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

[Falcon1200]

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

Indeed, and anyway connections between the WCML and Central and North Scotland can be made at Edinburgh Waverley, or Haymarket, by Avanti and TPE services.

 

[jagardner1984]

Just a thought - but isn’t one of the big advantages of trams / light rail a better handling of gradients ? (In the same way as Edinburgh dives up and down to avoid various existing objects).

I wonder whether a solution for GLC congestion might be a single platform road tram stop on either Hope St or Renfield St.

It would seem like taking the circle trains out of the mix at high level but retaining connection directly to the station might be the easiest “bang for bucks” solution ?

And also the possibility of further running through the city at some future point ?

I did sense from a lot of the Clyde Metro stuff was not really about swapping trains for trams, but also about the increased possibilities of road running those same services.

 

[takno]

Just a thought - but isn’t one of the big advantages of trams / light rail a better handling of gradients ? (In the same way as Edinburgh dives up and down to avoid various existing objects).

I wonder whether a solution for GLC congestion might be a single platform road tram stop on either Hope St or Renfield St.

It would seem like taking the circle trains out of the mix at high level but retaining connection directly to the station might be the easiest “bang for bucks” solution ?

And also the possibility of further running through the city at some future point ?

I did sense from a lot of the Clyde Metro stuff was not really about swapping trains for trams, but also about the increased possibilities of road running those same services.

Road running would be a pretty severe limiting factor on any metro system. It immediately cuts capacity right down since you can't really run more than 2 coaches anymore. It also imports delays and blockades from another transport medium entirely. Anything from city centre gridlock, through emergency services responding to an incident, or even bad parking, can mean that your expensive segregated metro outside of town can no longer run into town, or possibly can't run at all.

In terms of capabilities, sure, light rail can go round tighter corners and up steeper gradients, but usually at pretty glacial speeds, and iirc from Sheffield, it's easier with standard tram wheels than it is with tram-trsin wheels. Even power could be a factor, since low voltage DC systems may struggle to provide the juice for a longer tram to go quickly uphill, particularly if it's carting around a load of AC equipment for any shared routes.

In short, you might choose to do road running if there's no other reasonable way into an area, but it's not a clever solution to a small problem elsewhere. if anything Edinburgh is a great demonstration that you might as well bite the bullet and build a tunnel under the road instead.

 

[Falcon1200]

I wonder whether a solution for GLC congestion might be a single platform road tram stop on either Hope St or Renfield St.

Congestion was not an issue at Glasgow Central even with the pre-Covid train service; Bear in mind two additional platforms (and a third line part of the way between Central and Paisley) were provided for Glasgow Airport trains which did not materialise, and probably never will now. And the current service is reduced, for example most of the half-hourly Glasgow/Ayr expresses have gone with no sign of their return. So there is no need to remove the Cathcart Circle services from the station.

 

[waverley47]

Congestion was not an issue at Glasgow Central even with the pre-Covid train service; Bear in mind two additional platforms (and a third line part of the way between Central and Paisley) were provided for Glasgow Airport trains which did not materialise, and probably never will now. And the current service is reduced, for example most of the half-hourly Glasgow/Ayr expresses have gone with no sign of their return. So there is no need to remove the Cathcart Circle services from the station.

Nope. Glasgow Central platform capacity, and throat capacity, is the limiting factor on Cathcart circle service increases.

The station is also the capacity limit on extra services to various places, including a third train every hour along the Shotts line, and extra fast Lanark trains.

Admittedly, this pales into insignificance against the massive amounts of conflicts through the seven flat junctions between Carstairs and Rutherglen, but Glasgow Central is an issue, and will continue to be an issue, until some of the services are removed from the station.

The whole point of the Cathcart metro conversion is that those are underutilised, and underserved, inner-city lines with regular stops and perfect for metro conversion. Taking them out of Glasgow Central and upping frequency to metro frequencies would improve ridership significantly. Unfortunately, the problem remains that there actually isn't anywhere useful to send them.

 

[Falcon1200]

Admittedly, this pales into insignificance against the massive amounts of conflicts through the seven flat junctions between Carstairs and Rutherglen, but Glasgow Central is an issue, and will continue to be an issue, until some of the services are removed from the station.

I have to disagree; Central was perfectly able to cope with the pre-Covid level of service, which was greater than now, with no problem whatsoever, and I remain to be convinced that any more than that is necessary. I do agree that the missing trains should be restored, but there is no sign whatsoever of Scotrail considering even that, never mind increasing the timetable further.

 

[Peter0124]

--Deleted--

 

[Falcon1200]

What about sending one of those extra services through the Low Level?

It would be possible, at least as far as Anderston and reversing via the Exhibition Centre Siding, but I remain to be convinced that these extra services can actually be justified; Restore the Shotts fast trains certainly, but a third train on top of that? And Lanark already has a half-hourly service, what more is needed?!!

 

[Peter0124]

It would be possible, at least as far as Anderston and reversing via the Exhibition Centre Siding, but I remain to be convinced that these extra services can actually be justified; Restore the Shotts fast trains certainly, but a third train on top of that? And Lanark already has a half-hourly service, what more is needed?!!

Now that we think of that, we don't need extra Shotts/Lanark. The fast shotts should definitely come back though. Same for the fast Gourocks, they've actually removed most of them from May.

 

[snookertam]

I have to disagree; Central was perfectly able to cope with the pre-Covid level of service, which was greater than now, with no problem whatsoever, and I remain to be convinced that any more than that is necessary. I do agree that the missing trains should be restored, but there is no sign whatsoever of Scotrail considering even that, never mind increasing the timetable further.

Yea, it coped, but that was it. There’s little to no capacity to increase further than what was the pre-covid service. You could maybe squeeze out one or two extra services here and there but it would need intelligent diagramming to do so.

In terms of the withdrawn services, yes they should be returned, including the Cathcart Circles and fast Gourocks (certainly 1 per hour), but I currently don’t see any demand for increasing the service further at the moment.

Problems with Cathcart Circle light rail conversion are numerous, as have been pointed out. Nowhere for them to go at Muirhouse/Eglinton Street, any conversion will cost money which isn’t readily spent on Glasgow’s public transport (or on the city more generally), whilst the eastern half of the circle is also a WCML diversion route, and so has so strategic importance as a Network Rail operated route.

I feel as though a return to pre-covid frequency coupled with more user friendly ticketing (eg following up on the smart card Pay as you go scheme around 2019) would help the route a great deal.

 

[waverley47]

I have to disagree; Central was perfectly able to cope with the pre-Covid level of service, which was greater than now, with no problem whatsoever, and I remain to be convinced that any more than that is necessary. I do agree that the missing trains should be restored, but there is no sign whatsoever of Scotrail considering even that, never mind increasing the timetable further.

It's literally in every single planning document. The intervention document into Glasgow metro strategies says, and I quote:

"In the STPR2 National Rail workshop, stakeholders identified a need for:
▪ The adoption of light rail (“metro”) services on Glasgow South rail routes to release capacity at Glasgow Central for longer trains and longer-distance services;
▪ Longer trains and increased service frequency at
stations such as Glasgow Central to enable Network Rail, NTS2 aspirations"

This document can be found here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...8QFnoECBoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0KjxImaT6UP6Ynreu7mCYo


Glasgow Central pre COVID was an absolute mess. I was involved in planning for increasing services and better provision. Fair warning, I never worked for the timetable department of NR, but I had to do a lot of dealing with them.

Every time we requested a regular path at long notice (ca. five years in advance) we were told that we couldn't have a path, and even if we could, there wasn't anywhere in the station to hide the units.

In the past, most of the trains were two or three coaches long, and you could double stack. Now, Shotts line trains are six cars long, and they occupy a whole platform.

Previously, could interwork a lot more. Now, the timetable is much busier, and the general direction of travel is away from interworking lines and services. After all, it's just a way of importing delays between routes.

Glasgow Central pre-covid was dispatching 31 trains each hour. Sometimes more than that. Most of those trains have turnaround times of up to 30 minutes.

If you do the maths, 31 trains per hour, each for 30 minutes (including reoccupation time) across fifteen platforms, you end up with some pretty weird planning documents.



Now, onto the extra services.

Shotts needs a third train per hour so that every station along the line gets a minimum of 2tph, which is the minimum acceptable level for outer suburban stations in the Scottish government planning framework.

The extra Lanark is basically a placeholder path, which would be an extra fast Lanark service at peak times, so the existing two can go all-stations, but with a long term aspiration for the path to be used as the Carstairs service off-peak.

Additionally, there are long term aspirations for the Dumfries service to go hourly, and occupy a new path, fast as far as Kilmarnock, stopping at Barrhead only.

Long term, post 2045, you can add in an extra post HS2 service every hour to London.


The pre-covid frequencies will slowly come back. Add those up and you start to hamper platform availability. Suddenly, going to 4tph on all routes around the circle is impossible. There is a need for better and more frequent services on the Cathcart routes, and you need to send them somewhere that isn't Glasgow Central.

 

[snookertam]

I’ll watch with interest to see if any of the above comes to fruition. Lost count of the number of aspirational planning documents published over the years.

Can see a strong argument for any additional services avoiding Glasgow Central as opposed to the Cathcart Circle routes by reopening the city union to passenger traffic and a new station. Not that i necessarily agree, but that seems more realistic than the amount of construction required to enable the Cathcart routes to be diverted.

 

[waverley47]

I’ll watch with interest to see if any of the above comes to fruition. Lost count of the number of aspirational planning documents published over the years.

Can see a strong argument for any additional services avoiding Glasgow Central as opposed to the Cathcart Circle routes by reopening the city union to passenger traffic and a new station. Not that i necessarily agree, but that seems more realistic than the amount of construction required to enable the Cathcart routes to be diverted.

The Scottish government framework about service increases and frequency increases is going to happen.

What's more fluid is the Cathcart lines. Ideally they'd be binned off onto SPT to run as an actual metro, leaving Glasgow Central to the big trains.

Ultimately, where you send them doesn't really matter. Of course, it does matter, but the City Union line isn't really a great option. It basically goes the opposite direction of where people want to go.

Whichever way you slice it, there will be years of construction and disruption. Which is why nobody wants to deal with it, and why ten years after the issue was first solved, this thread is still trying to either argue there isn't an issue that needs solving, or come up with new and innovative ways of solving it.

 

[roadierway77]

Ultimately, where you send them doesn't really matter. Of course, it does matter, but the City Union line isn't really a great option. It basically goes the opposite direction of where people want to go.

The only way I can see the City Union being used for Cathcart services is if the proposed chord is built allowing trains to access Queen Street low level, which maintains the connection to the centre. However that of course brings in a whole new bag of worms as one needs to find capacity on the North Clyde line. Definitely the best option in my opinion though if you want to maintain some good connections.

 

[snookertam]

The Scottish government framework about service increases and frequency increases is going to happen.

What's more fluid is the Cathcart lines. Ideally they'd be binned off onto SPT to run as an actual metro, leaving Glasgow Central to the big trains.

Ultimately, where you send them doesn't really matter. Of course, it does matter, but the City Union line isn't really a great option. It basically goes the opposite direction of where people want to go.

Whichever way you slice it, there will be years of construction and disruption. Which is why nobody wants to deal with it, and why ten years after the issue was first solved, this thread is still trying to either argue there isn't an issue that needs solving, or come up with new and innovative ways of solving it.

I wouldn’t put my money on what anything the current Scottish government says actually happening. You hit the mail on the head in your final paragraph - no one wants to deal with it. And so no one will.

I’d suggest an Australian style underground city loop might be more realistic for providing additional Al capacity than a full metro network.

The only way I can see the City Union being used for Cathcart services is if the proposed chord is built allowing trains to access Queen Street low level, which maintains the connection to the centre. However that of course brings in a whole new bag of worms as one needs to find capacity on the North Clyde line. Definitely the best option in my opinion though if you want to maintain some good connections.

No one is suggesting Cathcart services into the city union, but the additional Kilmarnock, Shotts etc services going there instead.

 

[waverley47]

I wouldn’t put my money on what anything the current Scottish government says actually happening. You hit the mail on the head in your final paragraph - no one wants to deal with it. And so no one will.

Eh I agree on principal, but in practice, I did get to choose my own successor when I left Transport Scotland.

The current team are pretty savvy, and the general direction of travel in the Scottish government at the moment is towards a more public transport/active travel based approach.

The main problem is not political will. Instead, as with everything, it's a lack of money.

No one is suggesting Cathcart services into the city union, but the additional Kilmarnock, Shotts etc services going there instead.

That isn't going to happen. There isn't going to be a new St Enoch station built for extra services. It's central or nothing.

 

[alxndr]

No one is suggesting Cathcart services into the city union, but the additional Kilmarnock, Shotts etc services going there instead.

Still keeps the same issue of getting them up onto the City Union.

Would it be more reasonable to use the City Unions to take some of the services from out west (e.g. Paisley/Ayr) where there is an existing connection? Would still take some of the services away from Central, but doesn't change that the fact that there's no station to empty them at though.

 

[Falcon1200]

Glasgow Central pre COVID was an absolute mess.

Having been a user of Glasgow Central since 1984, until 2016 for commuting and throughout for leisure, I do not recognise that description of Central, at all; Sure, there have been bad days, thanks to incidents such as dewirements, fires, extreme weather, some of which I was directly involved in as an Operations Controller, but these are rare occasions.

Glasgow Central pre-covid was dispatching 31 trains each hour. Sometimes more than that. Most of those trains have turnaround times of up to 30 minutes.

Where does this 30 minutes turnround come from? Many are far less, eg 7 minutes for Neilston and Newton trains.

If you do the maths, 31 trains per hour, each for 30 minutes (including reoccupation time) across fifteen platforms, you end up with some pretty weird planning documents.

31 trains per hour across15 platforms is only just over 2 trains per platform per hour, not exactly efficient! There is no reason why suburban trains formed entirely of multiple unit stock require anything like such time, the only trains which do are the long distance

 

[92002]

Having been a user of Glasgow Central since 1984, until 2016 for commuting and throughout for leisure, I do not recognise that description of Central, at all; Sure, there have been bad days, thanks to incidents such as dewirements, fires, extreme weather, some of which I was directly involved in as an Operations Controller, but these are rare occasions.



Where does this 30 minutes turnround come from? Many are far less, eg 7 minutes for Neilston and Newton trains.



31 trains per hour across15 platforms is only just over 2 trains per platform per hour, not exactly efficient! There is no reason why suburban trains formed entirely of multiple unit stock require anything like such time, the only trains which do are the long distance

Most long distance trains are due to turn round in 40 minutes. However if three is late running they easily turn around in half the time.

 

[Southsider]

Wasn’t it intended to build another platform at East Kilbride and have those services lay over there rather than Central? I don’t know if this is still the case. Could this approach be used elsewhere to release capacity at Central?

 

[drb61]

Shotts needs a third train per hour so that every station along the line gets a minimum of 2tph, which is the minimum acceptable level for outer suburban stations in the Scottish government planning framework.

I doubt all stations on the Shotts line need 2tph - the least used stations (Hartwood, Briech and Addiewell) would suffice with 1tph. But agree that all other stations between Bellshill and Haymarket should have 2tph. When the 'fast' trains ran on the Shotts line some were almost as slow as the stoppers due to pathing constraints at each end - so I think a half-hourly service calling most stations would work better than 1 fast and 1 stopper. One calling at all stations except CBL and UDD and the other calling all stations except HTW, BRC and ADW - both taking around 80 mins end to end.

 

[snookertam]

I doubt all stations on the Shotts line need 2tph - the least used stations (Hartwood, Briech and Addiewell) would suffice with 1tph. But agree that all other stations between Bellshill and Haymarket should have 2tph. When the 'fast' trains ran on the Shotts line some were almost as slow as the stoppers due to pathing constraints at each end - so I think a half-hourly service calling most stations would work better than 1 fast and 1 stopper. One calling at all stations except CBL and UDD and the other calling all stations except HTW, BRC and ADW - both taking around 80 mins end to end.

Agreed. The fast services in their previous form weren’t necessary and lost an opportunity to provide better services at several stops on the route, the Edinburgh stations especially.

 

[92002]

I doubt all stations on the Shotts line need 2tph - the least used stations (Hartwood, Briech and Addiewell) would suffice with 1tph. But agree that all other stations between Bellshill and Haymarket should have 2tph. When the 'fast' trains ran on the Shotts line some were almost as slow as the stoppers due to pathing constraints at each end - so I think a half-hourly service calling most stations would work better than 1 fast and 1 stopper. One calling at all stations except CBL and UDD and the other calling all stations except HTW, BRC and ADW - both taking around 80 mins end to end.

Perhaps what is needed is a return of the fast service to a different departure time to give a faster service end to end times which would attract passengers. They atteacted a good number of passrngers who provably now drive.

Its doubtfull that a second all stations service would attract pqssrngers the journey time are not attractive.

 

[Kingston Dan]

Glasgow is the only city on the planet apparently that has a metro system that has not been expanded since it opened (and the Subway is the third oldest on the planet). If it was anywhere else other than not London in the UK it would have a metro system of several lines and the Cathcart Circle would definitely form part of one of them.

 

[drb61]

Perhaps what is needed is a return of the fast service to a different departure time to give a faster service end to end times which would attract passengers. They atteacted a good number of passrngers who provably now drive.

Its doubtfull that a second all stations service would attract pqssrngers the journey time are not attractive.

But, like the western side of the Cathcart circle, the suburban stations at the Edinburgh end of the Shotts line badly need a half hourly service to increase usage. Having a half hourly stopping service taking around 80 minutes (which IS possible post electrification) would be comparable to the journey time via Bathgate and would also provide a second viable alternative route when disruption occurs on the main E-G line.

 

[92002]

But, like the western side of the Cathcart circle, the suburban stations at the Edinburgh end of the Shotts line badly need a half hourly service to increase usage. Having a half hourly stopping service taking around 80 minutes (which IS possible post electrification) would be comparable to the journey time via Bathgate and would also provide a second viable alternative route when disruption occurs on the main E-G line.

There was a short service at one time which was removed. Presumably due to lack of use.

 

[Meerkat]

Glasgow is the only city on the planet apparently that has a metro system that has not been expanded since it opened (and the Subway is the third oldest on the planet). If it was anywhere else other than not London in the UK it would have a metro system of several lines and the Cathcart Circle would definitely form part of one of them.

Maybe they should have built their subway in a more normal fashion!

 

[takno]

Glasgow is the only city on the planet apparently that has a metro system that has not been expanded since it opened (and the Subway is the third oldest on the planet). If it was anywhere else other than not London in the UK it would have a metro system of several lines and the Cathcart Circle would definitely form part of one of them.

In most places apart from the UK Glasgow wouldn't have a metro system and the Cathcart circle would never have been built in the first place

 

[Falcon1200]

Perhaps what is needed is a return of the fast service to a different departure time to give a faster service end to end times which would attract passengers.

The problem with the Shotts line is that a half-hourly regular interval service cannot operate on a one fast/one slow train basis, as the fast train would catch the slow one long before either terminal was reached!

 

[Tayway]

I think to be able to have a fast service, you would really need at least 3tph Edinburgh to Holytown, with the other Glasgow and a Motherwell/Hamilton service doing all the Edinburgh suburban stops to give them 2tph. You could put Breich and Addiewell on the Motherwell one, but Hartwood might be a harder sell seeing as most traffic will be Glasgow-bound.

Even better would be 4tph, with 2tph Edinburgh to Glasgow semi-fast and 2tph Edinburgh to Livingston South stopping, with 1tph running through to Motherwell or Hamilton.