Revived Glasgow Airport Rail link Plans

[ScotTrains]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34931594

Taken from the BBC website today:

Plans for a rail link between Glasgow Airport and the city centre have been revived with two options in the frame.

One scheme, costing £144.3m, would see tram-train carriages run from Glasgow Central to the airport via Paisley.

The other £102m option would see a new light rail system installed between Paisley Gilmour Street and the airport.

A previous £120m plan was scrapped in 2009. Any new scheme will be paid for through the £1.13bn city deal fund from the UK and Scottish governments.

Glasgow City Council leader Frank McAveety said a rail link was essential to the economic prosperity of the area.
'Economic powerhouse'

"Glasgow and the Clyde Valley is the economic powerhouse of Scotland and Glasgow Airport plays a crucial role in the continued growth of the region," he said.

"We've long argued that a new rail link between the airport and the city centre is essential for the thousands of tourists and business travellers who fly into and out of Glasgow every day.

"The airport already supports thousands of jobs but this new rail link, which is the single biggest element of our city deal, will be the catalyst that takes us to a new level, vastly improving the customer experience and generating even more jobs and inward investment."

Previous plans for a £120m Glasgow Airport rail link were scrapped in 2009 by the Scottish government, which said the scheme was unaffordable in the face of budget cuts imposed by the UK government.
The original rail link plan was scrapped in 2009

The proposal was revived, however, when the UK and Scottish governments funded a £1.13bn city deal for Glasgow and the Clyde Valley.

Under the deal, Westminster and Holyrood give £500m each in additional funding to the area for infrastructure investment.

The eight councils - East Renfrewshire, Glasgow, Inverclyde, Renfrewshire, East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire, North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire - then supplement this by borrowing £130m.

The new options for the rail link are being led by Glasgow and Renfrewshire Councils which have developed a business case for each.

These will be put before councillors in both authorities before going to the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Cabinet for approval in December.

If approved, further work would be done to develop more detail on both options before a final, preferred choice is made next year.

The tram-train option would offer a 16.5-minute direct journey between the city centre and the front door of the airport.

Construction on this could start in 2021 with the service being operational by 2025.

 

[arabianights]

What possible reason is there to use tram trains over the previous GARL plan? Just to avoid building a viaduct over nothing?

 

[asylumxl]

Let's replace a £120 million scheme with an inferior £140 million scheme. Makes sense.

 

[Agent_c]

What would be the point of a tram connecting Paisley Gilmor street to the Airport without going into Central? Seems barmy having to change there... everyone would still use the Airport Bus from Central rather than change...

As much as I like Trams, and as much as I hate how airports tend not to be connected... Given the fast frequent 24 hr bus, not sure what we'd gain by a tram via paisley either...

 

[adrock1976]

I don't think that this is actually new news, as the tram trains proposal was mentioned earlier on this year.

For any rail link to the airport to be successful, it needs to be a part of the plans and connected to Glasgow Crossrail, so as to benefit and be of use to those residing north of the mighty Clyde.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The councils can come up with whatever scheme they like but unless Network Rail, under the direction of the Scottish Government, approve it there's no chance the link will ever be built. Nowhere is there any mention of the lack of capacity on the Paisley corridor and that other busy longer-distance services would need to be removed in order to allow any extra tram-trains to run.

 

[Traveller54]

The Scottish government appear to be averse to direct rail links to airports having cancelled the previous plans for stations at Glasgow and Edinburgh airports, with a lot of money already spent on preparatory works. The only Scottish airport with its own train station, Prestwick, now has only one or two flights per day!

I seem to remember in the 90s there were plans for a light rail link from Paisley via the Phoenix which never came to pass.

I also cannot see the point of a service which would involve a change at Paisley, but considering the watered down train service provided for Edinburgh airport I can see them going for the cheaper option if indeed it ever happens.

 

[route:oxford]

I wonder how much the land will be worth this time?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...r_doomed_rail_link_sold_at_loss_of___800_000/

 

[Rick1984]

This was my previous thoughts on matter:

I think cancelling the Glasgow Airport Link makes sense. Also better solution would be a people mover (same as Stansted or Gatwick) from ethier St. James station or a new station further north. It could use elvevated track and follow the M8.

Unfortunately the Ayr line from St. James has been partially built over as this would allow Ayr trains to use the new interchange station. Maybe a short tunnel could be built.

The advantage would be all through trains would be able to serve the Airport and a people mover system would be step-free linking direct to terminal so no inconvenience for passengers.

Nothing to say this scheme would cost less than the original though.

Perhaps a people mover could be extended to Gilmour?

 

[sng7]

The Scottish government appear to be averse to direct rail links to airports having cancelled the previous plans for stations at Glasgow and Edinburgh airports, with a lot of money already spent on preparatory works. The only Scottish airport with its own train station, Prestwick, now has only one or two flights per day!

I seem to remember in the 90s there were plans for a light rail link from Paisley via the Phoenix which never came to pass.

I also cannot see the point of a service which would involve a change at Paisley, but considering the watered down train service provided for Edinburgh airport I can see them going for the cheaper option if indeed it ever happens.

I never understood why they scrapped Glasgow as it appeared to be well thought out edinburgh the the other hand was a complicated beast with tunnels under the airport and an underground station so I can understand wht that was cancelled with the tram linking (or going to link) with the railway at Edinburgh Park and Edinburgh Gateway

 

[clc]

What possible reason is there to use tram trains over the previous GARL plan? Just to avoid building a viaduct over nothing?

It's half the price.

 

[Traveller54]

I never understood why they scrapped Glasgow as it appeared to be well thought out

Pardon my cynicism but I think it's all political, the SNP under Salmond at that time seemed unashamedly biased to the advantage of the east, under Ms Sturgeon who is from the west perhaps the axis is shifting?

 

[PaxVobiscum]

There's an interesting historic thread on GARL on the Urban Glasgow forum:
http://urbanglasgow.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=490&start=0

Increases in the cost of moving the fuel depot was the proverbial straw reported at the time - see this quote from the third page of the thread (the original links to the Evening Times no longer work):

Initially, the Scottish Parliament was told by SPT it would cost £7.8million to move the fuel tanks which increased to £16m by the time the project was taken over by Transport Scotland.

The Scottish Government says that in less than three years the cost of the moves rose from £7.8m in January 2007 to £70m now. (Sept 2009)

 

[Blindtraveler]

Hmm, and where do the Ayrshire and Inverclyde Coast trains go to make room for these new services? Non starter IMO
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think that this is actually new news, as the tram trains proposal was mentioned earlier on this year.

For any rail link to the airport to be successful, it needs to be a part of the plans and connected to Glasgow Crossrail, so as to benefit and be of use to those residing north of the mighty Clyde.

Yorn. Whilst I appreciate foalk from the North want rail improvements the business case for this is just not there. Too much cost for 2 little gain. A bit like the scrapping of Edinburghs Trams Crossrail woant happen.

 

[arabianights]

Now how about bringing back the ability to drive right onto the platform at Glasgow Central.

That was very useful for pickups.

 

[Agent_c]

Now how about bringing back the ability to drive right onto the platform at Glasgow Central.

That was very useful for pickups.

I don't think there's anywhere to drive to now. Just use the umbrella.

 

[edwin_m]

Now how about bringing back the ability to drive right onto the platform at Glasgow Central.

That was very useful for pickups.

It would be even more useful for terrorists. With more passengers wandering around and no mail and parcels transfers I don't think any major station now routinely allows road vehicles into the concourse or platform areas.

I don't know about Central but the cab rank within Waverley station was horrible.

 

[arabianights]

It would be even more useful for terrorists. With more passengers wandering around and no mail and parcels transfers I don't think any major station now routinely allows road vehicles into the concourse or platform areas.

I don't know about Central but the cab rank within Waverley station was horrible.

They had it right until the improvements to Central for GARL so it obviously wasn't considered that big a security threat, after all there was a maximum stay of 20 minutes if I recall which is not enough time to commit a substantial terrorist atrocity when you taking parking time into account, Glasweigan terrorists being notoriously bad at parking.

What it looked like up until a couple of years ago:

 

[edwin_m]

^^

 

[Carntyne]

Now how about bringing back the ability to drive right onto the platform at Glasgow Central.

That was very useful for pickups.

Slightly hindered by 2 platforms where the exit was

 

[mcmad]

There may soon be paths available as far as Shields when the coal traffic from Hunterston stops.

 

[Chris M]

I don't think any major station now routinely allows road vehicles into the concourse or platform areas.

Newcastle (sort of) does iirc.

 

[clc]

The Strategic Business Case has been published.

The tram-train option costs £144m which includes £15m for land and £43m for "equipment" which I assume is the rolling stock. The BCR is 2.79 – 3.71.

The heavy rail option costs £317m (excluding land) and has a BCR of 1.12 – 1.54. It's been ruled out as too expensive:

http://renfrewshire.cmis.uk.com/ren...WGewmoAfeNQ16B2MHuCpMRKZMwaG1PaO=ctNJFf55vVA=

 

[NotATrainspott]

The Strategic Business Case has been published.

The tram-train option costs £144m which includes £15m for land and £43m for "equipment" which I assume is the rolling stock. The BCR is 2.79 – 3.71.

The heavy rail option costs £317m (excluding land) and has a BCR of 1.12 – 1.54. It's been ruled out as too expensive:

http://renfrewshire.cmis.uk.com/ren...WGewmoAfeNQ16B2MHuCpMRKZMwaG1PaO=ctNJFf55vVA=

Looking through this document it seems that they still haven't actually properly found out if the capacity actually exists to run tram-trains on this line. Why even bother going with a business case if it's still not actually known if it's actually technical feasible to deliver a tram-train at all?

 

[clc]

Looking through this document it seems that they still haven't actually properly found out if the capacity actually exists to run tram-trains on this line. Why even bother going with a business case if it's still not actually known if it's actually technical feasible to deliver a tram-train at all?

I assume they're banking on more capacity being created by 2025.

 

[Altnabreac]

I assume they're banking on more capacity being created by 2025.

Indeed. Which is why it isn't going to happen without cooperation with Transport Scotland and Network Rail.

So far it has purely been a political football rather than a sensible transport proposal. Hopefully now it can be assessed properly.

My bet is still that it won't happen in the next 10 years. The terminal capacity at Glasgow is just more valuable for other services.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

They had it right until the improvements to Central for GARL so it obviously wasn't considered that big a security threat, after all there was a maximum stay of 20 minutes if I recall which is not enough time to commit a substantial terrorist atrocity when you taking parking time into account, Glasweigan terrorists being notoriously bad at parking.

Good point about the 20 minutes max stay. After all, what self-respecting terrorist wants the embarrassment of getting a parking fine after you've just blown up dozens of people? I can see how that would really deter a lot of attacks

 

[clc]

Indeed. Which is why it isn't going to happen without cooperation with Transport Scotland and Network Rail.

So far it has purely been a political football rather than a sensible transport proposal. Hopefully now it can be assessed properly.

My bet is still that it won't happen in the next 10 years. The terminal capacity at Glasgow is just more valuable for other services.

They could always fall back on the PRT to Paisley Gilmour Street option to avoid using capacity. It has a BCR of 1.62 – 1.97 but a much smaller modal shift.

The problem with PRT is you have to change twice - once at PGS and again at Central. Only if PGS offered direct services to the north and east of the country via Crossrail (preferably cross city tunnel) would it make sense I think.

 

[Altnabreac]

They could always fall back on the PRT to Paisley Gilmour Street option to avoid using capacity. It has a BCR of 1.62 – 1.97 but a much smaller modal shift.

The problem with PRT is you have to change twice - once at PGS and again at Central. Only if PGS offered direct services to the north and east of the country via Crossrail (preferably cross city tunnel) would it make sense I think.

PRT may be slightly more likely to happen but as you say it does have its own issues.

The fundamental problem with the report is that it doesn't include the costs of providing extra capacity on the Paisley Corridor or at Central within the BCR for the rail based options. It just notes that this will need to be provided by Network Rail and that options are being developed for CP6.

But it ignores that this extra capacity is being developed for schemes like 4tph to East Kilbride and High Speed Rail for Edinburgh.

So either the tram train paths need to be assesed against these projects to see which has more benefit or there needs to be even more extra capacity created at Central.

If it is additional capacity then the cost of creating that needs to be included in the BCR for the airport rail link which will inevitably reduce it.

As it is the report is barely credible as it just assumes the extra capacity at Central appears magically free of charge and is not required by any other services.

 

[clc]

PRT may be slightly more likely to happen but as you say it does have its own issues.

The fundamental problem with the report is that it doesn't include the costs of providing extra capacity on the Paisley Corridor or at Central within the BCR for the rail based options. It just notes that this will need to be provided by Network Rail and that options are being developed for CP6.

But it ignores that this extra capacity is being developed for schemes like 4tph to East Kilbride and High Speed Rail for Edinburgh.

So either the tram train paths need to be assesed against these projects to see which has more benefit or there needs to be even more extra capacity created at Central.

If it is additional capacity then the cost of creating that needs to be included in the BCR for the airport rail link which will inevitably reduce it.

As it is the report is barely credible as it just assumes the extra capacity at Central appears magically free of charge and is not required by any other services.

I believe when the Paisley Corridor Improvements were built they made provision for a 4th track to be added so maybe it'll be affordable. Then when tram trains are cancelled at the last minute they'll have spare capacity to run a new service to Renfrew.