure a Glasgow loop line has such a strong business case but it would be another handy add on to the second largest surburban commuter network in the UK. Personally, I just can't see it happening as NR seem to love spending wads of cash on stopgap schemes.
     
  23. me123

    me123 Established Member

    Messages:
    8,520
    Joined:
    9 Jul 2007
    I think the Maryhill Line will struggle here, and there options are viable. Ultimately, 5tph using the single track line between Maryhill and Anniesland makes the Anniesland terminators unviable. It would see 9tph running along the line in a variety of directions - which will bring it close to capacity in reality (5 minute journey time means it'll have a train on it for 45 minutes out of every 60, leaving little room for manouvere).

    I'm not convinced that services to Maryhill will benefit from single-track working between Maryhill and Ashfield. You could get a 30 minute service using just a single 156, but I'm not convinced that the necessary signalling work will be in place, or indeed economically viable for what is a pretty poor service that will be lightly loaded. Most people would get on the bus I reckon.

    I think we still need to know how we're going to get five additional trains through Partick each and every hour, though? A standard hour through Partick sees 14tph in each direction, and it's already tight between services. On the plus side, there's no additional conflicting movements involved here. But whilst there are some longer gaps (up to 6 whole minutes on occasion), you're going to have 19tph running in the Eastbound direction, which leaves you with just 3 minutes between each and every service, leaving no room for ECS and additional peak hour services, or indeed any service expansion on the line to Airdrie via Bathgate, which will probably be the main diversionary route (and will therefore be miserable for five months).

    I think you're going to need to turn some services back at Anderston, but which ones? There's 6tph through there, 2 to each of Milngavie, Dalmuir via Singer, and Dalmuir via Yoker. Every time you cut 2tph, you're cutting 2tph to the busy North West electric routes with no replacement, unless you made the Helensburgh runs all stops via Yoker, and turned back the Larkhall(?) services at Anderston.

    Kelvinhaugh turnback would be helpful here...
     
  24. matchmaker

    matchmaker Member

    Messages:
    884
    Joined:
    8 Mar 2009
    Location:
    Central Scotland
    Many years ago there was Sunday engineering work taking place between Partickhill and High Street - can't remember what, might have been the motorway bridge over Charing Cross Station.

    Anyway, a diesel shuttle service was laid on between Queen Street High level and Partickhill via Maryhill - using the length of line under discussion, which was at that time double track with a double junction just after Anniesland.

    At the Partickhill end, once the passengers were off, the DMU travelled to Kelvinhaugh to reverse. At that stage in its career Kelvinhaugh signal box was a sad reflection of its former self. There were only about 8 working levers - 2 det placers, 1 trailing crossover, 1 facing crossover, 2 FPL and I think 2 ground discs. All the running colour lights were semi-autos and the train describer could be left to its own devices. Not much physical work was required by the signalman on a normal shift...

    These Sunday turns nearly killed them - the trailing crossover being used hadn't seen any action since about 1963 and was a trifle stiff!
     
  25. clc

    clc Established Member

    Messages:
    1,081
    Joined:
    31 Oct 2011
    Last edited: 17 Jul 2015
  26. NotATrainspott

    NotATrainspott Established Member

    Messages:
    2,784
    Joined:
    2 Feb 2013
    Although the new track will only be used for linking to the main line through Anniesland, having it provided would help in future if the Maryhill line is converted to light rail operation. The current service frequency limit on the line is due to the lack of paths into Queen Street High Level, not the single track between Anniesland and Maryhill. However, with a light rail/tram-train conversion branching off before reaching Cowlairs Junction, that single line section would be the capacity constraint as West Highland passenger and freight services are so few and far between. A second platform at Kelvindale would probably be needed but the single platform at Anniesland, with the route immediately doubling as it follows the curve, would provide more than enough capacity for the route for decades to come.
     
  27. clc

    clc Established Member

    Messages:
    1,081
    Joined:
    31 Oct 2011
    I assume the light rail route would diverge from the existing line just west of Cowlairs and continue to the city centre. Do you think there'd be a business case for building a new line through the schemes of north Glasgow? Seems unlikely.
     
  28. NotATrainspott

    NotATrainspott Established Member

    Messages:
    2,784
    Joined:
    2 Feb 2013
    I think there's a case when it would free up rail paths to be used by other enhanced services. If you're converting the Cathcart Circle, you're going to end up building track running north beyond Queen Street and Buchanan Bus station, at which point you've only got a few kilometres of low cost land to run through before you reach Cowlairs. Cutting the Maryhill services was particularly unpopular because of how deprived much of the north of Glasgow is, so if those paths are to be re-used for more important services it would seem reasonable to provide a more frequent light rail service as a replacement.
     
  29. clc

    clc Established Member

    Messages:
    1,081
    Joined:
    31 Oct 2011
    Converting Maryhill and the Cathcart Circle lines and building new on-street lines through the city centre would probably cost around a billion pounds and cause massive disruption for years, and wouldn't deliver much extra capacity really, perhaps 6tph into Central and 2tph into Queen St

    It would make more sense to spend 2 billion on a north-south tunnel creating paths for an extra 36tph into the city centre. The only downside is the extra capacity of 18tph from the north would probably be much more than we could ever use so we would end up with some redundancy at Queen St High Level.
     
  30. NotATrainspott

    NotATrainspott Established Member

    Messages:
    2,784
    Joined:
    2 Feb 2013
    What on earth are you on about? We're talking here about a project smaller than the initial Metrolink Altrincham-Bury line, without needing to change the Network Rail parts at either end as high-floor tram trains using 25kV AC electrification would be used.

    The expensive part of the route, in the area of Glasgow city centre with the highest land values, is actually quite narrow in a north-south orientation. South of the river there's deprivation and north of Cowcaddens there's the M8 and Possilpark. It's nothing compared to Edinburgh, where the tram route runs east-west through expensive areas and in future up to Leith. One particular difference is that the city centre streets in Glasgow are already bypassed so the only traffic is local, whereas in Edinburgh, the tram route has to follow corridors which still need to sustain large traffic flows.

    A tram-train line would complement and enhance the business case for a heavy rail tunnel. The tram-train would act as a 'metro' service, enabling swift connections within Glasgow city centre itself, leaving the heavy rail tunnel only needing to serve outer-suburban and regional flows like Ayr to Edinburgh or Stirling to Kilmarnock. Although the same tunnel could serve Maryhill-Cathcart flows, these would be better served by a line which stops more often within the Glasgow city boundaries, whereas any heavy rail tunnel could more than get away with having only one central Glasgow underground station to save costs. It also would simplify the tunnel ends, as with the Maryhill and Cathcart lines linked in to the tram-train line, the heavy rail tunnel need only connect to the Paisley, South Western, E&G and Cumbernauld lines, which could be done in more convenient places than would be the case if the Maryhill and Cathcart lines had to be included.
     
  31. edwin_m

    edwin_m Veteran Member

    Messages:
    14,366
    Joined:
    21 Apr 2013
    Location:
    Nottingham
    Would the gradients out of Queen Street make a tunnel very difficult? To get from at least two levels beneath Queen Street to surface in the Cowlairs area it would have to be steeper than the already steep existing tunnel. If it surfaced north of Cowlairs then Maryhill trains would have to remain in the existing station which would be wasteful when trains from the south would be terminating in the new tunnel.
     

Share This Page