Revived Glasgow Airport Rail link Plans

[Altnabreac]

I believe when the Paisley Corridor Improvements were built they made provision for a 4th track to be added so maybe it'll be affordable. Then when tram trains are cancelled at the last minute they'll have spare capacity to run a new service to Renfrew.

I think there is still some spare capacity on the Paisley corridor as the PCI inprovements for GARL created capacity for an extra 4tph and only 2tph have been utilised.

There are also fewer Girvan / Stranraer trains on this route now.

The bigger problem is going to be the terminal capacity at Central itself.

 

[380101]

I believe when the Paisley Corridor Improvements were built they made provision for a 4th track to be added so maybe it'll be affordable. Then when tram trains are cancelled at the last minute they'll have spare capacity to run a new service to Renfrew.

Plenty of space to add in the 4th line (down Gourock). After all, it used to be 4 lines back in the day. The middle road (Up Ayr) just occupies the 6 ft if you visualise there being 4 lines. They really should have done it when they were carrying out the improvements back in 2011.

 

[clc]

I think there is still some spare capacity on the Paisley corridor as the PCI inprovements for GARL created capacity for an extra 4tph and only 2tph have been utilised.

Wasn't the GARL capacity used up by Ayr and Gourock both going to 4tph?

 

[Altnabreac]

Plenty of space to add in the 4th line (down Gourock). After all, it used to be 4 lines back in the day. The middle road (Up Ayr) just occupies the 6 ft if you visualise there being 4 lines. They really should have done it when they were carrying out the improvements back in 2011.

I seem to remember that it isn't quite as simple as just 4 tracking.

A lot of the constraint comes from the crossing movements immediately east of Paisley Gilmour Street and having 4 tracks would not necessarily help unless you switched the tracks to be paired by direction rather than speed.

And if you do that then you have to either build new platforms at Cardonald and the 2 Hillington Stations (which there isn't space for) or run a weird service where Ayrshire bound trains call there westbound while Inverclyde trains call there eastbound.

So 4 tracks might help a little but doesn't necessarily add much more capacity without further work or very expensive grade separation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Wasn't the GARL capacity used up by Ayr and Gourock both going to 4tph?

Had forgotten the Gourock increase! Well remembered.

I think though it was only a net increase of 1tph as it used to run on a 1tph Wemyss Bay semi fast, 1tph Gourock semi fast, 2tph Gourock slow.

So in theory there is maybe 1tph capacity left on Paisley corridor but probably not at Central.

 

[380101]

I seem to remember that it isn't quite as simple as just 4 tracking.

A lot of the constraint comes from the crossing movements immediately east of Paisley Gilmour Street and having 4 tracks would not necessarily help unless you switched the tracks to be paired by direction rather than speed.

And if you do that then you have to either build new platforms at Cardonald and the 2 Hillington Stations (which there isn't space for) or run a weird service where Ayrshire bound trains call there westbound while Inverclyde trains call there eastbound.

So 4 tracks might help a little but doesn't necessarily add much more capacity without further work or very expensive grade separation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Had forgotten the Gourock increase! Well remembered.

I think though it was only a net increase of 1tph as it used to run on a 1tph Wemyss Bay semi fast, 1tph Gourock semi fast, 2tph Gourock slow.

So in theory there is maybe 1tph capacity left on Paisley corridor but probably not at Central.

There is 4 lines east of PGS until Arkelston. Ayrshire services don't call at any stations between Paisley and Central(apart from 1 train from Largs in the morning) so no issues with that. We can already cross from down Ayr to Up Gourock as it is, so no real issues with crossing over. It can be done. Just needs the political will and funding to do it.

 

[NotATrainspott]

There is 4 lines east of PGS until Arkelston. Ayrshire services don't call at any stations between Paisley and Central(apart from 1 train from Largs in the morning) so no issues with that. We can already cross from down Ayr to Up Gourock as it is, so no real issues with crossing over. It can be done. Just needs the political will and funding to do it.

The political will and funding is the hard bit though. The Scottish Government has to try and make the most of every pound it spends and it is quite likely that there would be a better use of X hundred million pounds than on upgrading the Paisley corridor once again to allow a handful of tram-trains carrying a handful of passengers each. The cost of the tram-train spur plus the cost of providing additional capacity may well be enough to pay for a completely standard tram route from the Airport going via Renfrew taking over the Fastlink bus service. Even if the funding weren't there to then extend the trams any further into the city than Central station - like how the Midland Metro terminated at Snow Hill until now - it would be no worse than a tram-train terminating there. I don't see why it wouldn't be technically feasible: there's space for a depot, it wouldn't mean ripping up major unavoidable thoroughfares as was the case in Edinburgh and it would serve areas currently unserved by the rail network. It wouldn't be the fastest way of getting to the Airport but it would be one which could pay its way and help pave the way for a wider network.

 

[XC90]

2 alternative options.

Run trains from Glasgow to Renfrew via the disused line which branches off at Gallowhill before Paisley GS. The platforms are still in place behind the college to open a new station at Renfrew Rd. trains then follow the river as far as Wright street / Knockhill Park Renfrew. A walkway could be built from the airport over the river to a new station just North of the M8 viaduct to allow access between the airport and the station.

or

Cable car (Brazilian style) from the airport, straight down Love Street on to the west end of platform 1 at Paisley GS.

Why bother with trams from Paisley to the airport when buses do it at considerable less cost?

 

[clc]

.

The cost of the tram-train spur plus the cost of providing additional capacity may well be enough to pay for a completely standard tram route from the Airport going via Renfrew taking over the Fastlink bus service. Even if the funding weren't there to then extend the trams any further into the city than Central station - like how the Midland Metro terminated at Snow Hill until now - it would be no worse than a tram-train terminating there. I don't see why it wouldn't be technically feasible: there's space for a depot, it wouldn't mean ripping up major unavoidable thoroughfares as was the case in Edinburgh and it would serve areas currently unserved by the rail network. It wouldn't be the fastest way of getting to the Airport but it would be one which could pay its way and help pave the way for a wider network.

The journey time has to be competitive with the airport bus, which generally gets to central Glasgow in around 17 minutes thanks to the excellent motorway network. A wholly street running tram route would probably take twice as long as the express bus. I'd still support it mind you as it would be great for Renfrew and Govan and other areas served by the line, but as an airport link it wouldn't be very effective.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The journey time has to be competitive with the airport bus, which generally gets to central Glasgow in around 17 minutes thanks to the excellent motorway network. A wholly street running tram route would probably take twice as long as the express bus. I'd still support it mind you as it would be great for Renfrew and Govan and other areas served by the line, but as an airport link it wouldn't be very effective.

This is where I think the whole focus on GARL is wrong. Given that there is a fast motorway from the middle of Glasgow out to the airport, any direct bus link is going to be very hard to compete with on journey time grounds. To compete, it is necessary to spend a lot of money on rail infrastructure which would then only be able to serve the airport, as any intermediate stops would mean it would be slower and thus uncompetitive with the bus. Building this rail link will require a considerable amount of money and would involve considerable opportunity cost - providing for this link means not being able to use the capacity for other, more useful services - and for just how much gain, exactly? A train shuttle can only go so far as Central at the moment, while the express bus can link up Central, Queen Street and the bus station. People going into Queen Street aren't going to walk across town or get another shuttle bus just to take them to Central so that they can get another shuttle to the Airport. For them, the convenience of having a single bus journey outweighs any possible benefit of it being a fast rail connection.

With the limited funding that is available I think a better way to spend the few hundred billion is to provide an incidental link to the airport by running a standard surface tram through Govan and Renfrew. Yes, it would be slower, but in total it would benefit more people more of the time. Being able to serve many more people means that it would be feasible to run a much higher frequency and with some amount of tram priority measures, the journey time wouldn't be as slow as possible. Even if the airport bus were faster normally it would still suffer from M8 peak time congestion, meaning that a tram would still be a relatively competitive option. Yes, it wouldn't be as fast as a direct rail link from Central, but the number of people who would ever actually be able to and want to use that option is going to be very small.

Once there's a tram line like this the idea of a direct airport link can be revisited once the cross-city tunnel is built. At that point, a heavy rail spur will have a significantly better business case as now it wouldn't just be a shuttle service.

 

[clc]

Once there's a tram line like this the idea of a direct airport link can be revisited once the cross-city tunnel is built. At that point, a heavy rail spur will have a significantly better business case as now it wouldn't just be a shuttle service.

Agreed. And if the City Union line was upgraded to facilitate a local Crossrail service as suggested by Altnabreach you could could take advantage of the infrastructure to run direct services to Edinburgh via the Airdrie - Bathgate line.

So, in a high resource scenario you could have the following direct services from the airport:-

Via Cross City Tunnel:
Edinburgh via Falkirk High (possibly extend to North Berwick) - 2tph
Dunblane/Alloa - 2tph
Grangemouth via Cumbernauld/Falkirk Grahamston - 2tph

Via City Union line:
Edinburgh via Airdrie/Bathgate - 2tph

Tram:
To Central Station via Renfrew, South Glasgow Hospitals campus (10,000 employees), Govan (Subway interchange), Media Quarter, Hydro/SECC and IFSD.

That would be a reasonably well connected airport don't you think?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Agreed. And if the City Union line was upgraded to facilitate a local Crossrail service as suggested by Altnabreach you could could take advantage of the infrastructure to run direct services to Edinburgh via the Airdrie - Bathgate line.

So, in a high resource scenario you could have the following direct services from the airport:-

Via Cross City Tunnel:
Edinburgh via Falkirk High (possibly extend to North Berwick) - 2tph
Dunblane/Alloa - 2tph
Grangemouth via Cumbernauld/Falkirk Grahamston - 2tph

Via City Union line:
Edinburgh via Airdrie/Bathgate - 2tph

Tram:
To Central Station via Renfrew, South Glasgow Hospitals campus (10,000 employees), Govan (Subway interchange), Media Quarter, Hydro/SECC and IFSD.

That would be a reasonably well connected airport don't you think?

It would be.

It would also be possible to run an Airdrie-Bathgate service through the cross-city tunnel. Just west of Coatbridge Sunnyside rebuild the Gunnie chord so that services from Airdrie can run through Gartcosh and then through the tunnel. The cost would be tiny, it would provide a connection which doesn't currently exist and it would provide an alternative routing for A-B passengers if there are problems on the North Clyde line. Then there's no need to bother upgrading the City Union line for passenger trains while the extra A-B services would still be able to serve passengers wanting to go to Glasgow city centre.

 

[clc]

It would also be possible to run an Airdrie-Bathgate service through the cross-city tunnel. Just west of Coatbridge Sunnyside rebuild the Gunnie chord so that services from Airdrie can run through Gartcosh and then through the tunnel. The cost would be tiny, it would provide a connection which doesn't currently exist and it would provide an alternative routing for A-B passengers if there are problems on the North Clyde line. Then there's no need to bother upgrading the City Union line for passenger trains while the extra A-B services would still be able to serve passengers wanting to go to Glasgow city centre.

Sounds good, though I'd still like to see the City Union line carrying local passengers again just for the regeneration benefits it would bring.

 

[Jan]

Plenty of space to add in the 4th line (down Gourock). After all, it used to be 4 lines back in the day. The middle road (Up Ayr) just occupies the 6 ft if you visualise there being 4 lines. They really should have done it when they were carrying out the improvements back in 2011.

I seem to remember something about there not being enough space for four tracks under the current standards regarding track spacing, which have apparently increased since the line was originally built. So for four-tracking, they'd have to move one or both of the outside running lines as well and rebuild the stations to make room for a fourth track.

 

[fandroid]

I have used the airport bus many times. It has an advantage for me in that it can take me closer to the Royal Infirmary (my usual destination) than a train to Central would. If the peak time delays on the M8 could be resolved by some bus priority, then it seems daft to spend zillions on a rail link that is less useful than the existing bus. I would support tram connections to other places. That benefits local transport as a whole, rather than just shifting passengers marginally from one mode to another.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I seem to remember something about there not being enough space for four tracks under the current standards regarding track spacing, which have apparently increased since the line was originally built. So for four-tracking, they'd have to move one or both of the outside running lines as well and rebuild the stations to make room for a fourth track.

Yes. If it's necessary to increase capacity beyond what is possible with the three tracks, the next move is to redouble the Paisley Canal line and extend it back to Elderslie.

 

[Altnabreac]

I seem to remember something about there not being enough space for four tracks under the current standards regarding track spacing, which have apparently increased since the line was originally built. So for four-tracking, they'd have to move one or both of the outside running lines as well and rebuild the stations to make room for a fourth track.

That sounds familiar. I'm sure adding the 4th track isn't quite as simple as it might seem.

I still think if a cross city tunnel is the long term answer to capacity problems then a tunnel portal in the Arkleston area has a lot to recommend it as it could enable grade separation and provide a good construction base.

 

[XC90]

Yes. If it's necessary to increase capacity beyond what is possible with the three tracks, the next move is to redouble the Paisley Canal line and extend it back to Elderslie.

Not possible west of Paisley canal due to housing. Compulsory purchase orders or may get away with single line from Paisley canal for approximately half a mile.

I dont think 4 tracks is necessary through cardonald etc if Ayrshire express services were to be diverted via a fully reopened canal line. The only station they would miss is gilmour street which could be substituted with a stop at Paisley canal if deemed necessary

 

[NotATrainspott]

Not possible west of Paisley canal due to housing. Compulsory purchase orders or may get away with single line from Paisley canal for approximately half a mile.

I dont think 4 tracks is necessary through cardonald etc if Ayrshire express services were to be diverted via a fully reopened canal line. The only station they would miss is gilmour street which could be substituted with a stop at Paisley canal if deemed necessary

If there is a case to reopen to Elderslie then CPO isn't an insurmountable problem. We're not talking about demolishing skyscrapers here, we're talking about maybe having to pull down one or two inappropriately placed homes. It's not much more than what had to be done to reopen Airdrie-Bathgate. If reopening the line, including CPO costs, cost less than rebuilding the main line through Gilmour Street then it's pretty obvious which option will be chosen.

 

[clc]

Yes. If it's necessary to increase capacity beyond what is possible with the three tracks, the next move is to redouble the Paisley Canal line and extend it back to Elderslie.

If they reopened the line to Elderslie would they open a new station in west Paisley? In addition to the Royal Alexandria Hospital there's a decent size population in Lounsdale, Meikleriggs, Stanely, Brediland and Millarston. I used to live there and often thought a station in the Lounsdale area would be well used.

 

[380101]

Not possible west of Paisley canal due to housing. Compulsory purchase orders or may get away with single line from Paisley canal for approximately half a mile.

I dont think 4 tracks is necessary through cardonald etc if Ayrshire express services were to be diverted via a fully reopened canal line. The only station they would miss is gilmour street which could be substituted with a stop at Paisley canal if deemed necessary

The whole idea of an Express is to be faster than a stopping train. The first stop for an Ayr express is Kilwinning, so going via an extended Paisley Canal line would be pretty pointless. Line speed is only around 50mph. Plus, having to negotiate Shields junction back on to the mainline would slow it down even more.

 

[XC90]

The whole idea of an Express is to be faster than a stopping train. The first stop for an Ayr express is Kilwinning, so going via an extended Paisley Canal line would be pretty pointless. Line speed is only around 50mph. Plus, having to negotiate Shields junction back on to the mainline would slow it down even more.

Yeah, I meant diverting most Ayrshire services rather than Ayr services. But that's only if capacity was an issue should GARL ever be introduced. Line speed and negotiating shields jcn on the up line could become problematic.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just thinking....the line to Elderslie via canal needs to be reopened GARL or not!

 

[arabianights]

Good point about the 20 minutes max stay. After all, what self-respecting terrorist wants the embarrassment of getting a parking fine after you've just blown up dozens of people? I can see how that would really deter a lot of attacks

You mock now, but if you ever have the mispleasure of dealing with ParkingEye, you will understand.

 

[ScottyStitch]

Pardon my ignorance, and this may be a non-starter, but would it be possible for the airport trains (or at least some of them) to be routed via Central Low Level? They wouldn't need to terminate, in that case, perhaps carrying on to Helensburgh.

I'm not suggesting that those in Helensburgh or wherever would necessarily use the service to reach the airport (long way around for a short cut!) but it would preculde the need for the airport train to terminate at central, which is part of teh capacity constraint (platform occupation) whilst also providing an additional or existing commuter train into/out of the city to north of the river.

Whether there is capacity on the Helensburgh line I don't know.

I also appreciate that there may not be a suitable chord/link to allow trains access to the low level lines, but perhaps it would be an option to at least assess?

 

[edwin_m]

Pardon my ignorance, and this may be a non-starter, but would it be possible for the airport trains (or at least some of them) to be routed via Central Low Level? They wouldn't need to terminate, in that case, perhaps carrying on to Helensburgh.

I'm not suggesting that those in Helensburgh or wherever would necessarily use the service to reach the airport (long way around for a short cut!) but it would preculde the need for the airport train to terminate at central, which is part of teh capacity constraint (platform occupation) whilst also providing an additional or existing commuter train into/out of the city to north of the river.

Whether there is capacity on the Helensburgh line I don't know.

I also appreciate that there may not be a suitable chord/link to allow trains access to the low level lines, but perhaps it would be an option to at least assess?

The Low Level line runs approximately NW to SE, surfacing at the eastern edge of the city centre and joining the main line at Rutherglen. So a train from the airport would need to continue eastwards ignoring the lines north into Central before doubling back on itself to return westwards into the Low Level. Either that or it would need a new connecting tunnel which would probably be as expensive as the north-south tunnel mentioned by others but rather less useful.

 

[Carntyne]

It's physically possible to do so, but again you're crossing over the main lines at Rutherglen to get to the connection via Shields which I imagine would reduce capacity.

 

[Mag_seven]

Whenever I use Glasgow Airport I find the bus link perfectly adequate. It serves both Central and Queen st plus the bus station and many city centre hotels. Much better to spend the money on Glasgow Crossrail.

 

[clc]

Pardon my ignorance, and this may be a non-starter, but would it be possible for the airport trains (or at least some of them) to be routed via Central Low Level? They wouldn't need to terminate, in that case, perhaps carrying on to Helensburgh.

I'm not suggesting that those in Helensburgh or wherever would necessarily use the service to reach the airport (long way around for a short cut!) but it would preculde the need for the airport train to terminate at central, which is part of teh capacity constraint (platform occupation) whilst also providing an additional or existing commuter train into/out of the city to north of the river.

Whether there is capacity on the Helensburgh line I don't know.

I also appreciate that there may not be a suitable chord/link to allow trains access to the low level lines, but perhaps it would be an option to at least assess?

It might be be more feasible to run into Queen St low level (and on to Charing Cross) via the City Union line. This option was actually considered when the original GARL was being developed and had a similar BCR to the Central High Level option. Scottish Enterprise in evidence to the GARL Bill Committee said that if Crossrail wasn't delivered it would prefer the Queen St option over Central as it provided direct inter-city connections to a wider area throughout Scotland.

Factors which resulted in Central being chosen over Queen St/Charing Cross were:-

- Shorter journey times for airport passengers (15 minutes versus 21 minutes from Queen Street)

- Deliverable at least 1 year sooner

- Involving significantly less risk of cost escalation; and

- The Queen Street option would require additional infrastructure (including St John's Link), additional turnback facilities and the partial demolition of a Grade B Listed Building.

 

[XC90]

The best connections for GARL would be services from the north and east on the E & G line or from the West via Maryhill branch, down via Bellgrove and across city union. There are other options from WCML but none of the above will stop in Glasgow City Centre unless they reverse or a new station is built at the Gallowgate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
GLC or GLQ, Partick, Hyndland, Anniesland, Springburn, Bellgrove, Paisley, Airport.

I forgot the points at Anniesland are being reinstated next year allowing access to the Maryhill line.

 

[me123]

The best connections for GARL would be services from the north and east on the E & G line or from the West via Maryhill branch, down via Bellgrove and across city union. There are other options from WCML but none of the above will stop in Glasgow City Centre unless they reverse or a new station is built at the Gallowgate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
GLC or GLQ, Partick, Hyndland, Anniesland, Springburn, Bellgrove, Paisley, Airport.

I forgot the points at Anniesland are being reinstated next year allowing access to the Maryhill line.

If you want a heavy rail link, GARL needs to go to the City Centre. Not Bellgrove. Not Gallowgate. And certainly not Possilpark. A service running from Bellgrove to Glasgow Airport is going to be very lightly loaded and completely pointless.

I have still yet to see a sensible proposal for service to the city centre. Glasgow Central is the obvious option, but we lack the capacity. Creating the capacity increases costs. Significantly. Crossrail completely bypasses the city centre, and the solution for getting to the city centre (a chord at Bellgrove) is going to be expensive and slow. It will add signifiant time onto peoples' journeys, and will simply feed traffic into another bottleneck at Patrick. As for running to Central LL, it's physically possible, but very impractical. Not least because you come within a quarter mile of the city centre, divert South for about 2 miles and do a u-turn.

Let's think for a moment about people getting to the airport. The first trains in the SPT area start at about 6am, on the whole. For lots of people, that will mean that using public transport for flights before 9am is simply not a viable option. 31 of 108 flights tomorrow will depart before 9am. That's a significant number of flights leaving Glasgow before most outbound passengers would be able to even get there using a rail link. The rail link won't significantly improve the service for these passengers, unless Scotrail start running trains at 4 or 5 in the morning. Similarly, in the evening, people will often arrive back home after their last trains/connections have left. For my parents who regularly fly to Tenerife (along with a quarter of a million other people - it's Glasgow's 3rd biggest destination), their flights usually meet both of these criteria. The reality is that people will continue to use their cars.

TBH, I think a simple light rail shuttle to Paisley Gilmour Street will suffice. It would be similar to the arrangement at New York's JFK airport and Newark Liberty Airport (both of which are far busier than Glasgow), and would feed into fast and frequent services at a major rail hub. Even though there is a connection, it would be well used if advertised.

I would like to see a direct rail service to the city centre, and I think the best way for this would be a service from the airport, through Renfrew, stopping at Govan/South Glasgow Hospital, perhaps Patrick interchange (new platforms would be needed), a new low level City Centre station, and perhaps thereafter onto the suburban lines to the North. Perhaps it could even connect onto the North Clyde Line to provide direct links to Lanarkshire and Edinburgh. This would connect well to most of the city through buses/subway/other trains.

And don't get me started about Edinburgh passengers. Like it or not, the biggest airport in the country is at Edinburgh. It has more passengers, more flights and more destinations. There is no need for Edinburgh passengers to come through to Glasgow. Those who do already drive. Those who don't won't be attracted by a slow train via Bathgate, Airdrie and The Gorbals.

However, realising the financial constraints we have, I think a light rail service to Paisley Gilmour Street is the best option we have.

 

[XC90]

Maybe there is no need for a rail connection. It appears to be unsuitable and costly. There is good connections from both Glasgow and Paisley.

Put the money in to upgrading the buses and running them more frequently with better facilities. If it costs hundreds of millions for a basic ineffective rail link for the sake of having a rail link, think what the hundreds of millions could do for a more viable road link.

Unless a rail link via Gallowhill jcn to the airport and Renfrew is built, there is no real benefit for rail.

This is a complete u-turn from me because I thought a rail link was essential but a tram from paisley to the airport is pointless.