Would anyone care to comment on/support/slaughter my Renfrew-Charing Cross suggestion? That would seem, to me at least, a good way to achieve the regeneration benefits of reopening the City Union Line whilst providing the largest trainless town in Scotland with a direct rail connection to the City Centre. The Crossrail disbenefits of longer journey times for existing passengers wouldn't apply as Renfrew obviously does not currently have any passengers to inconvenience.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Unused Capacity at Glasgow Queen St Low Level Station
- Thread starter clc
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Altnabreac
Established Member
I think that is a much better use of the City Union Line than is usually proposed for Crossrail.
Problem is it is of fairly local benefit so unlikely to attract much Scottish Government funding.
Maybe something could happen in future with new administrations possible (likely?) in Glasgow and Renfrewshire Councils from May.
Might want to start your own thread for that one to be honest if you're looking for scrutiny.
If you were looking for a cost-effective way to connect Renfrew with Glasgow City Centre then wouldn't you as well build a station on the existing stabling lines next to Braehead and make it a bus/rail interchange?
I've little knowledge on that line but a quick squint about on Google Maps and I'm wondering where you would even locate the station in the first place? The only location I can think of would be either Braehead or between Hillington West and Paisley, without having to construct a new line.
Last edited:
Perhaps it could be phased to make it more affordable. The first phase would electrify and upgrade the City Union Line with stations at West St, Gorbals and Glasgow Cross; and upgrade and electrify the existing Deanside freight line with a station at the end of the line at Braehead. You could then run a 2tph service to Springburn.
The second phase would build the St John's Chord, the turn back west of Charing Cross and extra capacity on the Glasgow-Paisley line if needed to allow a 4tph Renfrew-Charing Cross service.
Phase 1 could be done for what, £60m? Phase 2 would be a lot more obviously.
Yes.
Also bear in mind that some of those people will be transfering to other trains, subway or buses to get to their final destination. The transport network in the city is quite extensive and from its heart spreads out quite a distance beyond.
farci
Member
If it won't attract Scottish Govt funding - where should it come from? Clydeplan identified the benefit of better public transport links within Glasgow City Region and I doubt the two councils of whichever political hue can afford it unless there is an innovative funding mechanism
Yes its extensive but only links up in a few places ie Partick, Govan ! And apart from the Zonecard there isent cross modal ticketing .
class303
Member
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 391
errr why?
getting OHLE erected and re-doubling from Busby to EK would massively increase the capacity. Even using class 170 over the 156 would improve things as dwell times would be significantly reduced due to better placed wider doors.
class303
Member
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 391
you're massively wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
route:oxford
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 4,949
How Glasgow is portrayed and chooses to portray itself doesn't help.
From the "dole scum" of Rab C Nesbitt, through to the staple dereliction and destitution footage for the regular SNPs media opportunities as they blame Westminster for something else - it's all part of the public's perception of Glasgow.
Even local people know that all it takes is a single step out of the main streets to a side street to see buildings at high risk.
Last edited by a moderator:
The 'Rail to Renfrew' suggestion of a few years ago was for a station at the end of the Deanside freight line at Braehead:
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=71616
Subsequently Renfrewshire Council decided not to pursue a bid for a station. I suspect the reason was because the proposal would have used the remaining capacity on the Paisley corridor which would impact on GARL, which seems to be the main priority for Labour.
Derek Mackay (now a Cabinet Secretary) still supports 'Rail to Renfrew' so perhaps if the SNP take control of the council in May it will gain some momentum. I can see a scenario where the tram-train link to the airport is dropped and the Renfrew rail link comes forward instead.
What would the voters of Renfrew prefer I wonder - an airport link they'd never use or a rail connection to Glasgow?
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,224
The original Blue Train electrification/route modernisation programme had an even higher frequency of up to 20tph, I believe, but it was a different network. As far as I'm aware it meant that the current Argyle Line services running through Partick went through Queen Street instead, and there was an additional branch (Bridgeton) to serve on the eastern side. The opening of the Argyle Line means that the same service frequency can be provided to the western side of the city as before with fewer train through Queen Street and to the east, while there's a smaller capacity relief heading westwards towards Bridgeton.
A big problem with the idea of filling up the tracks to Airdrie is that it would then slow down Airdrie-Bathgate services and make them less useful. There's more of an ability to speed up services in the west due to the Yoker loop and the turnback/branch provision at Milngavie and at Dalmuir. On the eastern side there's no (effective) dynamic loop, turnback or branch between Bellgrove and Airdrie. Branching off more services at Bellgrove is now more feasible than in the past as they can now go to Cumbernauld or beyond, rather than terminating short so close to the city centre that they're not competitive with buses or walking. Reopening the Bridgeton branch is now infeasible and not worthwhile. Before A-B opened some services terminated short and turned back in the Shettleston loops, but with A-B there aren't many trains that you can feasible turn back short here without disadvantaging somewhere else. The chord at Coatbridge Sunnyside could be used to turn back trains but it's probably too close to the turnback at Airdrie. It might work if trains went out of service at Easterhouse and then ran fast but the you're missing out on the demand from the Coatbridge area unless you build some expensive, complicated platform arrangements on the chord line. I think this idea would be much more desirable if you use it to send trains down to Motherwell or even onto the newly-electrified Shotts line, possibly with a call at a new station built near the Eurocentral estate. Even then it's unlikely to speed the timetable up by much at all.
Another idea could be to rebuild a lost chord at Sunnyside heading up towards Gartcosh. Then services from the A-B line could head up through Stepps, possibly justifying the construction of a direct Garngad chord so that they have a clear run back onto the North Clyde at Bellgrove. This chord would prove especially useful when a cross-city tunnel is built, as then A-B services could head through the tunnel and run south and/or west of the city.
Still though, it won't be easy to shoehorn faster regional services onto a line engineered as an S-Bahn. NR think that it would be worthwhile to build a third platform line at Bathgate to allow the extra 2 A-B services to be overtaken. The A-B stopping service (which will get even slower with demands for a station at Plains) could effectively be split at Bathgate, with the train waiting to be overtaken and then continuing on. With work a similar arrangement could be possible at Airdrie too but I don't see it being worthwhile in addition without other things being done elsewhere along the line.
A big problem with the idea of filling up the tracks to Airdrie is that it would then slow down Airdrie-Bathgate services and make them less useful. There's more of an ability to speed up services in the west due to the Yoker loop and the turnback/branch provision at Milngavie and at Dalmuir. On the eastern side there's no (effective) dynamic loop, turnback or branch between Bellgrove and Airdrie. Branching off more services at Bellgrove is now more feasible than in the past as they can now go to Cumbernauld or beyond, rather than terminating short so close to the city centre that they're not competitive with buses or walking. Reopening the Bridgeton branch is now infeasible and not worthwhile. Before A-B opened some services terminated short and turned back in the Shettleston loops, but with A-B there aren't many trains that you can feasible turn back short here without disadvantaging somewhere else. The chord at Coatbridge Sunnyside could be used to turn back trains but it's probably too close to the turnback at Airdrie. It might work if trains went out of service at Easterhouse and then ran fast but the you're missing out on the demand from the Coatbridge area unless you build some expensive, complicated platform arrangements on the chord line. I think this idea would be much more desirable if you use it to send trains down to Motherwell or even onto the newly-electrified Shotts line, possibly with a call at a new station built near the Eurocentral estate. Even then it's unlikely to speed the timetable up by much at all.
Another idea could be to rebuild a lost chord at Sunnyside heading up towards Gartcosh. Then services from the A-B line could head up through Stepps, possibly justifying the construction of a direct Garngad chord so that they have a clear run back onto the North Clyde at Bellgrove. This chord would prove especially useful when a cross-city tunnel is built, as then A-B services could head through the tunnel and run south and/or west of the city.
Still though, it won't be easy to shoehorn faster regional services onto a line engineered as an S-Bahn. NR think that it would be worthwhile to build a third platform line at Bathgate to allow the extra 2 A-B services to be overtaken. The A-B stopping service (which will get even slower with demands for a station at Plains) could effectively be split at Bathgate, with the train waiting to be overtaken and then continuing on. With work a similar arrangement could be possible at Airdrie too but I don't see it being worthwhile in addition without other things being done elsewhere along the line.
It links up just about the whole city, bear in mind the North Electrics aren't the only part of the rail network.
Not sure but when the platforms were extended on the EK line they were going to use the SPT 170S , it never happened though i think that was hearsay .
I chord is more likely , i think a 3rd hourly service that is limited stop calling at Hairmyres , busby , clarkston , giffnock then non stop to central would be an idea
Highland37
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 1,259
Are you Donald Trump on speed?
Southsider
Member
- Joined
- 10 Aug 2015
- Messages
- 759
170s would be ideal for this route as an interim measure pending electrification. Perhaps the decision to retain more of them than originally planned would allow some to be allocated?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I kept my eyes open when travelling through this section the other day. To the west of Partick there's quite a bit of room beyond the bridge over Dumbarton Road, perhaps enough for 3 tracks if the old platforms at the disued Partickhill station were removed. There is also an intact bridge over Clarence Drive and then the 3 track section at Hyndland. Beyond that there's plenty space until the Yoker and Singer lines diverge. Partick station itself is a bottleneck but there is plenty land on either side. Moving east there is lots of room but the bridge over the Kelvin is only 2 track, thereafter the north Clyde and Argyle lines diverge. So widening of two bridges (one of them possibly needing demolition of a tenement building), demolition and reinstatement of Partick station plus new track and OHLE - as you say, a costly job.
An option to turn backs would be to reopen the line to Botanic Gardens offering an alternative destination for westbound Central low level traffic, taking them away from Partick and providing a new service to the west end but again it would be costly.
anti-pacer
Established Member
We've established this already.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Whilst Glasgow has had its fair share of bad press this wasn't my reasoning for why I "THOUGHT" the trains wouldn't be that busy in the peaks. Sure some areas have high unemployment so peak usage may be lower at certain stations than others.
My reasoning, although proven to be wrong (always happy to be corrected) was that I thought Edinburgh was the main business city in Scotland, in terms of city centres. I always pictured Edinburgh for business, Glasgow for shopping, and both for tourism with Edinburgh having the bigger share on that one.
I have never seen the business area in Glasgow city centre although I now know it exists. However, for an urban area that's got less population than even West Yorkshire and Tyne & Wear, it has a very comprehensive rail network. With so much choice in terms of lines and stations I thought the trains may be less busy as there's more of them.
I was in no way implying that most Glaswegians are on the dole so peak hour trains would be quieter. Glasgow might have some seriously deprived areas but it has plenty of wealthy areas too.
Last edited:
"Glasgow's miles better" started more than 30 years ago. Anyone remember how long it ran?
anti-pacer
Established Member
I like Glasgow city centre although I've not seen the business area yet.
anti-pacer
Established Member
That's a lot!
With such a good rail network, what's the traffic like in rush hours? I know the M8 and in particular Kingston Bridge gets very busy, but what about other main roads? Is it standstill or fairly free flowing?
If 158s/170s get shifted to GSW before there is electrification of the EK Line then may see them . Id say it would be 318s/320s on EK line if electrified .
There is no date yet . But no reason that 156s will stay on more likely .
47271
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2015
- Messages
- 2,983
The theme is Slow. I travel into Glasgow on a regular basis from Perth and wouldn't waste time driving. Get BBC Radio Scotland online for a few days: Good Morning Scotland (am) and Newsdrive (pm, and generally of a higher standard if you want to choose between the two) should put you in the picture, both from the point of view of traffic and how the Scottish economy works.
michael769
Established Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 2,006
It's that comprehensive network that is the reason that trains are heaving, combined by it's quality.
As the recent rail openings in Scotland have demonstrated, when you provide a service that goes somewhere people want to go they will use it.
Pretty much the story of the entire UK network (excluding some remote rural areas)! I would wager that many of the other areas you mention are constrained by their lack of infrastructure, not passenger demand!
You have missed out. The area around Blysthwood Hill offers architecture that IMO can give the New Town in Edinburgh a run for it's money.
It's also not the only business area - there is also a significant commercial sector around the Merchant City. Glasgow is a much larger commercial and employment hub than is Edinburgh.
And it's shopping important should not be excluded. The Z formed by Sauchihall St, Buchanan St and Argyle St is considered 2nd only to Oxford Street in scal and there is a considerable retail employment base who also need transport to get to and from work.
Last edited:
The Route Study forecasts that beyond 2023 road congestion will be a significant factor in driving growth in the Glasgow commuter market which between 2023-2043 will have a compound annual growth rate of 2.5% in the high growth scenario.
Silver linings etc.
Silver linings etc.
To be fair outwith peaks can be quick on the motorway , something edinburgh dosent have .
Still areas in Glasgow without rail access and rely in buses .
The motorways can be brilliant off peak. But when it's busy it's really busy. With junctions on the M8 in particular being sometimes just metres apart, the traffic gridlocks more than any other motorway I've ever been on - even the M6 manages to get up to some speed (even if it's the dizzy heights of 15mph) between junctions. The M8 can really be below walking speed at times.
The M74 wasn't too bad when I last used it, the M80 hampered by being only two lanes and having to merge onto the M8 at the worst part. The M77 was always a painful experience in the off peak direction, and I can't imagine it being any better going the other way.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
This. Glasgow has a brilliant public transport network, I'd say second only to London. Having a Zonecard gives you lots of freedom to travel (once you work it out!) and when you do take advantage you realise how spoiled you are. Compared to other places, there are so many more opportunities to take the train, so people do. Compared to elsewhere, you've got better frequencies and fares which really encourage the service to be used.
It always amazes me when people complain about how good the public transport is in Glasgow because other cities aren't as good - they should really be spending that energy in trying to get other cities up to the same standard - Manchester at the top of the list IMO!
- Status