How much might it cost if the Glasgow Botanics Line is ever re-opened?

[clc]

Any guestimates on how much it would cost to reopen the tunnel from Exhibition Centre to Botanic Gardens for heavy rail services?

 

[PaxVobiscum]

With a branch terminus at Botanic Gardens and presumably an exchange station with the Underground at Kelvinbridge? Also a bit of bi-di needed at Exhibition Centre (only platform 1 available).

 

[me123]

I'm going to give the vague but entirely accurate answer of "too much".

Whilst the connection would be nice to have, the benefits are rather minimal in comparison to the costs. As a way of freeing up capacity through Patrick, it's needlessly expensive. The corridor between the Botanics and Exhibition Centre is entirely underground which adds a huge amount of money to the bill. The number of people using this corridor really wouldn't be enough to justify the cost. Both of the proposed stations (Kelvingbridge and Botanic Gardens) are already well served by the Subway and bus networks.

 

[clc]

With a branch terminus at Botanic Gardens and presumably an exchange station with the Underground at Kelvinbridge? Also a bit of bi-di needed at Exhibition Centre (only platform 1 available).

Ideally the line would be reopened all the way to Maryhill but this doesn't
seem feasible since flats have been built on the trackbed at Kirklee.

You'd want a station at Kelvinbridge primarily for Glasgow University.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

The corridor between the Botanics and Exhibition Centre is entirely underground which adds a huge amount of money to the bill.

Without necessarily disagreeing with the rest of your post, why would the existing tunnels increase the cost so drastically? Been a while since I walked them, but they are not in too bad nick as far as I am aware. The old Kelvinbridge station site is not underground, but it is perilously close to the water level in the river Kelvin.

 

[clc]

I'm going to give the vague but entirely accurate answer of "too much".

The number of people using this corridor really wouldn't be enough to justify the cost. Both of the proposed stations (Kelvingbridge and Botanic Gardens) are already well served by the Subway and bus networks.

It would provide a fast connection from the south side to the west end via Central. The bus takes an age and St Enoch isn't really convenient enough for interchange with Central especially in poor weather.

 

[gsnedders]

Without necessarily disagreeing with the rest of your post, why would the existing tunnels increase the cost so drastically? Been a while since I walked them, but they are not in too bad nick as far as I am aware. The old Kelvinbridge station site is not underground, but it is perilously close to the water level in the river Kelvin.

They're maintained reasonably well given what they have above them (especially between Kelvinbridge and Botanics—it's directly under Great Western Road!).

 

[NotATrainspott]

Tram yes, heavy rail no. The Strathclyde Tram proposal in the early 90s involved re-opening this route, although it was only the Great Western Road tunnel that was to be re-used. If I'm not mistaken, Glasgow City Council still protects the tram alignment from other development as it is incredibly likely that it will eventually be built.

 

[clc]

Tram yes, heavy rail no. The Strathclyde Tram proposal in the early 90s involved re-opening this route, although it was only the Great Western Road tunnel that was to be re-used. If I'm not mistaken, Glasgow City Council still protects the tram alignment from other development as it is incredibly likely that it will eventually be built.

What route would a tram take into the city centre after it emerges from the Great Western Rd tunnel?

 

[NotATrainspott]

What route would a tram take into the city centre after it emerges from the Great Western Rd tunnel?

Route for Line One

Kelvin Way, then Sauchiehall/Berkeley Streets, then Bath/St Vincent Streets (with east/westbound tram lines on the different streets).

 

[me123]

It would provide a fast connection from the south side to the west end via Central. The bus takes an age and St Enoch isn't really convenient enough for interchange with Central especially in poor weather.

It would be nice to have, but I'm not convinced that there's a great case for reopening the route. Access to the City Centre is already pretty good. The walk between St Enoch and Central is frankly minimal (2-3 minutes), and is somewhat offset when you consider that nobody actually lives in the Botanic Gardens, so most people going that station will have a reasonable walk at that end in the first place.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Without necessarily disagreeing with the rest of your post, why would the existing tunnels increase the cost so drastically? Been a while since I walked them, but they are not in too bad nick as far as I am aware.

I am not a railway engineer, nor do I have any knowledge as to the conditions of these tunnels. But I would imagine they'd need extensive work to the tunnels before you get to the job of laying the track and electrifying in a tight environment.

I just don't think that the relatively marginal benefit to be achieved from reopening the line is enough to warrant the work that would probably be required. The money could go to so many better projects.

 

[clc]

Route for Line One

Kelvin Way, then Sauchiehall/Berkeley Streets, then Bath/St Vincent Streets (with east/westbound tram lines on the different streets).

Thanks for posting that. I suppose the proposed route to the city centre was the right one at the time (though I do wonder if a tram could get up the hill on St Vincent St between Elmbank St and Holland St). However, given the new employment sites which have developed since the Strathclyde Tram plan was drawn up I think if trams were being considered now there would be a case for routing them down Finnieston St to the SECC complex then along Lancefield Quay and Broomielaw to serve the new developments there and help regenerate the remaining gap sites along the riverfront.

I'm still not sure whether it would have a better business case than reopening the heavy rail line though.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Thanks for posting that. I suppose the proposed route to the city centre was the right one at the time (though I do wonder if a tram could get up the hill on St Vincent St between Elmbank St and Holland St). However, given the new employment sites which have developed since the Strathclyde Tram plan was drawn up I think if trams were being considered now there would be a case for routing them down Finnieston St to the SECC complex then along Lancefield Quay and Broomielaw to serve the new developments there and help regenerate the remaining gap sites along the riverfront.

That's something I've thought as well. There's an obvious tram alignment along the north bank of the Clyde all the way from Central Station to the Golden Jubilee hospital. The route via the Botanics is the other obvious one, but directing it via the Broomielaw would then miss out on most of the middle of the city centre. I think there might well be value in doing both but it's probably too much of an ask to get both city centre routes built simultaneously. Given that a Broomielaw tram alignment would be shared with a tram replacing the Fastlink route, there's probably long-term value in there being a connection around Finneston between the Botanics/Broomielaw lines and this could be used to funnel all three western routes into the one cross-city alignment.

I'm still not sure whether it would have a better business case than reopening the heavy rail line though.

It quite definitely would. A heavy rail reopening would cost a comparable amount of money and then require considerable ongoing subsidy, especially since it would be hard for it to properly serve built-up areas. Trams cost less to run in the first place and then can serve many more people and generate more revenue. For instance, instead of terminating at Maryhill shopping centre the tram could rise up and join Maryhill road. Then it would be able to serve all the people living along that route, interchange with the Anniesland line and also connect the Science Park to the rest of the university district in the west end. I'm also sure that the folk in Bearsden would quite like to have a tram taking them to all the fancy places in the west end too.

 

[clc]

That's something I've thought as well. There's an obvious tram alignment along the north bank of the Clyde all the way from Central Station to the Golden Jubilee hospital. The route via the Botanics is the other obvious one, but directing it via the Broomielaw would then miss out on most of the middle of the city centre. I think there might well be value in doing both but it's probably too much of an ask to get both city centre routes built simultaneously. Given that a Broomielaw tram alignment would be shared with a tram replacing the Fastlink route, there's probably long-term value in there being a connection around Finneston between the Botanics/Broomielaw lines and this could be used to funnel all three western routes into the one cross-city alignment.
.

I also noted that the Strathclyde Tram would have interchanged at Queen St but not at Central. I don't see any reason why a single cross-city alignment along the riverside couldn't serve both Central and Queen St, boosting the business case further.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

.

It quite definitely would. A heavy rail reopening would cost a comparable amount of money and then require considerable ongoing subsidy, especially since it would be hard for it to properly serve built-up areas. Trams cost less to run in the first place and then can serve many more people and generate more revenue. For instance, instead of terminating at Maryhill shopping centre the tram could rise up and join Maryhill road. Then it would be able to serve all the people living along that route, interchange with the Anniesland line and also connect the Science Park to the rest of the university district in the west end. I'm also sure that the folk in Bearsden would quite like to have a tram taking them to all the fancy places in the west end too.

What do you about slow on street sections though? The tram would be quite slow through Finnieston for example. Would it be possible to create a new access to the disused tunnel at the south end of Kelvingrove Park and an exit somewhere before it reaches Exhibition Centre station? You'd still have stops on Kelvin Way as per the Strathclyde plan and another near the SECC, but you'd bypass the snarl ups in Finnieston. Feasible?

 

[Townsend Hook]

Tram yes, heavy rail no. The Strathclyde Tram proposal in the early 90s involved re-opening this route, although it was only the Great Western Road tunnel that was to be re-used. If I'm not mistaken, Glasgow City Council still protects the tram alignment from other development as it is incredibly likely that it will eventually be built.

Strathclyde tram sounds like a cracking idea, just need some new build Coronation or Cunarder streamliners..

 

[NotATrainspott]

I also noted that the Strathclyde Tram would have interchanged at Queen St but not at Central. I don't see any reason why a single cross-city alignment along the riverside couldn't serve both Central and Queen St, boosting the business case further.

It could, but then it would be slower through the city centre and make it less attractive as a city transport system. We want people to go from the west to the east end and vice-versa, not just to the city centre. For city transport needs it's not as vital that it interchanges with both Central and Queen Street anyway, as it would be used more by people going about their everyday lives within the city.

What do you about slow on street sections though? The tram would be quite slow through Finnieston for example. Would it be possible to create a new access to the disused tunnel at the south end of Kelvingrove Park and an exit somewhere before it reaches Exhibition Centre station? You'd still have stops on Kelvin Way as per the Strathclyde plan and another near the SECC, but you'd bypass the snarl ups in Finnieston. Feasible?

Speed isn't everything. In any case, the tunnel is partly infilled and it wouldn't be possible to build stations, which negates the purpose of having the tram in the first place. The tunnel between Kelvinbridge and Botanics is short enough that no intermediate stations would be required, and also vital to get the tram competing with bus for west end travel. From Finneston to Maryhill the line would be really quite quick without losing out on connectivity.

The Strathclyde Tram concept would be closer to the Sheffield system than the Edinburgh or Manchester networks, as it would be focussed on the city part of Glasgow rather than the wider built-up area. For that, Glasgow's already got the largest suburban rail network outside of London.

 

[clc]

It could, but then it would be slower through the city centre and make it less attractive as a city transport system. We want people to go from the west to the east end and vice-versa, not just to the city centre. For city transport needs it's not as vital that it interchanges with both Central and Queen Street anyway, as it would be used more by people going about their everyday lives within the city.
.

A route connecting Central and Queen St wouldn't necessarily add significantly to cross city journey times. You could locate the Central Station tram stop on Argyle St beneath the Hielanman's Umbrella and have an eastern route along Argyle St then up Queen St to the Station, then along George St to Duke St and beyond. It's not that much of a detour.

The Fastlink BRT project only got final Scottish Govt approval when SPT agreed to amend the route so that it served both stations as the SG didn't think the business case for the original route which served Central only was strong enough.

If a £40m BRT scheme needs to serve both stations to have an acceptable business case I imagine a tram scheme costing hundreds of millions would have to do likewise.

 

[tranzitjim]

What about operating a branch on the Glasgow subway along that line?

 

[NotATrainspott]

What about operating a branch on the Glasgow subway along that line?

It wouldn't be a branch as much as a totally separate line. The disused railway alignment runs out at Exhibition Centre and any new line would need to run into the city centre somehow to be worth constructing. Because of the road network, the streets of Glasgow don't have to handle very much long-distance traffic so a tram would be as effective as a subway.

 

[clc]

Was thinking again about how you would route a surface tram line through Finnieston. You'd want to avoid Argyle St as the traffic is horrendous. I would suggest: heading east, from Kelvin Way turn left into Sauchiehall St; then right into Claremont St; demolish and relocate the Gaelic School (ugly concrete building) which severs Claremont St; turn right into Argyle St; then immediately left into Finnieston St and on to the Broomielaw to join up with the QEUH line. Put the stops at the bottom of Kelvin Way (for west Finnieston, Yorkhill and Kelvingrove Museum) and the bottom of Claremont St (for east Finnieston and Anderston). I think this would give you a good balance of speed and coverage.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There once was a terminal railway station in Dawsholm (Caledonian Railway?)that closed around 1908, that was part of the same area of the line of the Glasgow Central Railway being discussed, which still had a locomotive shed until the 1960s.

Would that area as it is now benefit from a reopened station?

 

[Railsigns]

There once was a terminal railway station in Dawsholm (Caledonian Railway?)that closed around 1908, that was part of the same area of the line of the Glasgow Central Railway being discussed, which still had a locomotive shed until the 1960s.

Would that area as it is now benefit from a reopened station?

It already has one: Kelvindale.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It already has one: Kelvindale.

My apologies. Of course Kelvindale was one of the more recent station openings on 26th September 2005.