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

[ld0595]

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?

Funnily enough I've started doing the exact same. I tend to take the 07.42 in the mornings and would always get on at the front and stand in the vestibule or squeeze in next to someone at a table. Nowadays I get on towards the rear and often end up with a pair of seats to myself.

 

[Falcon1200]

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.

I do the same, at all times of the day, if I'm not in a hurry, however there is a very real time penalty getting through the barriers at Central, especially of course in the morning peak when the queue can add minutes to the overall journey time (not helped by the number of tickets that do not operate the barriers, behind one such I often seem to end up!). So I would think exiting the platform quickly drives many passengers to prefer the front coaches.

 

[drb61]

I do the same, at all times of the day, if I'm not in a hurry, however there is a very real time penalty getting through the barriers at Central, especially of course in the morning peak when the queue can add minutes to the overall journey time (not helped by the number of tickets that do not operate the barriers, behind one such I often seem to end up!). So I would think exiting the platform quickly drives many passengers to prefer the front coaches.

Hmm... getting back on topic, perhaps one of the advantages of conversion to light rail is that not everyone would be piling off the train at Central station, but at various points along the street running sections depending on their ultimate destination.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

Someone will inevitably tell me why this is a bad idea...

But, why not avoid Central altogether by diverting the Cathcart circle (and the Paisley Canal line) onto the other bridge across the Clyde on the line to High Street? Then build a new terminus in the car park behind Argyll Street Station on the site of the old St Enoch Station.

It'd take some imaginative new track alignments to make the junctions work but you could then run it as a closed metro system at a higher frequency. You could also integrate some trains from the East End on the North Clyde line too?

 

[clc]

Someone will inevitably tell me why this is a bad idea...

But, why not avoid Central altogether by diverting the Cathcart circle (and the Paisley Canal line) onto the other bridge across the Clyde on the line to High Street? Then build a new terminus in the car park behind Argyll Street Station on the site of the old St Enoch Station.

It'd take some imaginative new track alignments to make the junctions work but you could then run it as a closed metro system at a higher frequency. You could also integrate some trains from the East End on the North Clyde line too?

I wouldn’t be surprised to see this as an option when the detailed Clyde Metro proposals emerge. There are plans to demolish and redevelop the St Enoch Centre so there may be an opportunity to locate the metro terminus on or near St Enoch Square providing interchange with heavy rail and subway.

 

[Arkeeos]

Someone will inevitably tell me why this is a bad idea...

But, why not avoid Central altogether by diverting the Cathcart circle (and the Paisley Canal line) onto the other bridge across the Clyde on the line to High Street? Then build a new terminus in the car park behind Argyll Street Station on the site of the old St Enoch Station.

It'd take some imaginative new track alignments to make the junctions work but you could then run it as a closed metro system at a higher frequency. You could also integrate some trains from the East End on the North Clyde line too?

Because breaking transfer is bad, and a metro that dumps people at the edge of the city centre isn’t all that useful.

Given all this talk that I’ve been hearing about a gradual phase out of the m8, through Glasgow city centre, I wonder if you could take Cathcart and paisley north through the current m8 corridor then hard right under argyle street, do “Glasgow crossrail” like that

 

[alxndr]

Someone will inevitably tell me why this is a bad idea...

But, why not avoid Central altogether by diverting the Cathcart circle (and the Paisley Canal line) onto the other bridge across the Clyde on the line to High Street? Then build a new terminus in the car park behind Argyll Street Station on the site of the old St Enoch Station.

It'd take some imaginative new track alignments to make the junctions work but you could then run it as a closed metro system at a higher frequency. You could also integrate some trains from the East End on the North Clyde line too?

It'd be very tricky to get the vertical alignment south of the Clyde as you'd have to get across the existing infrastructure, under the M8, and then rise up again to meet the City Unions all in a very short space.

 

[Falcon1200]

But, why not avoid Central altogether by diverting the Cathcart circle (and the Paisley Canal line) onto the other bridge across the Clyde on the line to High Street?

No thanks! I regularly use this route to Glasgow, and arriving at Central is infinitely preferable to being dumped in the run-down east end because a) Central is well placed for the shopping areas and b) provides rail connections to multiple other routes, suburban, regional and long distance. I should perhaps add c) Central provides all the facilities expected of a major rail terminal, which I doubt any tram stop would.

a metro that dumps people at the edge of the city centre isn’t all that useful.

Indeed it is not!

As an aside, re-opening the City Union line (ie Shields Junction to High Street Junction) to heavy rail passenger services is regularly suggested; Last time it cropped up on Facebook I asked the supporters exactly what train service they thought would use the line, ie diversion of existing trains away from Central (again, as above, no thanks!) or additional (and therefore unjustifiable) trains - Not one person replied.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

No thanks! I regularly use this route to Glasgow, and arriving at Central is infinitely preferable to being dumped in the run-down east end because a) Central is well placed for the shopping areas and b) provides rail connections to multiple other routes, suburban, regional and long distance. I should perhaps add c) Central provides all the facilities expected of a major rail terminal, which I doubt any tram stop would.

As an aside, re-opening the City Union line (ie Shields Junction to High Street Junction) to heavy rail passenger services is regularly suggested; Last time it cropped up on Facebook I asked the supporters exactly what train service they thought would use the line, ie diversion of existing trains away from Central (again, as above, no thanks!) or additional (and therefore unjustifiable) trains - Not one person replied.

Surely the main reason anyone would ever come into town is to go to T J Hughes?

More seriously, it depends on the scope of the plan and how much money you're willing to throw at it. Glasgow has a lot of rail lines serving the city but run at very low frequencies. he Cathcart Circle, Paisley Canal line, North Clyde Line and Argyll line would be better run at a turn up and go frequency. Rather than traditional heavy rail you'd get far more from them by running them like a high frequency metro. Which is what basically any other European city would do.

As an aside - I've never understood the urge to run tram trains - the heavy rail lines already exist! There's no need for slower, smaller trains on existing lines.

Central is a bottleneck - we can't run a metro from it's platforms (or even at a significantly higher frequency) as is, and there's no prospects of a through service onto eg. the Argyll Line or the North Clyde Line.

You could divert the Paisley and Cathcart lines onto the Union Line and branch off to join the Argyll line on/under the obscenely large St Enoch Centre site. You've then got a big public transport hub in the centre of the city and less than 200m from Central that's integrated with the Glasgow Subway. You could even fit a travellator between them, but passengers for Central could just travel one more stop on the now frequent metro trains.

It's a huge investment, but you'd turn a disjointed and clunky heavy rail network across Glasgow into something modern and efficient. Passenger numbers would jump and you'd be able to get a lot of busses off of the roads.

Would the Scottish Government fund it? Probably not. But also I'm unconvinced that the tiny, gradual changes that the Scottish Government tend to suggest provide much in the way of value for money. Sometimes you need radical change.

 

[clc]

Possible Clyde Metro options:-

1. Reroute Cathcart and Paisley Canal services onto the City Union Line and into the Argyle Line tunnel. High frequency ‘heavy metro‘ trains would run through the tunnel to the West End, Dalmuir and Milngavie via the reopened Botanics tunnel and a new link between Botanic Gardens and Hyndland. Another branch would diverge at Exhibition Centre and continue to Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Renfrew and the airport via a new line, crossing the Clyde, probably via a tunnel.

2. Reroute Cathcart and Paisley Canal services onto the City Union Line and into a new terminus at St Enoch Square.

3. Reroute Cathcart and Paisley Canal services onto the City Union Line and into a new terminus at Argyle Street station.

Option 1 would be preferred but would cost billions so probably won’t happen.

 

[92002]

I wouldn’t be surprised to see this as an option when the detailed Clyde Metro proposals emerge. There are plans to demolish and redevelop the St Enoch Centre so there may be an opportunity to locate the metro terminus on or near St Enoch Square providing interchange with heavy rail and subway.

Strangely the St Enoch Centre is built on the St Enoch Station. Closed many years ago with the trains diverted to Central. Using the City Union bridge to cross the river.

Amazing how if you wait long enough history can repeat itself.

What probably would be more useful would be to serve Central and continue along the Riverside to pick up the Botanic Gardens lines. Avoiding the already congested Argyle Line.

Could be major cash to access the Botanic Gardens line. The original line has been built on by housing in the years after closure.

A heavy rail solution would be sensible though.

 

[Falcon1200]

Glasgow has a lot of rail lines serving the city but run at very low frequencies. he Cathcart Circle, Paisley Canal line, North Clyde Line and Argyll line would be better run at a turn up and go frequency.

In my experience the levels of current usage do not require greater frequencies, except perhaps on the Cathcart Circle where the all-day pre-Covid timetable should be restored ASAP, to provide two trains per hour on the Maxwell Park side of the Circle and four per hour on the Queens Park side.

You could divert the Paisley and Cathcart lines onto the Union Line and branch off to join the Argyll line on/under the obscenely large St Enoch Centre site.

1. Reroute Cathcart and Paisley Canal services onto the City Union Line and into the Argyle Line tunnel. High frequency ‘heavy metro‘ trains would run through the tunnel to the West End, Dalmuir and Milngavie via the reopened Botanics tunnel and a new link between Botanic Gardens and Hyndland. Another branch would diverge at Exhibition Centre and continue to Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Renfrew and the airport via a new line, crossing the Clyde, probably via a tunnel.

2. Reroute Cathcart and Paisley Canal services onto the City Union Line and into a new terminus at St Enoch Square.

3. Reroute Cathcart and Paisley Canal services onto the City Union Line and into a new terminus at Argyle Street station.

Option 1 would be preferred but would cost billions so probably won’t happen.

Any of these suggestions would cost billions! Given that there is a) no connection between the Cathcart Circle and the City Union line, and b) no connection between the City Union line and the routes heading west, via both Central and Queen Street Low Levels. And, as I said before, any diversion of services away from Glasgow Central destroys the connectional possibilities there.

 

[GLC]

It’s a shame the old alignment from the Barrhead line and via Southside station has been partially built over. A redeveloped St Enoch’s station, and a link between the Cathcart circle and the Larkfield curve would be a way of getting trains out of Central but still in the city centre

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

Any of these suggestions would cost billions! Given that there is a) no connection between the Cathcart Circle and the City Union line, and b) no connection between the City Union line and the routes heading west, via both Central and Queen Street Low Levels. And, as I said before, any diversion of services away from Glasgow Central destroys the connectional possibilities there.

Most cities are willing to pay a bit for infrastructure. Make do and mend with the current setup means that Glasgow has rail lines everywhere that are underused and really incredibly badly integrated. Never seen anywhere as bad as Glasgow on that front. It desperately needs conversion from an outdated train service to something more modern.

Besides, how much traffic is lost because people can't rely on an infrequent train that stops frequently, with poor connections to the Subway and other routes.

There needs to be turn up and go services on the suburban lines that link up with the subway and other routes. You need to pay for that.

 

[roadierway77]

Any of these suggestions would cost billions!

That's very true, but the government and local authorities seem to be prepared to spend billions on the Clyde Metro project - I believe 16 billion was the most recent quoted potential cost.

And, as I said before, any diversion of services away from Glasgow Central destroys the connectional possibilities there.

Not necessarily. Connections could easily still be maintained through whatever means, be it a new hub at St Enoch or connections to the North Clyde or Argyle lines. Theoretically, redirecting Cathcart services onto the NCL would maintain connections to the centre through Queen Street low level, and introduce new connections to the east end, though of course you'd need to slot trains in alongside existing services. An on-street line could easily still connect to Central also, alongside providing cross-city connections to Queen Street and Buchanan bus station. And if the walkway from Queen Street to Central is built, then it matters little if a line connects directly to Central or not, as long as it connects to Queen Street.

 

[Brubulus]

The cheapest way to get trains out of Central would be to electrify the City Union and build a new curve at Blackfriars to allow those trains to run into Queen Street Low Level. Then ensure that there is a strict separation of track and platforms for each of the three approaches out of Central and you'll realise that there is the capacity for a significant capacity boost. You don't particularly need to move trains out of Central but if the Ayrshire lines only get 4 platforms, it might be useful to move the Paisely Canal services onto North Clyde.

 

[Arkeeos]

More seriously, it depends on the scope of the plan and how much money you're willing to throw at it. Glasgow has a lot of rail lines serving the city but run at very low frequencies. he Cathcart Circle, Paisley Canal line, North Clyde Line and Argyll line would be better run at a turn up and go frequency. Rather than traditional heavy rail you'd get far more from them by running them like a high frequency metro. Which is what basically any other European city would do.

As an aside - I've never understood the urge to run tram trains - the heavy rail lines already exist! There's no need for slower, smaller trains on existing lines.

Agree for both, Its would take some investment in Glasgow but reorganising the railway to be more metro like would absolutely be a good thing and there's lots of options for how to re-route the lines, so it depends on what they choose to do. I think routing the southern lines westwards would be the best option though, because that results in a more balanced network.
There's little to no need for Tram Trains in this country, where they are successful is when a city already has a large tram network and an inconveniently placed central station (like Karlsruhe), but all major stations in this country are well placed so there's no reason for tram trains, since you can just run regular trains.

 

[Falcon1200]

Make do and mend with the current setup means that Glasgow has rail lines everywhere that are underused and really incredibly badly integrated. Never seen anywhere as bad as Glasgow on that front.

I can't agree with that, the only real lack of integration in Glasgow is the separation of services between Central and Queen Street - And none of the proposals here overcome that!

Besides, how much traffic is lost because people can't rely on an infrequent train that stops frequently, with poor connections to the Subway and other routes.

I would also dispute the poor connections allegation, at Central there are multiple connecting services, to the south, east and west. The one area which IMHO does need to be addressed is fast services to Edinburgh, which could be resolved by reinstating the hourly Shotts limited stop and Cross Country's two-hourly Glasgow trains. And I don't believe that exchanging all the connectional possibilities at Central for an easier interchange with the Subway (which at St Enoch is not exactly far from Central anyway) is in any way an advance.

That's very true, but the government and local authorities seem to be prepared to spend billions on the Clyde Metro project

I remain to be convinced that those billions will actually be forthcoming!

I can only reiterate that as a regular user of the Cathcart Circle route I am perfectly happy with the location and connectional possibilities of the current terminus at Central, and the service frequency (except that the missing pre-Covid services should be restored ASAP). None of the proposals mentioned here appeal to me in any way, the opposite in fact.

 

[Rick1984]

It’s a shame the old alignment from the Barrhead line and via Southside station has been partially built over. A redeveloped St Enoch’s station, and a link between the Cathcart circle and the Larkfield curve would be a way of getting trains out of Central but still in the city centre

The M74 was built with a bridge to provide provision for a reconnection from the lines from the South to connect to the City Union Line

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

I can't agree with that, the only real lack of integration in Glasgow is the separation of services between Central and Queen Street - And none of the proposals here overcome that!

I would also dispute the poor connections allegation, at Central there are multiple connecting services, to the south, east and west. The one area which IMHO does need to be addressed is fast services to Edinburgh, which could be resolved by reinstating the hourly Shotts limited stop and Cross Country's two-hourly Glasgow trains. And I don't believe that exchanging all the connectional possibilities at Central for an easier interchange with the Subway (which at St Enoch is not exactly far from Central anyway) is in any way an advance.

I can only reiterate that as a regular user of the Cathcart Circle route I am perfectly happy with the location and connectional possibilities of the current terminus at Central, and the service frequency (except that the missing pre-Covid services should be restored ASAP). None of the proposals mentioned here appeal to me in any way, the opposite in fact.

Poor connections as in the city centre railways are treated like suburban/rural lines with infrequent services (that stop completely far too early!) and a lack of joined up ticketing.

As in - for a hypothetical journey of St George's Cross to Queen's Park you need to get a subway ticket/tap in with your card, tap out at Buchanan Street/St Enoch, walk to Central, buy a ticket from a vending machine, check the board for the next departure find a platform, wait (could be anything up to a 1hr wait, but usually 30 mins). This is actually a very simple example, it gets far more complex than this.

With a metro system it's turn up and go. You might need to switch lines at connections but normally never wait more than 10 minutes. Travelling point to point from anywhere is simple and doesn't take much thought.

 

[Peter0124]

Poor connections as in the city centre railways are treated like suburban/rural lines with infrequent services (that stop completely far too early!) and a lack of joined up ticketing.

Coatbridge should have joined up ticketing. Would allow journeys to be made from Hamilton Circle to Edinburgh, by walking between Coatbridge Central / Sunnyside.

 

[alxndr]

Coatbridge should have joined up ticketing. Would allow journeys to be made from Hamilton Circle to Edinburgh, by walking between Coatbridge Central / Sunnyside.

Agreed, there are times where I’d have used a connection in Coatbridge to get into Glasgow quicker from Cumbernauld as it’s quicker than staying on the Dalmuir train all the way to Central.

 

[NIT100]

The M74 was built with a bridge to provide provision for a reconnection from the lines from the South to connect to the City Union

Obviously Travis Perkins has to go, and the new Scottish Power 33kV primary substation for electrification of the First Bus Caledonia depot has effectivley been built on the alignment, but other than that he original Glasgow South Western route is generally still unbuilt on.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

There's little to no need for Tram Trains in this country, where they are successful is when a city already has a large tram network and an inconveniently placed central station (like Karlsruhe), but all major stations in this country are well placed so there's no reason for tram trains, since you can just run regular trains.

For the most part, I agree with this. Certainly there seems to be a tendency for local politicians to suggest tram-trains if there's an election coming up... presumably because it (a) sounds fancy; and (b) probably sounds more achievable/affordable than a heavy-rail proposal. There's a danger that tram-train becomes the go-to "solution in need of a problem" as is the case with TfGM's Glossop/Hadfield idea.

There are a few cities with poorly-sited "main" stations where a tram or tram-train solution would be ideal, Bristol being the obvious example. I'd argue that Glasgow does not fall into that category though.

 

[92002]

For the most part, I agree with this. Certainly there seems to be a tendency for local politicians to suggest tram-trains if there's an election coming up... presumably because it (a) sounds fancy; and (b) probably sounds more achievable/affordable than a heavy-rail proposal. There's a danger that tram-train becomes the go-to "solution in need of a problem" as is the case with TfGM's Glossop/Hadfield idea.

There are a few cities with poorly-sited "main" stations where a tram or tram-train solution would be ideal, Bristol being the obvious example. I'd argue that Glasgow does not fall into that category though.

A Tram/Train solution has been suggested for many years in Glasgow. However with poor planning the line of route was not achieved. They even added an additional heavy rail route that is now used by heavy rail

That proposal may soon be achieved by a conventional tram route to a different line of route.

 

[Falcon1200]

The M74 was built with a bridge to provide provision for a reconnection from the lines from the South to connect to the City Union Line

Obviously Travis Perkins has to go, and the new Scottish Power 33kV primary substation for electrification of the First Bus Caledonia depot has effectivley been built on the alignment, but other than that he original Glasgow South Western route is generally still unbuilt on.

The connection between the lines to the South and the City Union was from the Barrhead route only. A connection would be possible from the Maxwell Park side of the Cathcart Circle, albeit with a flat crossing of the Barrhead line, while a connection from the Queens Park side of the Circle would be difficult and hugely expensive. Which suits me, I am quite happy with my trains via Queens Park going to Central and have no wish to go either to a new St Enoch (which would be where, exactly?) or the East End!

 

[Arkeeos]

There are a few cities with poorly-sited "main" stations where a tram or tram-train solution would be ideal, Bristol being the obvious example. I'd argue that Glasgow does not fall into that category though.

Yes, I definitely exaggerated the how good the placement of some stations were, I actually think the city where a tram-train proposal makes the most sense would be Cambridge, given it has a station far out from the city centre and some rural lines to electrify and run trams over.

 

[Rick1984]

The connection between the lines to the South and the City Union was from the Barrhead route only

Ah yes of course. I was struggling to remember the layout previously

 

[Peter0124]

A suggestion to improve the cross-Glasgow transfer and avoid interchange at Edinburgh (if travelling from North of Stirling to WCML) would be to send a few of the Aberdeen/Inverness services into Glasgow Central high level via the Coatbridge curve, like they did 7 years ago during EGIP.

 

[waverley47]

A suggestion to improve the cross-Glasgow transfer and avoid interchange at Edinburgh (if travelling from North of Stirling to WCML) would be to send a few of the Aberdeen/Inverness services into Glasgow Central high level via the Coatbridge curve, like they did 7 years ago during EGIP.

That was a one off. It's not going to happen again.

That particular piece of logistics took about two years of preparation of shifting around route knowledge, diagrams, pathing and platform allocations allow it to work. It's about 40 minutes longer.

The whole program of shuttling around everything so capacity and connectivity in Glasgow were maintained during the Queen Street closure also cost the best part of 4 million quid.