Posted by: VOICE OF REASON, glasgow on 11:35am Mon 12 Nov 07
This will please a few posters on here... any development with this is good for glasgow odd how its all of a sudden gotten the green light tho
This will please a few posters on here... any development with this is good for glasgow odd how its all of a sudden gotten the green light tho
Posted by: Bobby Brown, Gotham City on 11:45am Mon 12 Nov 07
I think this is great news - finally we will get some much needed improvements made to the subway. Let's just hope that the opening times are modernised as well, no more 6pm finishes on a Sunday please!!
The games will be a great lever for getting much needed investment into the city and can only be a positive thing. Time to buy a flat in the East End??
I think this is great news - finally we will get some much needed improvements made to the subway. Let's just hope that the opening times are modernised as well, no more 6pm finishes on a Sunday please!!
The games will be a great lever for getting much needed investment into the city and can only be a positive thing. Time to buy a flat in the East End??
Posted by: KB, Glasgow on 11:45am Mon 12 Nov 07
Will this include the cost of cleaning the trains?
Will this include the cost of cleaning the trains?
Posted by: GreenTim, Glasgow on 11:51am Mon 12 Nov 07
It's about time Celtic fans were given the same transport facilities as rangers.
It's about time Celtic fans were given the same transport facilities as rangers.
Posted by: John MacLean, Glasgow on 11:56am Mon 12 Nov 07
Great for supporters like me for getting to Celtic Park, but what happened to the plans of doing the trains up? I had the misfortune of getting the subway a few weeks ago! What a ramshackle!!
Great for supporters like me for getting to Celtic Park, but what happened to the plans of doing the trains up? I had the misfortune of getting the subway a few weeks ago! What a ramshackle!!
Posted by: VOICE OF REASON, glasgow on 11:59am Mon 12 Nov 07
excellent now we have two lots of supporters to make the journeys during match day hellish
excellent now we have two lots of supporters to make the journeys during match day hellish
Posted by: MrK, Paisley on 11:59am Mon 12 Nov 07
Good news for those in the east end I suppose. Just hope extending the network will mean they will extend the operating hours.
Good news for those in the east end I suppose. Just hope extending the network will mean they will extend the operating hours.
Posted by: Subway User, Hillhead on 12:02pm Mon 12 Nov 07
This is great news for the city. OK, so the fact we won the right to stage the games helped - so what if it did.
Even better that the current Subway will be upgraded, though we must give it time to happen - new trains etc will not appear overnight.
All in all, I'm happy....but no doubt we'll get the usual detractors, the call for the Subway to go to the South side, etc. Prehaps if we go with the tram train idea for the Cathcart Circle....
This is great news for the city. OK, so the fact we won the right to stage the games helped - so what if it did.
Even better that the current Subway will be upgraded, though we must give it time to happen - new trains etc will not appear overnight.
All in all, I'm happy....but no doubt we'll get the usual detractors, the call for the Subway to go to the South side, etc. Prehaps if we go with the tram train idea for the Cathcart Circle....
Posted by: Subway User, Hillhead on 12:05pm Mon 12 Nov 07
Two sets of football supporters = twice the income. Don't suppose it'll be anymore hellish than when the students and my fellow Hillhead passengers all try and squeeze into one car of a three car train....
Two sets of football supporters = twice the income. Don't suppose it'll be anymore hellish than when the students and my fellow Hillhead passengers all try and squeeze into one car of a three car train....
Posted by: workinhard, Glasgow on 12:06pm Mon 12 Nov 07
have they announced a ban yet on the bouncy, bouncy for the proposed extension?
have they announced a ban yet on the bouncy, bouncy for the proposed extension?
Posted by: jim, Glasgow on 12:08pm Mon 12 Nov 07
Its great news ,And we must get the Airport train link up and running ,The Edinburgh papers today are rubbishing the Glasgow Airport link,to be dumped as well ,
Glasgow needs Thew Airport link.Thought anymore about Tram/trains?
Its great news ,And we must get the Airport train link up and running ,The Edinburgh papers today are rubbishing the Glasgow Airport link,to be dumped as well ,
Glasgow needs Thew Airport link.Thought anymore about Tram/trains?
Posted by: bigcrispyhied, glasgow on 12:16pm Mon 12 Nov 07
[quote][bold]jim[/bold] wrote:
Its great news ,And we must get the Airport train link up and running ,The Edinburgh papers today are rubbishing the Glasgow Airport link,to be dumped as well , Glasgow needs Thew Airport link.Thought anymore about Tram/trains?[/quote] I've got to admit as a south sider i cant see me or my family useing the airport link ,why would i want to drag my ****,kids,luggage etc to central station(by whatever means)then pay what no doubt will be an expensive fare to the airport when i can get a cab right outside my door for £15,or am i being selfish here.
jim wrote:
Its great news ,And we must get the Airport train link up and running ,The Edinburgh papers today are rubbishing the Glasgow Airport link,to be dumped as well , Glasgow needs Thew Airport link.Thought anymore about Tram/trains?
I've got to admit as a south sider i cant see me or my family useing the airport link ,why would i want to drag my ****,kids,luggage etc to central station(by whatever means)then pay what no doubt will be an expensive fare to the airport when i can get a cab right outside my door for £15,or am i being selfish here.
Posted by: Sid Noggins, East End on 12:19pm Mon 12 Nov 07
Does anybody know why the subway closes at 6pm on a Sunday?
Does anybody know why the subway closes at 6pm on a Sunday?
Posted by: jim, Glasgow on 12:19pm Mon 12 Nov 07
The Airport link is Important for the Financial district and city economy,Its a must.
The Airport link is Important for the Financial district and city economy,Its a must.
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 12:30pm Mon 12 Nov 07
Well done SPT, that'll stop people thinking that the powers that be continually go round in circles just like the wee subway trains!
Well done SPT, that'll stop people thinking that the powers that be continually go round in circles just like the wee subway trains!
Posted by: John MacLean, Glasgow on 12:32pm Mon 12 Nov 07
bigcrispyhied, you are looking at it from one person's perspective. Think of the amount of people who come to Glasgow on business trips and have to either get a very expensive taxi to the city and back the same day or hire a car? The amount of people who come here for football games, whats their first experience of Glasgow?
Best to get them on to a train and into the city to spend their euro's I say!
bigcrispyhied, you are looking at it from one person's perspective. Think of the amount of people who come to Glasgow on business trips and have to either get a very expensive taxi to the city and back the same day or hire a car? The amount of people who come here for football games, whats their first experience of Glasgow?
Best to get them on to a train and into the city to spend their euro's I say!
Posted by: KB, Glasgow on 12:32pm Mon 12 Nov 07
[quote][bold]Sid Noggins[/bold] wrote:
Does anybody know why the subway closes at 6pm on a Sunday?[/quote] Sid
It is run by a closed shop who are a law unto themselves.
Sid Noggins wrote:
Does anybody know why the subway closes at 6pm on a Sunday?
Sid
It is run by a closed shop who are a law unto themselves.
Posted by: VOICE OF REASON, glasgow on 12:32pm Mon 12 Nov 07
i dont recall getting on the tibe at rushour with commuters and students in fear of my personal safety by some narrow minded and often bigoted fans....yes it still goes on ..and yes i know they are in a minority but it only takes a couple of eejits to kick someones head in or bounce around a train or verbally abuse innocent folk...and twice the stewards...
i dont recall getting on the tibe at rushour with commuters and students in fear of my personal safety by some narrow minded and often bigoted fans....yes it still goes on ..and yes i know they are in a minority but it only takes a couple of eejits to kick someones head in or bounce around a train or verbally abuse innocent folk...and twice the stewards...
Posted by: Bill Forbes, Cambuslang on 1:11pm Mon 12 Nov 07
Oh how the Evening Times must love Alistair Watson for giving it large and up front all the time without thinking. What headlines it makes.
And, oh how Alistair Watson must love the gullibility of those who applaud every fairytale he spouts forth.
I’m sorry to be the realist here but [bold]the idea doesn’t work.[/bold]
Pure and simple.
It is a pipe dream made up by under pressure SPT Executives who need to keep putting out good news to deflect from the poor job they are doing with the Subway they should be currently managing.
[bold]FACT 1:[/bold]
When this was first announced (10/10/07) the ET reported:
[italic]“Consultants will spend the next 18 months looking at whether it is possible to use existing underground tunnels which have been unused since the Beeching rail cuts of the 1960s and at the exact cost of the operation.”[/italic]
Today we have:
[italic]“We will deliver the East End extension for 2014. I am being unequivocal about that."[/italic]
So, can we dispense with the need for spending public money on a study then Councillor?
[bold]FACT 2:[/bold]
The SPT carried out a £90,000, 20 month feasibility study into all options for extending the Glasgow Subway. In their [italic]“extensive”[/italic] consideration of [bold]all[/bold] options for extending the Subway Atkins, the consultants, did not mention the Parkhead extension, despite the SPT’s long, long, long love affair with this plan.
[bold]FACT 3:[/bold]
[italic]“SPT chairman Alistair Watson said work on the extension could start by 2010 and be finished for the Games in 2014 but will need financial backing from the Scottish Government.”[/italic] (10/10/07)
[italic]“…he said it would become a reality, with the expected Government financial backing.”[/italic] (12/11/07)
[italic]“[bold]Big transport projects likely casualties of Budget deals[/bold] ”[/italic] (Herald 8/11/07)
Watch the outcries when there is nothing mentioned in the Budget this week for this one.
[bold]FACT 4:[/bold]
The simple omission of the need for a new Subway depot to service this [italic]“extension”[/italic] kills off any hope of this happening.
[bold]FACT 5:[/bold]
It is highly unlikely that Network Rail would consent to operating both light rail and heavy rail on that part of the Argyle Line Cllr Watson now covets. He may be [italic]“unequivocal[/italic] ”, he may “[italic]expect”[/italic] Government financial backing, but until the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) says so, no amount of money will make this happen. This is particularly so in relation to Argyle Street Station:
i) can it take additional passenger capacity?
ii) will the station physically be able to accommodate two different railway gauge systems?
iii) Would Network Rail, the ORR, the man in the street allow the SPT near any heavy rail station after what they have done at Partick?
[bold]FACT 6:[/bold]
On funding, Cllr Watson said
[italic]"To achieve that, we will have to demonstrate it is a value for money project.”[/italic] (10/10/07).
Apart from the not so small issue that nobody knows what this will cost (my estimate - £47.8 million - £27.8 million for the new extension and £20 million for the new depot)
Better value for money would be an extension of the heavy rail service:
i) No need for interaction between heavy and light rail
ii) No need for a new depot servicing only two trains
iii) The existing service (Hamilton to Milngavie for example) could be split into two services which terminate either side of the City Centre (e.g. Hamilton to Yorkhill/Exhibition Centre and Milngavie to Parkhead). Much cheaper.
[bold]FACT 7:[/bold]
Should the SPT be allowed to create a new Subway when they cannot even get the existing one working? Until a late night service is established the SPT should focus all their efforts into getting what they have working in accordance with their customers needs ([bold]71.9%[/bold] support late Weekend and Sunday evening services) before they are allowed to touch anything else.
[bold]FACT 8:[/bold]
Even if we do allow the SPT to venture into such areas of additional responsibility, we should remember their track record:
Gilmour Street Station
Larkhall Rail Link
Shields Road Car Park
MAGLEV Study
Clyde Fastlink
Glasgow Airport Rail Link
CrossRail
and of course, Partick Interchange
But surely, I must have something positive to say?
Yes, good front page headline – right up there with My mother-in-law is an alien.
[bold]www.subway2020.com[/bold]
Oh how the Evening Times must love Alistair Watson for giving it large and up front all the time without thinking. What headlines it makes.
And, oh how Alistair Watson must love the gullibility of those who applaud every fairytale he spouts forth.
I’m sorry to be the realist here but
the idea doesn’t work.
Pure and simple.
It is a pipe dream made up by under pressure SPT Executives who need to keep putting out good news to deflect from the poor job they are doing with the Subway they should be currently managing.
FACT 1:
When this was first announced (10/10/07) the ET reported:
“Consultants will spend the next 18 months looking at whether it is possible to use existing underground tunnels which have been unused since the Beeching rail cuts of the 1960s and at the exact cost of the operation.”
Today we have:
“We will deliver the East End extension for 2014. I am being unequivocal about that."
So, can we dispense with the need for spending public money on a study then Councillor?
FACT 2:
The SPT carried out a £90,000, 20 month feasibility study into all options for extending the Glasgow Subway. In their
“extensive” consideration of
all options for extending the Subway Atkins, the consultants, did not mention the Parkhead extension, despite the SPT’s long, long, long love affair with this plan.
FACT 3:
“SPT chairman Alistair Watson said work on the extension could start by 2010 and be finished for the Games in 2014 but will need financial backing from the Scottish Government.” (10/10/07)
“…he said it would become a reality, with the expected Government financial backing.” (12/11/07)
“Big transport projects likely casualties of Budget deals ” (Herald 8/11/07)
Watch the outcries when there is nothing mentioned in the Budget this week for this one.
FACT 4:
The simple omission of the need for a new Subway depot to service this
“extension” kills off any hope of this happening.
FACT 5:
It is highly unlikely that Network Rail would consent to operating both light rail and heavy rail on that part of the Argyle Line Cllr Watson now covets. He may be
“unequivocal ”, he may “
expect” Government financial backing, but until the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) says so, no amount of money will make this happen. This is particularly so in relation to Argyle Street Station:
i) can it take additional passenger capacity?
ii) will the station physically be able to accommodate two different railway gauge systems?
iii) Would Network Rail, the ORR, the man in the street allow the SPT near any heavy rail station after what they have done at Partick?
FACT 6:
On funding, Cllr Watson said
"To achieve that, we will have to demonstrate it is a value for money project.” (10/10/07).
Apart from the not so small issue that nobody knows what this will cost (my estimate - £47.8 million - £27.8 million for the new extension and £20 million for the new depot)
Better value for money would be an extension of the heavy rail service:
i) No need for interaction between heavy and light rail
ii) No need for a new depot servicing only two trains
iii) The existing service (Hamilton to Milngavie for example) could be split into two services which terminate either side of the City Centre (e.g. Hamilton to Yorkhill/Exhibition Centre and Milngavie to Parkhead). Much cheaper.
FACT 7:
Should the SPT be allowed to create a new Subway when they cannot even get the existing one working? Until a late night service is established the SPT should focus all their efforts into getting what they have working in accordance with their customers needs (
71.9% support late Weekend and Sunday evening services) before they are allowed to touch anything else.
FACT 8:
Even if we do allow the SPT to venture into such areas of additional responsibility, we should remember their track record:
Gilmour Street Station
Larkhall Rail Link
Shields Road Car Park
MAGLEV Study
Clyde Fastlink
Glasgow Airport Rail Link
CrossRail
and of course, Partick Interchange
But surely, I must have something positive to say?
Yes, good front page headline – right up there with My mother-in-law is an alien.
www.subway2020.com Posted by: milton on 1:20pm Mon 12 Nov 07
Bobby Brown - don't you already live in the East End??
Bobby Brown - don't you already live in the East End??
Posted by: Bishopton Bear, Bishopton on 1:21pm Mon 12 Nov 07
[quote][bold]GreenTim[/bold] wrote:
It's about time Celtic fans were given the same transport facilities as rangers.[/quote] Yes because of course the Underground was originally built for the single reason of getting Rangers fans to Ibrox...
Extension of the Railway is the best & cheapest option to getting to Parkhead in my opinion.
We are already spending a ridiculous amount of money on this Commonwealth Games when in reality there are [bold]FAR[/bold] more important things for that money to be spent on.
GreenTim wrote:
It's about time Celtic fans were given the same transport facilities as rangers.
Yes because of course the Underground was originally built for the single reason of getting Rangers fans to Ibrox...
Extension of the Railway is the best & cheapest option to getting to Parkhead in my opinion.
We are already spending a ridiculous amount of money on this Commonwealth Games when in reality there are
FAR more important things for that money to be spent on.
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 1:45pm Mon 12 Nov 07
[quote][bold]Bill Forbes[/bold] wrote:
Oh how the Evening Times must love Alistair Watson for giving it large and up front all the time without thinking. What headlines it makes. And, oh how Alistair Watson must love the gullibility of those who applaud every fairytale he spouts forth. I’m sorry to be the realist here but [bold]the idea doesn’t work.[/bold] Pure and simple. It is a pipe dream made up by under pressure SPT Executives who need to keep putting out good news to deflect from the poor job they are doing with the Subway they should be currently managing. [bold]FACT 1:[/bold] When this was first announced (10/10/07) the ET reported: [italic]“Consultants will spend the next 18 months looking at whether it is possible to use existing underground tunnels which have been unused since the Beeching rail cuts of the 1960s and at the exact cost of the operation.”[/italic] Today we have: [italic]“We will deliver the East End extension for 2014. I am being unequivocal about that."[/italic] So, can we dispense with the need for spending public money on a study then Councillor? [bold]FACT 2:[/bold] The SPT carried out a £90,000, 20 month feasibility study into all options for extending the Glasgow Subway. In their [italic]“extensive”[/italic] consideration of [bold]all[/bold] options for extending the Subway Atkins, the consultants, did not mention the Parkhead extension, despite the SPT’s long, long, long love affair with this plan. [bold]FACT 3:[/bold] [italic]“SPT chairman Alistair Watson said work on the extension could start by 2010 and be finished for the Games in 2014 but will need financial backing from the Scottish Government.”[/italic] (10/10/07) [italic]“…he said it would become a reality, with the expected Government financial backing.”[/italic] (12/11/07) [italic]“[bold]Big transport projects likely casualties of Budget deals[/bold] ”[/italic] (Herald 8/11/07) Watch the outcries when there is nothing mentioned in the Budget this week for this one. [bold]FACT 4:[/bold] The simple omission of the need for a new Subway depot to service this [italic]“extension”[/italic] kills off any hope of this happening. [bold]FACT 5:[/bold] It is highly unlikely that Network Rail would consent to operating both light rail and heavy rail on that part of the Argyle Line Cllr Watson now covets. He may be [italic]“unequivocal[/italic] ”, he may “[italic]expect”[/italic] Government financial backing, but until the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) says so, no amount of money will make this happen. This is particularly so in relation to Argyle Street Station: i) can it take additional passenger capacity? ii) will the station physically be able to accommodate two different railway gauge systems? iii) Would Network Rail, the ORR, the man in the street allow the SPT near any heavy rail station after what they have done at Partick? [bold]FACT 6:[/bold] On funding, Cllr Watson said [italic]"To achieve that, we will have to demonstrate it is a value for money project.”[/italic] (10/10/07). Apart from the not so small issue that nobody knows what this will cost (my estimate - £47.8 million - £27.8 million for the new extension and £20 million for the new depot) Better value for money would be an extension of the heavy rail service: i) No need for interaction between heavy and light rail ii) No need for a new depot servicing only two trains iii) The existing service (Hamilton to Milngavie for example) could be split into two services which terminate either side of the City Centre (e.g. Hamilton to Yorkhill/Exhibition Centre and Milngavie to Parkhead). Much cheaper. [bold]FACT 7:[/bold] Should the SPT be allowed to create a new Subway when they cannot even get the existing one working? Until a late night service is established the SPT should focus all their efforts into getting what they have working in accordance with their customers needs ([bold]71.9%[/bold] support late Weekend and Sunday evening services) before they are allowed to touch anything else. [bold]FACT 8:[/bold] Even if we do allow the SPT to venture into such areas of additional responsibility, we should remember their track record: Gilmour Street Station Larkhall Rail Link Shields Road Car Park MAGLEV Study Clyde Fastlink Glasgow Airport Rail Link CrossRail and of course, Partick Interchange But surely, I must have something positive to say? Yes, good front page headline – right up there with My mother-in-law is an alien. [bold]www.subway2020.com[/bold] [/quote] Thought you disappeared Bill, anyway I'm sure it would be a success considering that there will be lots of housebuilding going on in Parkhead / Lillybank & Dalmarnock, so these people will nedd suitable links to commute, this is the future not for now or for 2014.
Bill Forbes wrote:
Oh how the Evening Times must love Alistair Watson for giving it large and up front all the time without thinking. What headlines it makes. And, oh how Alistair Watson must love the gullibility of those who applaud every fairytale he spouts forth. I’m sorry to be the realist here but the idea doesn’t work. Pure and simple. It is a pipe dream made up by under pressure SPT Executives who need to keep putting out good news to deflect from the poor job they are doing with the Subway they should be currently managing. FACT 1: When this was first announced (10/10/07) the ET reported: “Consultants will spend the next 18 months looking at whether it is possible to use existing underground tunnels which have been unused since the Beeching rail cuts of the 1960s and at the exact cost of the operation.” Today we have: “We will deliver the East End extension for 2014. I am being unequivocal about that." So, can we dispense with the need for spending public money on a study then Councillor? FACT 2: The SPT carried out a £90,000, 20 month feasibility study into all options for extending the Glasgow Subway. In their “extensive” consideration of all options for extending the Subway Atkins, the consultants, did not mention the Parkhead extension, despite the SPT’s long, long, long love affair with this plan. FACT 3: “SPT chairman Alistair Watson said work on the extension could start by 2010 and be finished for the Games in 2014 but will need financial backing from the Scottish Government.” (10/10/07) “…he said it would become a reality, with the expected Government financial backing.” (12/11/07) “Big transport projects likely casualties of Budget deals ” (Herald 8/11/07) Watch the outcries when there is nothing mentioned in the Budget this week for this one. FACT 4: The simple omission of the need for a new Subway depot to service this “extension” kills off any hope of this happening. FACT 5: It is highly unlikely that Network Rail would consent to operating both light rail and heavy rail on that part of the Argyle Line Cllr Watson now covets. He may be “unequivocal ”, he may “expect” Government financial backing, but until the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) says so, no amount of money will make this happen. This is particularly so in relation to Argyle Street Station: i) can it take additional passenger capacity? ii) will the station physically be able to accommodate two different railway gauge systems? iii) Would Network Rail, the ORR, the man in the street allow the SPT near any heavy rail station after what they have done at Partick? FACT 6: On funding, Cllr Watson said "To achieve that, we will have to demonstrate it is a value for money project.” (10/10/07). Apart from the not so small issue that nobody knows what this will cost (my estimate - £47.8 million - £27.8 million for the new extension and £20 million for the new depot) Better value for money would be an extension of the heavy rail service: i) No need for interaction between heavy and light rail ii) No need for a new depot servicing only two trains iii) The existing service (Hamilton to Milngavie for example) could be split into two services which terminate either side of the City Centre (e.g. Hamilton to Yorkhill/Exhibition Centre and Milngavie to Parkhead). Much cheaper. FACT 7: Should the SPT be allowed to create a new Subway when they cannot even get the existing one working? Until a late night service is established the SPT should focus all their efforts into getting what they have working in accordance with their customers needs (71.9% support late Weekend and Sunday evening services) before they are allowed to touch anything else. FACT 8: Even if we do allow the SPT to venture into such areas of additional responsibility, we should remember their track record: Gilmour Street Station Larkhall Rail Link Shields Road Car Park MAGLEV Study Clyde Fastlink Glasgow Airport Rail Link CrossRail and of course, Partick Interchange But surely, I must have something positive to say? Yes, good front page headline – right up there with My mother-in-law is an alien. www.subway2020.com
Thought you disappeared Bill, anyway I'm sure it would be a success considering that there will be lots of housebuilding going on in Parkhead / Lillybank & Dalmarnock, so these people will nedd suitable links to commute, this is the future not for now or for 2014.
Posted by: bigcrispyhied, glasgow on 1:56pm Mon 12 Nov 07
[quote][bold]John MacLean[/bold] wrote:
bigcrispyhied, you are looking at it from one person's perspective. Think of the amount of people who come to Glasgow on business trips and have to either get a very expensive taxi to the city and back the same day or hire a car? The amount of people who come here for football games, whats their first experience of Glasgow? Best to get them on to a train and into the city to spend their euro's I say![/quote] john ,i understand the thinking behind your comment but the fact is that most tourists and football fans travel from prestwick air port(that allready has a rail link to glasgow)because this is the only airport ryanair fly from near glasgow ,they use ryanair because it would cost £100's more to fly into glasgow airport with other operators.
John MacLean wrote:
bigcrispyhied, you are looking at it from one person's perspective. Think of the amount of people who come to Glasgow on business trips and have to either get a very expensive taxi to the city and back the same day or hire a car? The amount of people who come here for football games, whats their first experience of Glasgow? Best to get them on to a train and into the city to spend their euro's I say!
john ,i understand the thinking behind your comment but the fact is that most tourists and football fans travel from prestwick air port(that allready has a rail link to glasgow)because this is the only airport ryanair fly from near glasgow ,they use ryanair because it would cost £100's more to fly into glasgow airport with other operators.
Posted by: Bill Forbes, Cambuslang on 2:16pm Mon 12 Nov 07
The Missing City,
No, I’m still around questioning the SPT and their performance. Even if this plan is one for the future well beyond 2014 it has to work in the first place and that’s where it falls down.
The trick with any mass transit system is to make it just that – transport for the masses and ensure economies of scale as a result. The travel time between Parkhead and the SECC would be about 12 minutes including stops. A single train could operate a four times per hour shuttle service just going back and forth, all day. Most likely however there would be two trains to cover breakdowns etc. The SPT are seriously proposing a Subway extension with a new depot, training, tooling, cleaning, staffing for TWO new trains? They would have to be modern units to Euro standards. So a complete new system which is detached from the existing Broomloan Depot? This would also mean a new management structure and a really top heavy staff compliment to operate TWO new trains? Just think how many new drivers would have to be employed for two trains (allowing for shifts, holidays, staff weddings)
Don’t think so.
It will not work – if there is passenger demand for the service (even beyond 2014) then extend the existing heavy rail system with simple spurs for Parkhead and SECC/Yorkhill. Not only would this be much cheaper (£12 million?) but it would also improve capacity on existing suburban routes such as Hamilton Circle, Dalmuir & Milngavie. So the benefit spreads beyond the simple extension and back into the wider transport system and a greater number of passengers.
[bold]www.subway2020.com[/bold]
The Missing City,
No, I’m still around questioning the SPT and their performance. Even if this plan is one for the future well beyond 2014 it has to work in the first place and that’s where it falls down.
The trick with any mass transit system is to make it just that – transport for the masses and ensure economies of scale as a result. The travel time between Parkhead and the SECC would be about 12 minutes including stops. A single train could operate a four times per hour shuttle service just going back and forth, all day. Most likely however there would be two trains to cover breakdowns etc. The SPT are seriously proposing a Subway extension with a new depot, training, tooling, cleaning, staffing for TWO new trains? They would have to be modern units to Euro standards. So a complete new system which is detached from the existing Broomloan Depot? This would also mean a new management structure and a really top heavy staff compliment to operate TWO new trains? Just think how many new drivers would have to be employed for two trains (allowing for shifts, holidays, staff weddings)
Don’t think so.
It will not work – if there is passenger demand for the service (even beyond 2014) then extend the existing heavy rail system with simple spurs for Parkhead and SECC/Yorkhill. Not only would this be much cheaper (£12 million?) but it would also improve capacity on existing suburban routes such as Hamilton Circle, Dalmuir & Milngavie. So the benefit spreads beyond the simple extension and back into the wider transport system and a greater number of passengers.
www.subway2020.com Posted by: hugo, south side on 2:23pm Mon 12 Nov 07
I am glad that the city may well be getting an extention to the subways system. However there are a number of issues which SPT need to address.
There needs to be a robust processes for consulting and involving passengers as part of this development. As SPT do not have the best track in terms of making the right decisions from a passenger perspective.
I am glad that the city may well be getting an extention to the subways system. However there are a number of issues which SPT need to address.
There needs to be a robust processes for consulting and involving passengers as part of this development. As SPT do not have the best track in terms of making the right decisions from a passenger perspective.
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 2:51pm Mon 12 Nov 07
[quote][bold]Bill Forbes[/bold] wrote:
The Missing City, No, I’m still around questioning the SPT and their performance. Even if this plan is one for the future well beyond 2014 it has to work in the first place and that’s where it falls down. The trick with any mass transit system is to make it just that – transport for the masses and ensure economies of scale as a result. The travel time between Parkhead and the SECC would be about 12 minutes including stops. A single train could operate a four times per hour shuttle service just going back and forth, all day. Most likely however there would be two trains to cover breakdowns etc. The SPT are seriously proposing a Subway extension with a new depot, training, tooling, cleaning, staffing for TWO new trains? They would have to be modern units to Euro standards. So a complete new system which is detached from the existing Broomloan Depot? This would also mean a new management structure and a really top heavy staff compliment to operate TWO new trains? Just think how many new drivers would have to be employed for two trains (allowing for shifts, holidays, staff weddings) Don’t think so. It will not work – if there is passenger demand for the service (even beyond 2014) then extend the existing heavy rail system with simple spurs for Parkhead and SECC/Yorkhill. Not only would this be much cheaper (£12 million?) but it would also improve capacity on existing suburban routes such as Hamilton Circle, Dalmuir & Milngavie. So the benefit spreads beyond the simple extension and back into the wider transport system and a greater number of passengers. [bold]www.subway2020.com[/bold] [/quote] Yes Bill I see what you mean
When I did my own homework on these redundant lines and tunnels about 10 years ago, I didn't think that in the future they would be re-opened as train lines, if re-opened at all.
I was all for trying to get some mode of transport in operation using this infrastructure which has been lying unused for a number of years, I originally thought of a scheme like the Docklands, but they have decidsed it will be the subway method instead, unless there's a rapid change of plan
Bill Forbes wrote:
The Missing City, No, I’m still around questioning the SPT and their performance. Even if this plan is one for the future well beyond 2014 it has to work in the first place and that’s where it falls down. The trick with any mass transit system is to make it just that – transport for the masses and ensure economies of scale as a result. The travel time between Parkhead and the SECC would be about 12 minutes including stops. A single train could operate a four times per hour shuttle service just going back and forth, all day. Most likely however there would be two trains to cover breakdowns etc. The SPT are seriously proposing a Subway extension with a new depot, training, tooling, cleaning, staffing for TWO new trains? They would have to be modern units to Euro standards. So a complete new system which is detached from the existing Broomloan Depot? This would also mean a new management structure and a really top heavy staff compliment to operate TWO new trains? Just think how many new drivers would have to be employed for two trains (allowing for shifts, holidays, staff weddings) Don’t think so. It will not work – if there is passenger demand for the service (even beyond 2014) then extend the existing heavy rail system with simple spurs for Parkhead and SECC/Yorkhill. Not only would this be much cheaper (£12 million?) but it would also improve capacity on existing suburban routes such as Hamilton Circle, Dalmuir & Milngavie. So the benefit spreads beyond the simple extension and back into the wider transport system and a greater number of passengers. www.subway2020.com
Yes Bill I see what you mean
When I did my own homework on these redundant lines and tunnels about 10 years ago, I didn't think that in the future they would be re-opened as train lines, if re-opened at all.
I was all for trying to get some mode of transport in operation using this infrastructure which has been lying unused for a number of years, I originally thought of a scheme like the Docklands, but they have decidsed it will be the subway method instead, unless there's a rapid change of plan
Posted by: tradesman on 2:51pm Mon 12 Nov 07
bigcrispyhied you are talking mince and john was right, here are the passenger numbers for GLA and prestwick for last year...
Figures for 2006
Glasgow 8,820,000
Glasgow Prestwick 2,395,000
bigcrispyhied you are talking mince and john was right, here are the passenger numbers for GLA and prestwick for last year...
Figures for 2006
Glasgow 8,820,000
Glasgow Prestwick 2,395,000
Posted by: pete, Bearsden on 2:59pm Mon 12 Nov 07
For a subway fit for the 21st Century the subway staff will also require to be brought into the 21st Century and be prepared to operate much later operating hours.
For a subway fit for the 21st Century the subway staff will also require to be brought into the 21st Century and be prepared to operate much later operating hours.
Posted by: pete, Bearsden on 3:00pm Mon 12 Nov 07
For a subway fit for the 21st Century the subway staff will also require to be brought into the 21st Century and be prepared to operate much later operating hours.
For a subway fit for the 21st Century the subway staff will also require to be brought into the 21st Century and be prepared to operate much later operating hours.
Posted by: Bobby Brown, Gotham City on 3:07pm Mon 12 Nov 07
Milton - Don't you already live in Maryhill??
[bold]
noise shut.[/bold]
Milton - Don't you already live in Maryhill??
noise shut. Posted by: jim, Glasgow on 3:12pm Mon 12 Nov 07
By all means go ahead with it ,But i also think the Train lines disused above Ground at Glasgow Cross should be opened up .Train/tram .Which will be cheaper,
By all means go ahead with it ,But i also think the Train lines disused above Ground at Glasgow Cross should be opened up .Train/tram .Which will be cheaper,
Posted by: mrrealistic, glasgow on 3:16pm Mon 12 Nov 07
[quote][bold]VOICE OF REASON[/bold] wrote:
excellent now we have two lots of supporters to make the journeys during match day hellish [/quote] Are you saying that both Celtic and Rangers fans would be on the subway on the same day because thats what i understand from your comment? The reality is both teams are never sceduled to play on the same day so your comment is fairly redundant.
VOICE OF REASON wrote:
excellent now we have two lots of supporters to make the journeys during match day hellish
Are you saying that both Celtic and Rangers fans would be on the subway on the same day because thats what i understand from your comment? The reality is both teams are never sceduled to play on the same day so your comment is fairly redundant.
Posted by: Subway User, Hillhead on 3:45pm Mon 12 Nov 07
Split Argyle line services in two....
Given the number of passengers that travel from south of Bridgeton to Partick, I can imagine that that will be very popular. As for two different gauges of track and a new depot, has anyone from SPT actually said that they would be building the extension to the same gauge as the existing Subway? Think not. And of course, no possibility that they would share a depot with First Scotrail. From my understanding (which will no doubt be criticised) the extension would use light rail vehicles, on one set of tracks. But as always seems to happen, any excuse to bash SPT; any excuse to be negative.
Must admit, like the tram train idea myself, but I'm sure some won't...
Split Argyle line services in two....
Given the number of passengers that travel from south of Bridgeton to Partick, I can imagine that that will be very popular. As for two different gauges of track and a new depot, has anyone from SPT actually said that they would be building the extension to the same gauge as the existing Subway? Think not. And of course, no possibility that they would share a depot with First Scotrail. From my understanding (which will no doubt be criticised) the extension would use light rail vehicles, on one set of tracks. But as always seems to happen, any excuse to bash SPT; any excuse to be negative.
Must admit, like the tram train idea myself, but I'm sure some won't...
Posted by: VOICE OF REASON, glasgow on 3:58pm Mon 12 Nov 07
mrrealistic...no i wasnt saying both teams on the same day i was reffering to respective match days ergo valid point
mrrealistic...no i wasnt saying both teams on the same day i was reffering to respective match days ergo valid point
Posted by: xisle, leyland on 4:09pm Mon 12 Nov 07
[quote][bold]VOICE OF REASON[/bold] wrote:
i dont recall getting on the tibe at rushour with commuters and students in fear of my personal safety by some narrow minded and often bigoted fans....yes it still goes on ..and yes i know they are in a minority but it only takes a couple of eejits to kick someones head in or bounce around a train or verbally abuse innocent folk...and twice the stewards...[/quote] "narrow minded and often bigoted fans" for somebody called the voice of reason that's one hell of a sweeping statement to describe any group. why don't you go the whole hog and describe the non football fans as wife beating drunkards
VOICE OF REASON wrote:
i dont recall getting on the tibe at rushour with commuters and students in fear of my personal safety by some narrow minded and often bigoted fans....yes it still goes on ..and yes i know they are in a minority but it only takes a couple of eejits to kick someones head in or bounce around a train or verbally abuse innocent folk...and twice the stewards...
"narrow minded and often bigoted fans" for somebody called the voice of reason that's one hell of a sweeping statement to describe any group. why don't you go the whole hog and describe the non football fans as wife beating drunkards
Posted by: VOICE OF REASON, glasgow on 4:18pm Mon 12 Nov 07
as a non football fan whos never betean a wife i cant realy comment on that cross section...forgive me if it was a broad genrelisation i guess the media nad police reports/records on football releated violance both physical and verbally are horrifically inacurate and if this is the case i shall withdraw my "sweeping statement" that i thought was defined perfectly and was highlited by the term "some" if i could have quoted numbers or a percentage i would have... am i wrong ?
as a non football fan whos never betean a wife i cant realy comment on that cross section...forgive me if it was a broad genrelisation i guess the media nad police reports/records on football releated violance both physical and verbally are horrifically inacurate and if this is the case i shall withdraw my "sweeping statement" that i thought was defined perfectly and was highlited by the term "some" if i could have quoted numbers or a percentage i would have... am i wrong ?
Posted by: Bill Forbes, Cambuslang on 5:55pm Mon 12 Nov 07
You are getting there Subway User. Don’t give up on me yet.
If the new Subway extension is going to use the existing track, the existing depots, the existing power source, the existing railway car specification isn’t that just a normal everyday train?
The historic (and accurate) definition between heavy and light rail is quite literal – the weight and section of track (113lb per yard for heavy – anything else being “light” e.g. Docklands Light Railway uses 80lb in places). The modern use of the description has become confused but is generally accepted to mean lighter equipment to deal with lighter (and sometimes faster) loads. So the description which you and the SPT wish to adopt is not actually true.
A train even with a lighter body, using the same bogies, adapted to work with the same platform specifications, using the same overhead power source, (if you want to use ScotRail depots you have to get the new trains there somehow) is still a train – even with a SPT logo on it.
And that, Subway User, is my argument – if there is the need for this service then it can be accommodated with a simple alteration of the main Argyle Line suburban service.
Now you suggest you know something about passenger numbers between Bridgeton (and beyond) to Partick. I confess to having no such knowledge – I only know that in both directions the majority of the passengers alighting and boarding the trains on this line are to be found in the Glasgow City Centre stations. I doubt if there is an appreciable through traffic in either direction (although I have in the past taken the train from Cambuslang to Partick to get the Subway to Ibrox). However, there is no significant amount of traffic which could not change at Glasgow Central – certainly nothing that would justify a major capital investment.
I am hoping we can have agreement here – do you think the proposed new service could be handled by First ScotRail splitting its existing east – west services?
Is it at all possible?
Might it just, possibly be cheaper than introducing a whole new train type?
Until that option is ruled out might Cllr Watson be premature when he is so "[italic]unequivocal"[/italic] about bringing in a new train type?
Considering all that, should the SPT be “[italic]bashed”[/italic] if this has not been done responsibly?
You are getting there Subway User. Don’t give up on me yet.
If the new Subway extension is going to use the existing track, the existing depots, the existing power source, the existing railway car specification isn’t that just a normal everyday train?
The historic (and accurate) definition between heavy and light rail is quite literal – the weight and section of track (113lb per yard for heavy – anything else being “light” e.g. Docklands Light Railway uses 80lb in places). The modern use of the description has become confused but is generally accepted to mean lighter equipment to deal with lighter (and sometimes faster) loads. So the description which you and the SPT wish to adopt is not actually true.
A train even with a lighter body, using the same bogies, adapted to work with the same platform specifications, using the same overhead power source, (if you want to use ScotRail depots you have to get the new trains there somehow) is still a train – even with a SPT logo on it.
And that, Subway User, is my argument – if there is the need for this service then it can be accommodated with a simple alteration of the main Argyle Line suburban service.
Now you suggest you know something about passenger numbers between Bridgeton (and beyond) to Partick. I confess to having no such knowledge – I only know that in both directions the majority of the passengers alighting and boarding the trains on this line are to be found in the Glasgow City Centre stations. I doubt if there is an appreciable through traffic in either direction (although I have in the past taken the train from Cambuslang to Partick to get the Subway to Ibrox). However, there is no significant amount of traffic which could not change at Glasgow Central – certainly nothing that would justify a major capital investment.
I am hoping we can have agreement here – do you think the proposed new service could be handled by First ScotRail splitting its existing east – west services?
Is it at all possible?
Might it just, possibly be cheaper than introducing a whole new train type?
Until that option is ruled out might Cllr Watson be premature when he is so "
unequivocal" about bringing in a new train type?
Considering all that, should the SPT be “
bashed” if this has not been done responsibly?
Posted by: George, Glasgow on 6:19pm Mon 12 Nov 07
Celtic FC and their fans seem to be getting a lot of benefits from this. How about re-opening Ibrox rail station on the airport link - especially since Ibrox Stadium is a Commonwealth Games venue?
Celtic FC and their fans seem to be getting a lot of benefits from this. How about re-opening Ibrox rail station on the airport link - especially since Ibrox Stadium is a Commonwealth Games venue?
Posted by: Bill Forbes, Cambuslang on 6:30pm Mon 12 Nov 07
George,
This was proposed for the Glasgow Airport Rail Link and backed by Glasgow City Council. In fact the Council went some way to calling for a new station to serve Ibrox even before the games bid.
Guess who knocked it back?
No, I’d better not tell you ‘cos Subway User will get angry with me for having a go at the SPT.
P.S. whisper it – it was in fact the SPT who knocked it back.
[bold]www.subway2020.com[/bold]
George,
This was proposed for the Glasgow Airport Rail Link and backed by Glasgow City Council. In fact the Council went some way to calling for a new station to serve Ibrox even before the games bid.
Guess who knocked it back?
No, I’d better not tell you ‘cos Subway User will get angry with me for having a go at the SPT.
P.S. whisper it – it was in fact the SPT who knocked it back.
www.subway2020.com
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 6:31pm Mon 12 Nov 07
I suspect Cllr Watson is talking pish (again). What grounds does he have for expecting this to be funded? What's the business case for this project? It's never discussed? Or is it a two-week project for the Commonwealth Games?
When's the maglev coming...?
I suspect Cllr Watson is talking pish (again). What grounds does he have for expecting this to be funded? What's the business case for this project? It's never discussed? Or is it a two-week project for the Commonwealth Games?
When's the maglev coming...?
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 6:33pm Mon 12 Nov 07
George, how about neither set of fans being the focus of transport investment? Two trips a week isn't really deserving...
George, how about neither set of fans being the focus of transport investment? Two trips a week isn't really deserving...
Posted by: Andrew, Glasgow on 6:49pm Mon 12 Nov 07
Let's refocus... great as it would be to have that London Road tunnel to Parkhead and beyond reopened, the only way to interconnect [bold]all[/bold] suburban areas of Greater Glasgow, and into the bargain wider Scotland including the five airports from Prestwick to Dyce, is to insist on Crossrail first; that's the key to everything else, linking north, west, south and east properly for the first time. The so-called second Subway line sharing the Argyle Line is just one such link, no way matching Crossrail's priority.
Let's refocus... great as it would be to have that London Road tunnel to Parkhead and beyond reopened, the only way to interconnect
all suburban areas of Greater Glasgow, and into the bargain wider Scotland including the five airports from Prestwick to Dyce, is to insist on Crossrail first; that's the key to everything else, linking north, west, south and east properly for the first time. The so-called second Subway line sharing the Argyle Line is just one such link, no way matching Crossrail's priority.
Posted by: Bill Forbes, Cambuslang on 6:50pm Mon 12 Nov 07
Brad,
You may be a little harsh on the Councillor there, he certainly may be the mouth piece but he ain’t wholly responsible for all the rubbish that comes out of it. For that he has a highly paid team of executives – all working on great new plans and visiting far flung countries as we speak.
And as for MAGLEV, don’t be so flippant young chap. Just because the Scottish Government has said it’s a no go and they are looking at electrification of the Glasgow – Edinburgh route as their preferred option, do you think that’s the end of it?
No way!
There is a SPT study now being undertaken at the cost of, wait for it, £250,000. (Yes, TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND POUNDS) But, hey that’s just the first phase study and it will report in early 2008. The second phase will cost an additional £750,000!
(See http://www.spt.co.uk
/news/story412.html - Official SPT Press Release 29/07/07)
Now I know what you are thinking – they will all now be away off to Shanghai to see how it works.?
No! You’d be wrong! That was last year’s trip, oops sorry, err, fact finding mission. This year it’s everybody off to Mumbai to see how they are [bold]THINKING[/bold] about one!
Gie's a joab, eh?
[bold]
www.subway2020.com[/bold]
Brad,
You may be a little harsh on the Councillor there, he certainly may be the mouth piece but he ain’t wholly responsible for all the rubbish that comes out of it. For that he has a highly paid team of executives – all working on great new plans and visiting far flung countries as we speak.
And as for MAGLEV, don’t be so flippant young chap. Just because the Scottish Government has said it’s a no go and they are looking at electrification of the Glasgow – Edinburgh route as their preferred option, do you think that’s the end of it?
No way!
There is a SPT study now being undertaken at the cost of, wait for it, £250,000. (Yes, TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND POUNDS) But, hey that’s just the first phase study and it will report in early 2008. The second phase will cost an additional £750,000!
(See http://www.spt.co.uk
/news/story412.html - Official SPT Press Release 29/07/07)
Now I know what you are thinking – they will all now be away off to Shanghai to see how it works.?
No! You’d be wrong! That was last year’s trip, oops sorry, err, fact finding mission. This year it’s everybody off to Mumbai to see how they are
THINKING about one!
Gie's a joab, eh?
www.subway2020.com Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 7:02pm Mon 12 Nov 07
Bill, I see your tongue in your cheek but should note that that maglev study isn't going ahead as far as I know. DfT certainly did one though, published in July. Said it was mince, so it'll still be the old choo-choo to London a while yet.
Bill, I see your tongue in your cheek but should note that that maglev study isn't going ahead as far as I know. DfT certainly did one though, published in July. Said it was mince, so it'll still be the old choo-choo to London a while yet.
Posted by: Foxy, Brigadoon on 7:11pm Mon 12 Nov 07
C'mon..can you honestly see the SNP funding this after refusing the original Edinburgh Airport rail link?
Extending Glasgow's subway on the dubious strength of an eleven day
event is a pipe dream. Be satisfied with the M74 extension, assuming the SNP let that go ahead.
C'mon..can you honestly see the SNP funding this after refusing the original Edinburgh Airport rail link?
Extending Glasgow's subway on the dubious strength of an eleven day
event is a pipe dream. Be satisfied with the M74 extension, assuming the SNP let that go ahead.
Posted by: Bill Forbes, Cambuslang on 7:13pm Mon 12 Nov 07
A sensible suggestion Andrew but it doesn’t carry the same panache as a mutli-million pound Subway extensions does it?
The SPT launched the CrossRail web site in March this year with 300 signatures backing the call. The campaign has died a death now and in the last few weeks there has been little movement even in the amount of site visits (there’s now 801 signatures). All the news on the web site is old news; Bob Wylie (the ex-BBC man, now SPT Communications Director) kicked things off with a 4 page news letter, no less. We can only now assume that there has been no news.
(See http://www.spt.co.uk
/news/story389.html - Official SPT Press Release 26/03/07)
Pity really as I agree with you this vital railway component to our national network should be getting all the attention rather than the airy fairy stories the ET want to put on their front page.
The double tragedy is that if the Glasgow Airport Rail Link was well managed then the savings there would actually pay for CrossRail.
But perhaps I expect too much from the SPT.
Brad,
I seriously didn’t know that the MAGLEV study was not going ahead. I believe the SPT when they go to all the time and effort to print stuff like that. After all, doesn’t everybody believe we are getting a new Subway to the East End?
[bold]www.subway2020.com[/bold]
A sensible suggestion Andrew but it doesn’t carry the same panache as a mutli-million pound Subway extensions does it?
The SPT launched the CrossRail web site in March this year with 300 signatures backing the call. The campaign has died a death now and in the last few weeks there has been little movement even in the amount of site visits (there’s now 801 signatures). All the news on the web site is old news; Bob Wylie (the ex-BBC man, now SPT Communications Director) kicked things off with a 4 page news letter, no less. We can only now assume that there has been no news.
(See http://www.spt.co.uk
/news/story389.html - Official SPT Press Release 26/03/07)
Pity really as I agree with you this vital railway component to our national network should be getting all the attention rather than the airy fairy stories the ET want to put on their front page.
The double tragedy is that if the Glasgow Airport Rail Link was well managed then the savings there would actually pay for CrossRail.
But perhaps I expect too much from the SPT.
Brad,
I seriously didn’t know that the MAGLEV study was not going ahead. I believe the SPT when they go to all the time and effort to print stuff like that. After all, doesn’t everybody believe we are getting a new Subway to the East End?
www.subway2020.com Posted by: Frank Bray on 7:25pm Mon 12 Nov 07
Why should the area near Parkhead have both rail and subway links and the Ibrox/Govan area not have a rail station? Do the council et al think the latter area has no need of regeneration?
Why should the area near Parkhead have both rail and subway links and the Ibrox/Govan area not have a rail station? Do the council et al think the latter area has no need of regeneration?
Posted by: Andrew on 7:32pm Mon 12 Nov 07
I say again, Bill, Crossrail is the key that opens up the network possibilities, both Glasgow- and Scotland-wide. Oh, and that website tells the story, www.crossrailglasgow
.com
I say again, Bill, Crossrail is the key that opens up the network possibilities, both Glasgow- and Scotland-wide. Oh, and that website tells the story, www.crossrailglasgow
.com
Posted by: Graham, Glasgow on 7:54pm Mon 12 Nov 07
Maybe its me thats losing it a bit. But is it not the case that its the Argyll Low level thats being extended to Parkhead via the old disussed tunnel from Bridgeton X. The refurbishment of the Subway is a separate issue. I mean how can you extend a circle!![bold]bold[/bold]
Maybe its me thats losing it a bit. But is it not the case that its the Argyll Low level thats being extended to Parkhead via the old disussed tunnel from Bridgeton X. The refurbishment of the Subway is a separate issue. I mean how can you extend a circle!!
Posted by: leesome, Glasgow on 8:50pm Mon 12 Nov 07
Fantasic! howp this is true, finally the hoops get to hail the orange, touch of white and green and we'll be at home. Maybe design the station on the shamrock map, Celtic park as the stem, that will be grand. Pity about GCC allowing the tunnels in the West End to be blocked by a nightclub. Possil next, St Georges Rd underground station is not that far away. Whenever they get this finished, having a station at Celtic park should pay for itself... enought facts there for anyone.
Fantasic! howp this is true, finally the hoops get to hail the orange, touch of white and green and we'll be at home. Maybe design the station on the shamrock map, Celtic park as the stem, that will be grand. Pity about GCC allowing the tunnels in the West End to be blocked by a nightclub. Possil next, St Georges Rd underground station is not that far away. Whenever they get this finished, having a station at Celtic park should pay for itself... enought facts there for anyone.
Posted by: Meep, Shawlands on 9:40pm Mon 12 Nov 07
The SPT board need to be cleared out and replaced with people with courage and vision. The east end extension is not good enough for a city the size of Glasgow. Glasgow and the west of Scotland need a metropolitan subway for the future and the best the SPT can do is a make shift extension that will only benefit football fans . [bold]Not good enough SPT!![/bold]
The SPT board need to be cleared out and replaced with people with courage and vision. The east end extension is not good enough for a city the size of Glasgow. Glasgow and the west of Scotland need a metropolitan subway for the future and the best the SPT can do is a make shift extension that will only benefit football fans .
Not good enough SPT!! Posted by: Andrew, Glasgow on 9:47pm Mon 12 Nov 07
[quote][bold]Graham[/bold] wrote:
Maybe its me thats losing it a bit. But is it not the case that its the Argyll Low level thats being extended to Parkhead via the old disussed tunnel from Bridgeton X. The refurbishment of the Subway is a separate issue. I mean how can you extend a circle!![bold]bold[/bold] [/quote] Not at all, Graham. Out of Glasgow's great railway network the Subway line is the only odd one out because of its narrow gauge and tunnel widths; it makes no sense to build a new line to those specs. SPT must be intending a second Subway line shares the Argyle line tracks, same gauge, with new sidings at Finnieston, and extending from Parkhead Stadium down to Dalmarnock... but we shall see precisely what pitch they take.
Jim (at 3.12pm), your Glasgow X lines are part of Crossrail; see the map on http://www.crossrail
glasgow.com for the missing link to bring it all together for both Glasgow and Scotland.
Graham wrote:
Maybe its me thats losing it a bit. But is it not the case that its the Argyll Low level thats being extended to Parkhead via the old disussed tunnel from Bridgeton X. The refurbishment of the Subway is a separate issue. I mean how can you extend a circle!!
Not at all, Graham. Out of Glasgow's great railway network the Subway line is the only odd one out because of its narrow gauge and tunnel widths; it makes no sense to build a new line to those specs. SPT must be intending a second Subway line shares the Argyle line tracks, same gauge, with new sidings at Finnieston, and extending from Parkhead Stadium down to Dalmarnock... but we shall see precisely what pitch they take.
Jim (at 3.12pm), your Glasgow X lines are part of Crossrail; see the map on http://www.crossrail
glasgow.com for the missing link to bring it all together for both Glasgow and Scotland.
Posted by: hightower, glasgow on 10:10pm Mon 12 Nov 07
my word thats a lot of messages. would it be an idea to have to new line go to the royal (GRI) as well to ease parking etc. By the way spare a wee thought for Messers Salmond and Purcell after theri gruelling 12 hour flight back from Sri Lanka.poor lambs how hard they have it!! Why the hell were they not back thenext day to their jobs instead of wasting our bloody money on a holiday!!!
my word thats a lot of messages. would it be an idea to have to new line go to the royal (GRI) as well to ease parking etc. By the way spare a wee thought for Messers Salmond and Purcell after theri gruelling 12 hour flight back from Sri Lanka.poor lambs how hard they have it!! Why the hell were they not back thenext day to their jobs instead of wasting our bloody money on a holiday!!!
Posted by: hightower, glasgow on 10:11pm Mon 12 Nov 07
my word thats a lot of messages. would it be an idea to have to new line go to the royal (GRI) as well to ease parking etc. By the way spare a wee thought for Messers Salmond and Purcell after theri gruelling 12 hour flight back from Sri Lanka.poor lambs how hard they have it!! Why the hell were they not back thenext day to their jobs instead of wasting our bloody money on a holiday!!!
my word thats a lot of messages. would it be an idea to have to new line go to the royal (GRI) as well to ease parking etc. By the way spare a wee thought for Messers Salmond and Purcell after theri gruelling 12 hour flight back from Sri Lanka.poor lambs how hard they have it!! Why the hell were they not back thenext day to their jobs instead of wasting our bloody money on a holiday!!!
Posted by: hightower, glasgow on 10:12pm Mon 12 Nov 07
my word thats a lot of messages. would it be an idea to have to new line go to the royal (GRI) as well to ease parking etc. By the way spare a wee thought for Messers Salmond and Purcell after theri gruelling 12 hour flight back from Sri Lanka.poor lambs how hard they have it!! Why the hell were they not back thenext day to their jobs instead of wasting our bloody money on a holiday!!!
my word thats a lot of messages. would it be an idea to have to new line go to the royal (GRI) as well to ease parking etc. By the way spare a wee thought for Messers Salmond and Purcell after theri gruelling 12 hour flight back from Sri Lanka.poor lambs how hard they have it!! Why the hell were they not back thenext day to their jobs instead of wasting our bloody money on a holiday!!!
Posted by: Bill Forbes, Cambuslang on 12:03am Tue 13 Nov 07
Aye leesome, if it was only that easy.
[quote][bold]leesome[/bold] wrote:
Whenever they get this finished, having a station at Celtic park should pay for itself... enought facts there for anyone.[/quote]
At very best you could expect say 8% of the crowds at Parkhead to use the new service. Ibrox has the greater advantage as fans can travel from a number of locations by Subway. The new SPT plan is for a link between the stadium and the City Centre. So that would be 4,800 fans per game and that’s ultra generous (300 fans per train equals 16 trains, and four trains each hour equates to four hours solid before and after every match – unlikely but let’s take these figures for arguments sake.) Over a season that would give some 120,000 fans using the service. (Based on 25 home games a season).
Based on a par with rail fares at Dalmarnock to Glasgow Central (£1.90 open return – although a cheap day return is only £1.45 – but we’ll take the higher figure for arguments sake). That would give a total farebox of £228,000 per annum. That, I’m afraid wouldn’t even pay for the drivers’ wages.
To get full value from the Celtic crowd the train must travel from a number of locations (e.g. continue the train through Parkhead and up to Carntyne and Easterhouse) Get it to stop at Parkhead Forge and Glasgow Fort and you get seven day a week crowds instead of just every second Saturday. Allow residents in the East End to use the new service to get to work or go into town and you are starting to make some financial sense, but it is not viable just on the Celtic crowds, I’m afraid.
As I said earlier, the success of any mass transit scheme depends on get economies of scale – Meep suggests a metropolitan Subway system – and that’s what you need to make these big capital commitments make sense.
The SPT approach is more mental than [italic]“incremental”.[/italic]
[bold]www.subway2020.com [/bold]
Aye leesome, if it was only that easy.
leesome wrote:
Whenever they get this finished, having a station at Celtic park should pay for itself... enought facts there for anyone.
At very best you could expect say 8% of the crowds at Parkhead to use the new service. Ibrox has the greater advantage as fans can travel from a number of locations by Subway. The new SPT plan is for a link between the stadium and the City Centre. So that would be 4,800 fans per game and that’s ultra generous (300 fans per train equals 16 trains, and four trains each hour equates to four hours solid before and after every match – unlikely but let’s take these figures for arguments sake.) Over a season that would give some 120,000 fans using the service. (Based on 25 home games a season).
Based on a par with rail fares at Dalmarnock to Glasgow Central (£1.90 open return – although a cheap day return is only £1.45 – but we’ll take the higher figure for arguments sake). That would give a total farebox of £228,000 per annum. That, I’m afraid wouldn’t even pay for the drivers’ wages.
To get full value from the Celtic crowd the train must travel from a number of locations (e.g. continue the train through Parkhead and up to Carntyne and Easterhouse) Get it to stop at Parkhead Forge and Glasgow Fort and you get seven day a week crowds instead of just every second Saturday. Allow residents in the East End to use the new service to get to work or go into town and you are starting to make some financial sense, but it is not viable just on the Celtic crowds, I’m afraid.
As I said earlier, the success of any mass transit scheme depends on get economies of scale – Meep suggests a metropolitan Subway system – and that’s what you need to make these big capital commitments make sense.
The SPT approach is more mental than
“incremental”.
www.subway2020.com Posted by: Graham, Glasgow on 12:12am Tue 13 Nov 07
Andrew 9:47 pm. Hello Andrew. I am an old Brigton man and lived through the closure of the Old Brigton Stn and watched the tram lines being ripped up outside my close on the London Rd. Acts of madness.I will be surprised if this new line is put in place especially as the East End population has decreased by two thirds since the fifties. I do not expect to see any extension from Parkhead to Dalmarnock or indeed Brigton to Parkhead. I think we will probably end up with A SHUTTLE BUS SERVICE to the GAMES. 2ND BEST AS USUAL.[bold]bold[/bold]
Andrew 9:47 pm. Hello Andrew. I am an old Brigton man and lived through the closure of the Old Brigton Stn and watched the tram lines being ripped up outside my close on the London Rd. Acts of madness.I will be surprised if this new line is put in place especially as the East End population has decreased by two thirds since the fifties. I do not expect to see any extension from Parkhead to Dalmarnock or indeed Brigton to Parkhead. I think we will probably end up with A SHUTTLE BUS SERVICE to the GAMES. 2ND BEST AS USUAL.
Posted by: Biffo the bear, beano town on 8:30am Tue 13 Nov 07
[quote][bold]John MacLean[/bold] wrote:
Great for supporters like me for getting to Celtic Park, but what happened to the plans of doing the trains up? I had the misfortune of getting the subway a few weeks ago! What a ramshackle!![/quote] Here is a thought, why dont they shut Celtic Park & turn it into a factory producing false breasts?, after all it is full of tits every other week-end...
John MacLean wrote:
Great for supporters like me for getting to Celtic Park, but what happened to the plans of doing the trains up? I had the misfortune of getting the subway a few weeks ago! What a ramshackle!!
Here is a thought, why dont they shut Celtic Park & turn it into a factory producing false breasts?, after all it is full of tits every other week-end...
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 9:42am Tue 13 Nov 07
[quote][bold]Biffo the bear[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]John MacLean[/bold] wrote: Great for supporters like me for getting to Celtic Park, but what happened to the plans of doing the trains up? I had the misfortune of getting the subway a few weeks ago! What a ramshackle!![/quote] Here is a thought, why dont they shut Celtic Park & turn it into a factory producing
Comment | Read Comments (67)
