Posted by: jim, Glasgow on 11:25am Mon 10 Dec 07
Better than nothing i suppose,Tram/trains better
Better than nothing i suppose,Tram/trains better
Posted by: jim, Glasgow on 11:32am Mon 10 Dec 07
if we can find stupid amount of money for Edinburghs unwanted tram line we can find money for Glasgows much needed Transport expansion,We must expand it more than the planned spur,
if we can find stupid amount of money for Edinburghs unwanted tram line we can find money for Glasgows much needed Transport expansion,We must expand it more than the planned spur,
Posted by: RMH, Strathbungo on 11:57am Mon 10 Dec 07
This report will be interesting reading - integrating a narrow-gauge railway using 600 volt DC third rail, with a standard-gauge railway on 25,000 volt AC overhead. Presumably through the same tunnels? With different signalling, platform heights and clearances? Talk about an engineering challenge.
SPT are so proud of this first stage report they don't make it available for download via their website, so the poor so-and-sos who ultimately paid for it will have to make some assumptions out of ignorance. Here goes.
Let's first assume shared running on the same trackbed. That's a dual-gauge, dual-power, dual-everything system, hugely expensive and complex, and virtually unique in the world. Good luck getting that suggestion past the Railway Inspectorate at the outset.
Or else, it's two separate single lines, one heavy rail, and one Subway, alongside each other, in which case you can tear up any idea of a frequent-interval timetable on either, as each system waits for its paths in each direction. (Exhibition Centre to Bridgeton is a nine-minute run now, so you could just about make a twenty-minute service interval work with fingers and toes crossed.)
Okay, what if the Argyle Line is completely converted to Subway and all heavy trains from the Rutherglen direction have to run to Central High Level? That's a total non-starter given the pressure on Central, and what happens to Dalmarnock station then?
Or (and this is what really sticks in SPT's throat because it wouldn't get a big headline) simply extend the existing Argyle Line along a new spur from Bridgeton in the disused tunnel beneath London Road, and the Games site gets its rail connection to the SECC: proper, six-coach, full-size trains, job done.
Why is the Subway even being talked about in this context? What hallucinogens are these people on?
This report will be interesting reading - integrating a narrow-gauge railway using 600 volt DC third rail, with a standard-gauge railway on 25,000 volt AC overhead. Presumably through the same tunnels? With different signalling, platform heights and clearances? Talk about an engineering challenge.
SPT are so proud of this first stage report they don't make it available for download via their website, so the poor so-and-sos who ultimately paid for it will have to make some assumptions out of ignorance. Here goes.
Let's first assume shared running on the same trackbed. That's a dual-gauge, dual-power, dual-everything system, hugely expensive and complex, and virtually unique in the world. Good luck getting that suggestion past the Railway Inspectorate at the outset.
Or else, it's two separate single lines, one heavy rail, and one Subway, alongside each other, in which case you can tear up any idea of a frequent-interval timetable on either, as each system waits for its paths in each direction. (Exhibition Centre to Bridgeton is a nine-minute run now, so you could just about make a twenty-minute service interval work with fingers and toes crossed.)
Okay, what if the Argyle Line is completely converted to Subway and all heavy trains from the Rutherglen direction have to run to Central High Level? That's a total non-starter given the pressure on Central, and what happens to Dalmarnock station then?
Or (and this is what really sticks in SPT's throat because it wouldn't get a big headline) simply extend the existing Argyle Line along a new spur from Bridgeton in the disused tunnel beneath London Road, and the Games site gets its rail connection to the SECC: proper, six-coach, full-size trains, job done.
Why is the Subway even being talked about in this context? What hallucinogens are these people on?
Posted by: jkr, Lochwinnoch Greater Glasgow on 12:08pm Mon 10 Dec 07
It would be money well spent.
It would be money well spent.
Posted by: Brian Blessed, Glasgow on 12:23pm Mon 10 Dec 07
You're right BMH, this scheme has nothing to do with the Subway at all - it's just a (small) extension of the mainline railway, using money that'd be far better spent on Crossrail.
But then again when did Times journos do anything other than regurgitate Alastair Watson's latest belly rumble about SPT's endless list of feasibility studies?
You're right BMH, this scheme has nothing to do with the Subway at all - it's just a (small) extension of the mainline railway, using money that'd be far better spent on Crossrail.
But then again when did Times journos do anything other than regurgitate Alastair Watson's latest belly rumble about SPT's endless list of feasibility studies?
Posted by: marty, Glasgow on 12:47pm Mon 10 Dec 07
Agreed that this scheme is silly in its current context - extending the "Subway" when the heavy rail network can serve the requirement perfectly well with a new spur.
I'm sick of reading of these festability studies being trumpeted from the front page of the ET every other week... It's time they ran the Glasgow-Edinburgh monorail story again, it must be a couple of months since that last graced the cover!
Agreed that this scheme is silly in its current context - extending the "Subway" when the heavy rail network can serve the requirement perfectly well with a new spur.
I'm sick of reading of these festability studies being trumpeted from the front page of the ET every other week... It's time they ran the Glasgow-Edinburgh monorail story again, it must be a couple of months since that last graced the cover!
Posted by: Harry, Glasgow on 12:54pm Mon 10 Dec 07
Or (and this is what really sticks in SPT's throat because it wouldn't get a big headline) simply extend the existing Argyle Line along a new spur from Bridgeton in the disused tunnel beneath London Road, and the Games site gets its rail connection to the SECC: proper, six-coach, full-size trains, job done.
Well said RMH. Using the existing infrastructure would be a much more sensible option, but it probably wouldn't need as much expenditure so the SPT budget would be smaller -- can't have that, can we?
Or (and this is what really sticks in SPT's throat because it wouldn't get a big headline) simply extend the existing Argyle Line along a new spur from Bridgeton in the disused tunnel beneath London Road, and the Games site gets its rail connection to the SECC: proper, six-coach, full-size trains, job done.
Well said RMH. Using the existing infrastructure would be a much more sensible option, but it probably wouldn't need as much expenditure so the SPT budget would be smaller -- can't have that, can we?
Posted by: tradesman on 1:17pm Mon 10 Dec 07
Folks, wake up and read between the lines!!! the extension of the existing low level line to the SECC and using the old tunnel under London Road IS EXACTLY what this proposal is!!!!I agree it is very misleading because it is being labelled an extension of the Subway, it is not, it's an extension of the low-level line with hopefully, an integration with the Subway at St.Enoch, you don't honestly think we can build a new Subway line for £120m?????
Folks, wake up and read between the lines!!! the extension of the existing low level line to the SECC and using the old tunnel under London Road IS EXACTLY what this proposal is!!!!I agree it is very misleading because it is being labelled an extension of the Subway, it is not, it's an extension of the low-level line with hopefully, an integration with the Subway at St.Enoch, you don't honestly think we can build a new Subway line for £120m?????
Posted by: Douglas Bloomer, Alloa on 1:26pm Mon 10 Dec 07
The only viable option for this extension will be tram trains that Glasgow City has already been investigating in Karlsruhe. This will allow the vehicles to run on the existing Central Low Level Line to Finnieston using existing rails and overhead current. The existing subway passengers would connect to this via the planned interchange at St Enoch. Extensions mentioned in the article would permit the vehicles in tram mode to operate on street and in public spaces which subway cars which third rail current collection cannot do.
The only viable option for this extension will be tram trains that Glasgow City has already been investigating in Karlsruhe. This will allow the vehicles to run on the existing Central Low Level Line to Finnieston using existing rails and overhead current. The existing subway passengers would connect to this via the planned interchange at St Enoch. Extensions mentioned in the article would permit the vehicles in tram mode to operate on street and in public spaces which subway cars which third rail current collection cannot do.
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 1:43pm Mon 10 Dec 07
Mr B Blessed has it right: "when did Times journos do anything other than regurgitate Alastair Watson's latest belly rumble about SPT's endless list of feasibility studies?"
You're right, tradesman, we can't build a new subway line for £120m. This story is mince.
Mr B Blessed has it right: "when did Times journos do anything other than regurgitate Alastair Watson's latest belly rumble about SPT's endless list of feasibility studies?"
You're right, tradesman, we can't build a new subway line for £120m. This story is mince.
Posted by: allan, brisbane queensland on 1:50pm Mon 10 Dec 07
i must say it is a hard act to follow all those proposed be it ext subway or train lines take australia in couple of weeks perth west aust opens up a brand new rail line perth to mandurah just over 73ks. nr brisbane an extention to our gold coast line now started victoria also extending a suburban rail line adalaide has modernised its only tram line and extended it into city heart and guess what its the variouse state goverments thatown/some corporised but still under the thumb of their goverments
i must say it is a hard act to follow all those proposed be it ext subway or train lines take australia in couple of weeks perth west aust opens up a brand new rail line perth to mandurah just over 73ks. nr brisbane an extention to our gold coast line now started victoria also extending a suburban rail line adalaide has modernised its only tram line and extended it into city heart and guess what its the variouse state goverments thatown/some corporised but still under the thumb of their goverments
Posted by: Rick the pilot, Pollokshields on 2:09pm Mon 10 Dec 07
Why don't we save money by purchasing one of those 'trains' you see in foreign holiday destinations. The ones that actually get driven on the road. Most Glaswegians are so out of it they won't know the difference
Why don't we save money by purchasing one of those 'trains' you see in foreign holiday destinations. The ones that actually get driven on the road. Most Glaswegians are so out of it they won't know the difference
Posted by: BhoyWunda, East Kilbride on 2:39pm Mon 10 Dec 07
**** the Ilot. Most Glaswegians are sober and law-abiding.
**** the Ilot. Most Glaswegians are sober and law-abiding.
Posted by: pete, Bearsden on 3:30pm Mon 10 Dec 07
Lucky to get about 50 yards of brand-new subway for £120m.
Lucky to get about 50 yards of brand-new subway for £120m.
Posted by: Bigal, glasgow on 11:19pm Mon 10 Dec 07
The extension of the rail network has to be supported if Glasgow is to continue to be a force in its economic and social development and in its right to be a universally accepted city.
It might be worthwhile to consider that Glasgows development was only able to happen in the 18th and 19 th and early 20th centuries due to the massive investments made in the major industries .What would have happened if the Clyde had not been dredged, widened and made
navigable to large ships?
The railways developed in tandem.
Massive spending at the time.
Now its time for a project on the same scale to be done.
Our forefathers were aware of the benefits to be gained and they were proved correct.
[bold]bold[/bold] LET GLASGOW GROW WITH GRACE
The extension of the rail network has to be supported if Glasgow is to continue to be a force in its economic and social development and in its right to be a universally accepted city.
It might be worthwhile to consider that Glasgows development was only able to happen in the 18th and 19 th and early 20th centuries due to the massive investments made in the major industries .What would have happened if the Clyde had not been dredged, widened and made
navigable to large ships?
The railways developed in tandem.
Massive spending at the time.
Now its time for a project on the same scale to be done.
Our forefathers were aware of the benefits to be gained and they were proved correct.
LET GLASGOW GROW WITH GRACE
Posted by: Gorm, Mount Florida on 11:22pm Mon 10 Dec 07
I hope this will be based on the Karlsruhe system, where the "Subway" will run on the Argyle line, but on street at the ends.
Incedentally does SPT never read the local Health Board plans? The Sick Kids IS moving to Southern General site before this line would open.
I hope this will be based on the Karlsruhe system, where the "Subway" will run on the Argyle line, but on street at the ends.
Incedentally does SPT never read the local Health Board plans? The Sick Kids IS moving to Southern General site before this line would open.
Posted by: Bigal, glasgow on 11:25pm Mon 10 Dec 07
Allan, Brisbane.
Can you oblige and be a bit clearer in your post.Im going to Mandurrah,Joondalup and Fremantle soon and I know that the WA Government just love railway tracks and are pouring money into it.
Whats the comparison with Glasgow?
Allan, Brisbane.
Can you oblige and be a bit clearer in your post.Im going to Mandurrah,Joondalup and Fremantle soon and I know that the WA Government just love railway tracks and are pouring money into it.
Whats the comparison with Glasgow?
Posted by: Mekon, Dromus4b on 7:09pm Tue 11 Dec 07
f we can find stupid amount of money for Edinburghs unwanted tram line we can find money for Glasgows much needed Transport expansion,We must expand it more than the planned spur,
You need to get out more Jim and talk to some of us who travel every working day to Edinburgh Park. The tram link may be 'unwanted' by you but the suggestion it is unwanted by all is bogus.
f we can find stupid amount of money for Edinburghs unwanted tram line we can find money for Glasgows much needed Transport expansion,We must expand it more than the planned spur,
You need to get out more Jim and talk to some of us who travel every working day to Edinburgh Park. The tram link may be 'unwanted' by you but the suggestion it is unwanted by all is bogus.
Posted by: jim, Glasgow on 1:09pm Fri 27 Jun 08
I got out more since thanks and i found folks in Edinburgh 8 out of 10 didnt want trams and still dont .They dont think the city needed them at all.
I got out more since thanks and i found folks in Edinburgh 8 out of 10 didnt want trams and still dont .They dont think the city needed them at all.
Comment | Read Comments (19)
