Should the Cathcart Circle and associated lines be converted to trams/light rail?

[drb61]

The challenge, of course, is capacity at Central as operating 2tph on the circle requires 4 paths which is 2 more than pre pandemic. Conversion to ‘heavy metro’ routed away from Central High Level is the best solution imo.

Yes, platform capacity in the short term may be an issue. However, replacement of the 318s / 320s might facilitate more interworking of services on the Muirhouse corridor thus reducing platform occupancy times at Glasgow Central. In my above proposed timetable, the Neilston services (normally operated by four coach sets) have a long layover time at Central of 33 minutes. Once East Kilbride is wired it may be possible for Neilston and East Kilbride services to interwork to reduce layover times of units at Central. Likewise, Barrhead services could interwork with Newton or Circle services (normally 3 coach sets).

 

[adrock1976]

This comes up all the time on this forum. The answer is no for the following reasons:

1) Any alternative route from Pollokshields East to Glasgow City Centre will be longer and more circuitous than the route it is replacing through Muirhouse, Eglinton Street and Bridge Street Junctions. This will increase journey times and make public transport less attractive.

2) A key strategic diversionary route for the WCML avoiding Rutherglen and Cambuslang will be lost, impacting on reliability on cross border services to London, Manchester etc when engineering works or infrastructure failures occur

3) As pointed out above, to cope with the peak time (and even some off peak) passenger loadings on the line, you’d need some very big or very very frequent trams.

To be quite blunt, a more realistic idea would be to quadruple the line from Muirhouse to Eglinton Street Junction. It would involve *a lot* of reconstruction work over about a half mile section of line and be very expensive, but it would achieve many of the things that proponents of conversion are wishing for. Capacity would be increased whilst the most direct and quickest route into the city was retained, and it would continue to be a heavy rail route. Unrealistic? Quite probably, but it’s still be a better use of resources than creating a light rail route where it’s neither useful nor required.

Regarding 2) above, there is an additional diversionary route along the former Rutherglen & Coatbridge via Whifflet as that has been wired since around 2013/14 or thereabouts.

I noted not many passenger services (if any at all) are diverted that way to/from London. Is this due to the traction type not being cleared i.e. the 390s?

Also, is it a paperwork issue or a structural issue with that route, and if it is structural, is it due to the tilting mechanism on the 390s?

 

[Ex-controller]

Regarding 2) above, there is an additional diversionary route along the former Rutherglen & Coatbridge via Whifflet as that has been wired since around 2013/14 or thereabouts.

I noted not many passenger services (if any at all) are diverted that way to/from London. Is this due to the traction type not being cleared i.e. the 390s?

Also, is it a paperwork issue or a structural issue with that route, and if it is structural, is it due to the tilting mechanism on the 390s?

Class 390s aren’t permitted through Whifflet.

 

[roadierway77]

Class 390s aren’t permitted through Whifflet.

Why? A bit more elaboration would be useful. Would it be possible for them to run this way or is there a lack of clearance regarding their loading gauge? How about the future 805/807s?

 

[Peter0124]

The daily voyagers to from Edinburgh Polmadie run via Carmyle usually. But from December it wont happen anymore (will be routed via Uddingston) as they're being replaced by 390s.

Also the route via Carmyle is useless anyway if the WCML is closed between Eglinton St and Rutherglen. Only routes available in that case are the Cathcart Circle and GSW, strengthening the case that the Cathcart Circle should remain as a diversionary route.

Realtime Trains | 5M51 0623 Polmadie Car M.D. to Edinburgh | 23/11/2022

Real-time train running information for 5M51 0623 departure from Polmadie Car M.D. to Edinburgh on 23/11/2022. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Realtime Trains | 5M52 0543 Polmadie Car M.D. to Edinburgh | 21/12/2022

Real-time train running information for 5M52 0543 departure from Polmadie Car M.D. to Edinburgh on 21/12/2022. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[Ex-controller]

Why? A bit more elaboration would be useful. Would it be possible for them to run this way or is there a lack of clearance regarding their loading gauge? How about the future 805/807s?

I don’t know the full reason but it’s something to do with clearance. Same goes for the route via Maxwell Park.

As above, the R&C is useless if there’s a blockage at Rutherglen or Shawfield etc. Also 805/807s are unlikely to be an option to circumvent the 390 clearance issue given they’ll be required further south.

 

[drb61]

I don’t know the full reason but it’s something to do with clearance. Same goes for the route via Maxwell Park.

As above, the R&C is useless if there’s a blockage at Rutherglen or Shawfield etc. Also 805/807s are unlikely to be an option to circumvent the 390 clearance issue given they’ll be required further south.

I assume running 390s from Queen Street HL via Springburn and Coatbridge Central wouldn't be an option either even with the lengthened platforms (not to mention capacity issues)?

 

[Ex-controller]

I assume running 390s from Queen Street HL via Springburn and Coatbridge Central wouldn't be an option either even with the lengthened platforms (not to mention capacity issues)?

Yes that would be right, although even the longest platforms at Queen street couldn’t even take a 9 car 390.

 

[drb61]

Yes that would be right, although even the longest platforms at Queen street couldn’t even take a 9 car 3

That leaves the G&SW route! Not sure of the likely relative timescales but is it possible that by the time the Cathcart Circle is converted to light rail, electrification of the G&SW route might be complete and offer a viable diversionary route for all Anglo-Scottish traffic?

 

[Falcon1200]

That leaves the G&SW route! Not sure of the likely relative timescales but is it possible that by the time the Cathcart Circle is converted to light rail, electrification of the G&SW route might be complete and offer a viable diversionary route for all Anglo-Scottish traffic?

Electrification from Barrhead on to Kilmarnock (and the short link round to Barassie) is for me a no-brainer, but onwards to Gretna Junction is a) a long way and b) carries very little traffic! There is now hardly any freight, and a 2-car 156 suffices for demand, certainly between Kilmarnock and Dumfries anyway. So while it would be nice to have, I struggle to see any economic or operational justification; The latter because having a diversionary route always comes up against the obstacle of retaining sufficient Traincrew route knowledge. This would need some trains booked to run via the G&SW, with the resulting additional journey time penalty, around 60 minutes at present (although electrification would reduce that a bit). Fully doubling Barrhead/Kilmarnock would be needed too.

 

[clc]

Full electrification of the G&SW is in the plan though:-

 

[Ex-controller]

It would be a bit excessive to divert all the way down the GSW for a blockage at Rutherglen. There’s a reason why Avanti and TPE would sooner use buses than make their train crews conversant with that route, let alone the additional disruption that would be caused by adding additional time on diverting that way for a short notice disruption.

 

[Peter0124]

Diverting down the GSW also avoids Motherwell and Lockerbie.

 

[Falcon1200]

Full electrification of the G&SW is in the plan though:-

I have to say, retired railwayman and railway enthusiast though I am, I regard that as a waste of money (if indeed the money could be found in the first place). And of course there remains the issue of route knowledge for diverting trains; Gretna Jc to Eglinton Street Jc via Kilmarnock is a long way!

 

[drb61]

I have to say, retired railwayman and railway enthusiast though I am, I regard that as a waste of money (if indeed the money could be found in the first place). And of course there remains the issue of route knowledge for diverting trains; Gretna Jc to Eglinton Street Jc via Kilmarnock is a long way!

I wonder if the long-term proposal to electrify the entire G&SW main line is partly intended to move some electric-hauled freight onto it and free up capacity on the busy WCML?

Also, personally I'd like to see Dumfries-Carlisle doubled to hourly. Currently Dumfries - Carlisle is roughly hourly and Glasgow to Kilmarnock is 2tph, so making it hourly throughout doesn't seem like a huge jump in provision and would stimulate growth in passenger traffic. Other mooted station re-openings like Hurlford, Mauchline, Cumnock and Thornhill would also strengthen the case for an hourly service along this section.

I lived in Dumfries for a short period in the early 80s and remember regular diagrammed Anglo-Scottish services taking this route. There was at least one Sunday morning Glasgow - Euston service as well as a weekday (summer-only I think) Glasgow - Euston service (which used Nightrider stock that would otherwise be sitting idle during the day). There was also a Glasgow - Euston sleeper that ran via Kilmarnock and of course daytime and overnight Stranraer - Euston services. Reintroduction of such token Anglo-Scottish services over the G&SW post electrification would help to maintain route knowledge that could be used when diversions are required.

Getting back on topic, I dare say by the time the Cathcart Circle is converted to light rail and the G&SW is wired, 390s may have been retired and we might be looking at classic compatible stock using HS2 south of Crewe.

 

[clc]

Am I right in thinking that the diversionary route wouldn’t be affected if the Cathcart Circle was converted to metro rather than trams as metro and heavy rail can share tracks?

 

[takno]

Am I right in thinking that the diversionary route wouldn’t be affected if the Cathcart Circle was converted to metro rather than trams as metro and heavy rail can share tracks?

Theoretically they can be, but the diversionary route would have to be electrified, so you either need the trams to cope with 25kv AC or be battery-powered for the shared section. Added to that, there tend to be a lot more trams, and you probably want to do something like happens on the Sunderland shared line, where trams are given an extra empty signalling block behind them because they aren't as crashworthy. That's potentially going to lead to some interesting capacity challenges. You're also losing one of the key benefits of trams, which is that they can have open barrow crossings rather than expensive bridges and signalling. That means that when you get pressure to open new stops they will have to be configured as super-expensive real stations, rather than a glorified bus stop.

 

[clc]

Transport Scotland has just published a map of what Clyde Metro might look like and it shows the Cathcart Circle being converted to ‘heavy metro’ though exactly what that means isn’t clear.

 

[Falcon1200]

Transport Scotland has just published a map of what Clyde Metro might look like and it shows the Cathcart Circle being converted to ‘heavy metro’ though exactly what that means isn’t clear.

I too wonder what they mean by 'heavy metro'; Something like Tyne & Wear maybe with tram-like vehicles but no on-street running? The benefit would be I suppose a more frequent service, at the possible expense of less comfortable trains. Although how a more frequent service from Milngavie and the Singer line could be accommodated through Hyndland and Partick will be interesting, and, worryingly, the map does not show the Cathcart Circle Heavy Metro crossing the Clyde or serving Glasgow Central!

 

[Arkeeos]

Transport Scotland has just published a map of what Clyde Metro might look like and it shows the Cathcart Circle being converted to ‘heavy metro’ though exactly what that means isn’t clear.

Heavy Metro would be like the London Underground Subsurface lines I believe.

 

[Falcon1200]

Heavy Metro would be like the London Underground Subsurface lines I believe.

Which wouldn't then be any real change from what operates now?

 

[Arkeeos]

Which wouldn't then be any real change from what operates now?

Well it would come with Isolation of the line from the rest of the network and based on the map and what someone else said in this thread, the lines would run through argyle street (presumably by some chord that you would create) and that would then go off onto a reconstructed Botanical line.

What I believe they mean by metro is just a line isolated from the rest of the network.

 

[Ex-controller]

Yet another report that says ‘we could do this’ will not come to fruition.

 

[clc]

I too wonder what they mean by 'heavy metro'; Something like Tyne & Wear maybe with tram-like vehicles but no on-street running? The benefit would be I suppose a more frequent service, at the possible expense of less comfortable trains. Although how a more frequent service from Milngavie and the Singer line could be accommodated through Hyndland and Partick will be interesting, and, worryingly, the map does not show the Cathcart Circle Heavy Metro crossing the Clyde or serving Glasgow Central!

From what I’ve read Dalmuir and Milngavie services would no longer go through Partick. They would use the re-opened Botanics Line and a new link between Botanic Gardens and Hyndland, possibly utilising the disused Balgray tunnel in Kelvinside. I believe there’s room for 4 tracks west of Hyndland station so metro and heavy rail could have separate tracks.

The Cathcart Circle heavy metro would connect to the City Union Line just west of West Street (you can see the connection on the map), cross the river on the CU bridge then somehow enter the Arglye Line tunnel then run through Central Low Level.

 

[Falcon1200]

From what I’ve read Dalmuir and Milngavie services would no longer go through Partick. They would use the re-opened Botanics Line and a new link between Botanic Gardens and Hyndland, possibly utilising the disused Balgray tunnel in Kelvinside. I believe there’s room for 4 tracks west of Hyndland station so metro and heavy rail could have separate tracks.

The Cathcart Circle heavy metro would connect to the City Union Line just west of West Street (you can see the connection on the map), cross the river on the CU bridge then somehow enter the Arglye Line tunnel then run through Central Low Level.

Interesting, thanks. I have to say that as a regular user of the Cathcart Circle services, I am perfectly happy with the current route to the well-situated Central station, and would not welcome the additional journey time to Low Level. I have also never understood the clamour to run passenger trains over the City Union, it does not serve the city centre unless new west-facing connections are constructed. If there is really enough money available for new lines in Glasgow, IMHO the priority should be connections to places not currently served, such as Glasgow Airport and Castlemilk.

 

[Southsider]

Interesting, thanks. I have to say that as a regular user of the Cathcart Circle services, I am perfectly happy with the current route to the well-situated Central station, and would not welcome the additional journey time to Low Level. I have also never understood the clamour to run passenger trains over the City Union, it does not serve the city centre unless new west-facing connections are constructed. If there is really enough money available for new lines in Glasgow, IMHO the priority should be connections to places not currently served, such as Glasgow Airport and Castlemilk.

Totally agree though an increase in frequency would be welcome.

 

[clc]

But the whole point of conversion to metro is to make higher frequencies possible by reducing operating costs. Heavy rail is too expensive to operate at higher frequencies on the Cathcart Circle.

 

[Arkeeos]

But the whole point of conversion to metro is to make higher frequencies possible by reducing operating costs. Heavy rail is too expensive to operate at higher frequencies on the Cathcart Circle.

I don't think the operating costs are significantly different between heavy rail and light rail.

 

[Ex-controller]

Interesting, thanks. I have to say that as a regular user of the Cathcart Circle services, I am perfectly happy with the current route to the well-situated Central station, and would not welcome the additional journey time to Low Level. I have also never understood the clamour to run passenger trains over the City Union, it does not serve the city centre unless new west-facing connections are constructed. If there is really enough money available for new lines in Glasgow, IMHO the priority should be connections to places not currently served, such as Glasgow Airport and Castlemilk.

Absolutely, there’s really very little to be gained from conversion of these routes and diversion away from Glasgow Central High Level.

Thankfully this most recent report is likely to be pie in the sky.

As an aside, I was pondering what an orbital suburban service in Glasgow might look like, working as an outer circle rail service. It would require a few in fills of former routes but I do think that if it was created, and run to a decent frequency, it’d be an excellent addition to existing radial routes.

 

[numtot12345]

Something I've noticed recently getting on train into Central from Cathcart in the mornings:

Id usually get on at the front and usually it would be crammed through MFL (people standing along the aisles) - making me think the whole train is overcapacity. Recently however I have now tended to sit towards the back as usually can get a seat and not packed in like sardines and therefore more comfortable.

What are others experience of this in the line between Cathcart and Central via Queens Park?