Should the Cathcart Circle and associated lines be converted to trams/light rail?

[adrock1976]

The ideal type of stock for the Newton/Cathcart/Neilston routes would be trams due to the close spacing of stations and the stop-start nature of the route.

Glasgow once had the largest number of tram cars outside of London (over 1000 according to an article in the local rag last year) reflecting its role as the Second City of the British Empire (built by means of invading, taking over, displacing people, and sometimes drawing straight lines on the map). Ideally, when Glasgow hosted the Commonwealth Games back in 2014, it should have brought back trams in time for that event, and have got help from the people in Manchester, as they are the experts in how to plan, design, and build a tram system.

Manchester, Sheffield, West Midlands metropolitan area, Croydon, and Nottingham have all brought back trams, with Cardiff soon to join the list. Perhaps now is the time for Glasgow to bring back trams, bearing in mind that it has the third oldest underground metro railway (behind London and Budapest) and has never been expanded from its original circular route?

 

[Clansman]

The ideal type of stock for the Newton/Cathcart/Neilston routes would be trams due to the close spacing of stations and the stop-start nature of the route.

I've never really understood this point, given the Cathcart Circle follows a similar pattern of commuter behaviour where during the peaks services are rammed, whereas off-peak they're dead.

Looking at the Edinburgh Trams for example, a full set can't even seat or stand as much people as a 3-car 318, let alone a 6-car. How would this issue be solved by converting them to trams?

And is there even a commuter demand for converting the Cathcart Circle to trams given a conversion would increase journey times, decrease capacity - all for the sake of a potential increase in frequency for a route that isn't over capacity (unless you count Central station itself) and allows full rotation of rolling stock to other areas of the network, as well as being stretigcally important for the heavy rail network in general?

 

[Altnabreac]

The ideal type of stock for the Newton/Cathcart/Neilston routes would be trams due to the close spacing of stations and the stop-start nature of the route.

Glasgow once had the largest number of tram cars outside of London (over 1000 according to an article in the local rag last year) reflecting its role as the Second City of the British Empire (built by means of invading, taking over, displacing people, and sometimes drawing straight lines on the map). Ideally, when Glasgow hosted the Commonwealth Games back in 2014, it should have brought back trams in time for that event, and have got help from the people in Manchester, as they are the experts in how to plan, design, and build a tram system.

Manchester, Sheffield, West Midlands metropolitan area, Croydon, and Nottingham have all brought back trams, with Cardiff soon to join the list. Perhaps now is the time for Glasgow to bring back trams, bearing in mind that it has the third oldest underground metro railway (behind London and Budapest) and has never been expanded from its original circular route?

People are always posting this but there is limited evidence for it.

The journey times and loadings on Neilston and Newton are well beyond ideal tram capacity in the peaks. Yes you could increase frequency with trams but would the overall peak capacity increase? I'm not convinced.

 

[Peter0124]

You'd also lose a WCML diversionary route by converting the line to Trams. And I wouldn't say Patterton to Neilston is a close distance either.

If anything, the line beyond Neilston could be extended and join onto the Barrhead lines somehow.

 

[JumpinTrainz]

Going a bit off topic but I don’t think trams are the solution. The tracks are fitted, the wires are up - why waste that?

I think the lines just need more suitable stock. The 380s and 385s don’t seem very well suited internally and the issue over overheating. The 318s and 320s are the only remaining suitable stock for the short distance between stops and they’ll be gone soon. It makes sense while they’re replacing all the other suburban EMUs that these routes are looked at. Most diagrams are 318s and 320s on these routes anyway.

 

[Falcon1200]

I've never really understood this point, given the Cathcart Circle follows a similar pattern of commuter behaviour where during the peaks services are rammed, whereas off-peak they're dead.

As a regular traveller on the route I would not agree that off-peak the trains are dead, far from it!

For me the benefits of conversion to light rail would be an increase in frequency - Possible, likely perhaps, but not guaranteed; And through running onto the streets of Glasgow - Also possible but hugely expensive. Apart from which Central is well located for the city centre anyway. So it's a No from me.

 

[tbtc]

Some schemes work when you tie similar markets together. The original Metrolink in Manchester linked Bury and Altricham, similar distance commuter territory needing similar frequencies, the existence of one end of the route helped justify the existence of the other, and vice versa

Thameslink works because there’s places each side of the river with similar short/ medium demands that fit together

Crossrail should work fine because it offers something to people each side of the city (direct trains to Heathrow, direct trains to Stratford/ Docklands)

Converting the Cathcart line reminds me of the plans for Crossrail 2 though

Crossrail 2 has some sound reasoning for a south western section, relieving capacity on the main SWML, freeing up platform capacity at Waterloo, providing new connections e.g. with the Northern Line

Crossrail 2 has some sound reasoning for a central section, linking stations like Clapham Junction to St Pancras, additional capacity at Euston to handle increased numbers arriving there in HS2 etc

Crossrail 2 doesn’t really have the same justification on its proposed north eastern , there’s not the same missing links or gaps that need urgently filling IMHO

So I’m unconvinced by Crossrail 2 because it only ticks two boxes out of three.

Cathcart, well…

I can see the logic in wanting to double the frequency at suburban stations (which light rail would allow, as you’re no longer limited by capacity at Central), making it more competitive against the bus (trains are fast but a half hour wait can be off putting)

I can see the logic in wanting to free up half a dozen departures an hour at Central (high level), maybe that won’t mean as many as six additional departures on other lines because sometimes the capacity is constrained by bottlenecks on the approach to the station rather than platform occupancy, but it might help some lines get an extra path into Glasgow each hour

I can see the logic in a Central - Queen Street tram, it’s not a long walk for me but it must be a barrier to some people, so I can appreciate it’s always going to be on wish lists and that a tram every five minutes will be a lot cheaper than tunnels

But then what? There’s no real market I can see for a tram continuing north of Queen Street. Anniesland doesn’t seem important enough to warrant conversion, plus that line is used by WHL trains (which would mean Tram Trains which would mean £££).

So I’m in a similar “two out of three” position here. Given economies of scale etc, I don’t think that I’d set up a tram network for just the Cathcart lines, I think you’d need something at least twice the size to justify the depot/ disruption etc. hence the idea for a cross city link like in Manchester/ London. But I can’t see an “equal and opposite” destination to link things to north of the Clyde, unless you decide to embrace Street running and tackle some busy bus corridors?

 

[Ex-controller]

This comes up all the time on this forum. The answer is no for the following reasons:

1) Any alternative route from Pollokshields East to Glasgow City Centre will be longer and more circuitous than the route it is replacing through Muirhouse, Eglinton Street and Bridge Street Junctions. This will increase journey times and make public transport less attractive.

2) A key strategic diversionary route for the WCML avoiding Rutherglen and Cambuslang will be lost, impacting on reliability on cross border services to London, Manchester etc when engineering works or infrastructure failures occur

3) As pointed out above, to cope with the peak time (and even some off peak) passenger loadings on the line, you’d need some very big or very very frequent trams.

To be quite blunt, a more realistic idea would be to quadruple the line from Muirhouse to Eglinton Street Junction. It would involve *a lot* of reconstruction work over about a half mile section of line and be very expensive, but it would achieve many of the things that proponents of conversion are wishing for. Capacity would be increased whilst the most direct and quickest route into the city was retained, and it would continue to be a heavy rail route. Unrealistic? Quite probably, but it’s still be a better use of resources than creating a light rail route where it’s neither useful nor required.

 

[waverley47]

This comes up all the time on this forum. The answer is no for the following reasons:

1) Any alternative route from Pollokshields East to Glasgow City Centre will be longer and more circuitous than the route it is replacing through Muirhouse, Eglinton Street and Bridge Street Junctions. This will increase journey times and make public transport less attractive.

2) A key strategic diversionary route for the WCML avoiding Rutherglen and Cambuslang will be lost, impacting on reliability on cross border services to London, Manchester etc when engineering works or infrastructure failures occur

3) As pointed out above, to cope with the peak time (and even some off peak) passenger loadings on the line, you’d need some very big or very very frequent trams.

To be quite blunt, a more realistic idea would be to quadruple the line from Muirhouse to Eglinton Street Junction. It would involve *a lot* of reconstruction work over about a half mile section of line and be very expensive, but it would achieve many of the things that proponents of conversion are wishing for. Capacity would be increased whilst the most direct and quickest route into the city was retained, and it would continue to be a heavy rail route. Unrealistic? Quite probably, but it’s still be a better use of resources than creating a light rail route where it’s neither useful nor required.

The problem is capacity at Central, not along the two line section.

 

[HSTEd]

I'd argue, given the existance of a dedicated alignment, wouldn't it be better to convert it to a fully automated metro?

You'd probably have to separate off a platform at Glasgow Central, but automation would allow it to be operated extremely intensively compared to today.

 

[ld0595]

I wouldn't mind just getting a non-peak Cathcart Circle service back in the first place...!

 

[Peter0124]

I wouldn't mind just getting a non-peak Cathcart Circle service back in the first place...!

Absolutely! Don't understand why they are effectively running ghost trains empty stock round the circle rather than run them in pax service.

 

[clc]

I’d prefer the Glasgow Metro proposal to convert the Cathcart lines to a high frequency metro and route them onto the City Union Line then into the Argyle Line tunnel (via a burrowing junction) then onto a reopened Botanics line. That would give you the capacity needed along with a big increase in frequency and direct services from the southside to the West End and beyond.

 

[Falcon1200]

1) Any alternative route from Pollokshields East to Glasgow City Centre will be longer and more circuitous than the route it is replacing through Muirhouse, Eglinton Street and Bridge Street Junctions. This will increase journey times and make public transport less attractive.

Agree, Central is well located for Glasgow City Centre already. Which is why I don't believe that clc's proposal below is a good idea (and probably unachievable due to cost anyway);

I’d prefer the Glasgow Metro proposal to convert the Cathcart lines to a high frequency metro and route them onto the City Union Line then into the Argyle Line tunnel (via a burrowing junction) then onto a reopened Botanics line.

 

[clc]

Agree, Central is well located for Glasgow City Centre already. Which is why I don't believe that clc's proposal below is a good idea (and probably unachievable due to cost anyway);

The proposal actually came from the STPR2 process. While it’s true a metro line to Central low level would be less direct than the current route to the high level platforms you have to consider the superior acceleration/deceleration of lighter metro trains and also that the approach to Central High Level can be quite slow going as with any busy terminus. I’m not saying there wouldn’t be a time penalty but I’m not sure it would be that significant, perhaps 2-3 minutes? and for passengers with destinations near Argyle Street or Anderston stations or the SEC or the West End journey times would actually be quicker. I agree the cost would be significant but the objective of Glasgow Metro (I think it’s now being called Clyde Metro) is to create a high frequency, high capacity metro network serving key nodes such as hospitals, colleges, universities, shopping areas etc, not just the CBD. The idea is to make more intensive use of the existing heavy rail network and the Cathcart lines would be one key part of a wider network.

 

[drb61]

Whilst the Neilston branch is reasonably well served by the half-hourly service, services on the Newton branch and western half of the circle are not fit for purpose for a number of reasons: -

• Lack of proper connectivity with other services to Lanarkshire at Newton (which I covered in another recent thread - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/could-connectivity-at-newton-be-improved.238944)
• Generally, station usage on the Newton branch is low - possibly due to proximity to other stations with more frequent / faster services (i.e. Mount Florida or Cathcart for Kings Park, Rutherglen for Croftfoot and Burnside and Cambuslang for Kirkhill. Half of the services from Kirkhill to Glasgow take almost half an hour via the circuitous Maxwell Park route. Although Kirkhill is my nearest station, I often use Cambuslang instead even though it's a slightly longer walk, just because it has a much better service and range of destinations.
• An hourly service on a suburban route (Langside - Central) is almost useless for all but the most stalwart rail users

Given capacity constraints at Glasgow Central, I generally accept that light rail is probably the best long-term solution, offering the potential for more frequent services (even if not any faster). However, I think a medium-term solution to improving services on these routes would be to: -

• Reinstate full off-peak Cathcart Circle services - increased to half-hourly in each direction and carefully timed to optimise frequency at Langside and Pollokshaws East - effectively giving these stations 4tph to / from Central (albeit slightly longer journey times via Queens Park)
• Route all off-peak Newton services via the more direct Mount Florida route
• Possibly run either the Newton or Neilston services fast to Mount Florida whilst still maintaining a 15 minutely service at other stations on the east side of the circle.

 

[haggishunter]

• An hourly service on a suburban route (Langside - Central) is almost useless for all but the most stalwart rail users

• Reinstate full off-peak Cathcart Circle services - increased to half-hourly in each direction and carefully timed to optimise frequency at Langside and Pollokshaws East - effectively giving these stations 4tph to / from Central (albeit slightly longer journey times via Queens Park)

Need a like button! But this and this again, the curtailment of Cathcart Circle services vs pre covid is painful. It's not achieving a higher loading, it's trashing rail patronage because it should be blindingly obvious on what is effectively a suburban metro line FREQUENCY matters. The proof is in the worsening parking chaos on streets near Langside and Pollockshaws East. Know people who ditched the car in this area pre pandemic and now are back in the car ownership game.

 

[roadierway77]

1) Any alternative route from Pollokshields East to Glasgow City Centre will be longer and more circuitous than the route it is replacing through Muirhouse, Eglinton Street and Bridge Street Junctions. This will increase journey times and make public transport less attractive.

It's true that journey times would be slower, but then journey times on the Oldham Loop are also a lot slower than they used to be when it was heavy rail, and as far as I'm aware that line is still very popular. Plus, running on the streets could provide easier access to city centre locations such as Buchanan Street and Queen Street, and open up the Cathcart Circle to new areas and travel possibilities (e.g. a stop at Bridge Street would enable access to Cessnock, Ibrox and Govan via the subway).

2) A key strategic diversionary route for the WCML avoiding Rutherglen and Cambuslang will be lost, impacting on reliability on cross border services to London, Manchester etc when engineering works or infrastructure failures occur

I'm unsure if this would be the perfect solution, but why not convert the Cathcart Circle to tram-train? That way the route via Croftfoot and Mount Florida could still be used by heavy rail trains, as long as connections to the main heavy rail lines are retained at Newton and Pollokshields East.

If that wouldn't be possible, how feasible would it be to use Queen Street as a diversionary terminus instead, and divert WCML services via Whifflet and Springburn? Would 390s fit onto Queen Street's platforms? It's hard to tell from Google Maps satellite but a 390/0 might just fit onto Queen Street platform 7. The 807s, when in service, certainly would fit as they'll be about the same length as an 8-car 385.

3) As pointed out above, to cope with the peak time (and even some off peak) passenger loadings on the line, you’d need some very big or very very frequent trams.

Without having to worry about capacity at Central, trams could easily be very frequent, say every 3-5 minutes at peak times. Given the fact the trains were nowhere near this frequent pre-Covid and are even less frequent now, I don't see why trams couldn't cope with the passenger traffic.

 

[Arkeeos]

I think what Glasgow needs to do is separate out its suburban network from the rest and run it as a metro, through all the various tunnels under the city, similar to how the District Line and Metropolitan Lines were in London.

It would obviously require some investment to do to sort out all the connections and fly overs between lines, but its not unreasonable.

 

[ld0595]

Know people who ditched the car in this area pre pandemic and now are back in the car ownership game.

I'm one of them. I'll just drive nowadays if I'm going somewhere out of Glasgow. Cathcart is just down to 1tph in the evenings and I'm not going to pay more money for a journey that is slower, uncomfortable and less convenient where I potentially have to hang round Central for an hour.

I would prefer to take the train but sadly car wins out every time.

 

[clc]

I think what Glasgow needs to do is separate out its suburban network from the rest and run it as a metro, through all the various tunnels under the city, similar to how the District Line and Metropolitan Lines were in London.

It would obviously require some investment to do to sort out all the connections and fly overs between lines, but its not unreasonable.

That’s broadly what Clyde Metro would do:-

 

[Peter0124]

I find it bizarre that there are better Newton branch services on Sundays than other days. 2039, 2139 and 2239 Newton to Glasgow via Mount Florida services exist on Sundays, when the last one via MFL Mon-Sat is 1953!!

Also I don't understand why they haven't reinstated off-peak circle services yet, they have some running empty stock! Hourly service on the Maxwell Park branch is terrible in a post covid world!

 

[Falcon1200]

If that wouldn't be possible, how feasible would it be to use Queen Street as a diversionary terminus instead, and divert WCML services via Whifflet and Springburn? Would 390s fit onto Queen Street's platforms

Apart from the capacity and clearance issues, any suggestion of diverting trains off their normal route immediately raises the problem of maintaining route knowledge, only achievable by scheduling a sufficient number of booked services onto the diversion. And sorry, but any idea of running WCML trains to Queen St, for any reason, is therefore an absolute non-starter.

I agree that the Cathcart Circle service should be restored to its pre-Covid level, as should evening trains, but the timetable which operated then was in my experience perfectly adequate for the traffic offering and I do not therefore believe that massive, hugely expensive changes are necessary. If Glasgow ever does get trams, they would be better running to places poorly served by public transport at present rather than replacing existing routes.

 

[numtot12345]

You have to look at the proposed development planning in Cathcart. The Western inside corner of Newlands Road/Tankerland Road should be getting a block of flats, and the west side of Celeros Factory is planned to be turned into 300 flats, with approx 100 parking spaces (i was at consultation wvent last week)

Whilst they are a couple of years away, we need greater frequency for Cathcart and that SW side of Cathcart Circle if we are to provide people an attractive alternative to the car. I dont doubt the Celeros site will have a lot of car owners at it. And whilst the First 6 and 4 services are ok from Cathcart, they are not as quick or comfy as the train

 

[clc]

Whilst the Neilston branch is reasonably well served by the half-hourly service, services on the Newton branch and western half of the circle are not fit for purpose for a number of reasons: -

• Lack of proper connectivity with other services to Lanarkshire at Newton (which I covered in another recent thread - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/could-connectivity-at-newton-be-improved.238944)
• Generally, station usage on the Newton branch is low - possibly due to proximity to other stations with more frequent / faster services (i.e. Mount Florida or Cathcart for Kings Park, Rutherglen for Croftfoot and Burnside and Cambuslang for Kirkhill. Half of the services from Kirkhill to Glasgow take almost half an hour via the circuitous Maxwell Park route. Although Kirkhill is my nearest station, I often use Cambuslang instead even though it's a slightly longer walk, just because it has a much better service and range of destinations.
• An hourly service on a suburban route (Langside - Central) is almost useless for all but the most stalwart rail users

Given capacity constraints at Glasgow Central, I generally accept that light rail is probably the best long-term solution, offering the potential for more frequent services (even if not any faster). However, I think a medium-term solution to improving services on these routes would be to: -

• Reinstate full off-peak Cathcart Circle services - increased to half-hourly in each direction and carefully timed to optimise frequency at Langside and Pollokshaws East - effectively giving these stations 4tph to / from Central (albeit slightly longer journey times via Queens Park)
• Route all off-peak Newton services via the more direct Mount Florida route
• Possibly run either the Newton or Neilston services fast to Mount Florida whilst still maintaining a 15 minutely service at other stations on the east side of the circle.

Re your last point, is there not demand for 6tph on the east side of the circle? Furious agreement with everything else you said.

 

[numtot12345]

Thinking ahead to the plans for Barrhead South Station as well, which would surely decrease the number of spaces left by the time train gets up to the Cathcart circle, hence the need for more catchart circle trains to pick up people on Cathcart circle (and also justify express services for Neilston when reaches the circle too)

08.15 cathcart to Central always seems to be a 3 car which could benefit from being 6 (or 4 car 380). There seems to be a concentration of trains between 0740-0800, then the 0815, then 3 services between about 0835 and 0842. Be useful to have more Cathcart circle trains to infill. Also lots of school kids catch cathcsrt to Crosshill too in addition to commuters.

Noting that I like getting the 3 car 0838(?) Cathcart Circle via maxwell Park as it's much quieter if I'm travelling at that time to work.

 

[clc]

Some schemes work when you tie similar markets together. The original Metrolink in Manchester linked Bury and Altricham, similar distance commuter territory needing similar frequencies, the existence of one end of the route helped justify the existence of the other, and vice versa

Thameslink works because there’s places each side of the river with similar short/ medium demands that fit together

Crossrail should work fine because it offers something to people each side of the city (direct trains to Heathrow, direct trains to Stratford/ Docklands)

Converting the Cathcart line reminds me of the plans for Crossrail 2 though

Crossrail 2 has some sound reasoning for a south western section, relieving capacity on the main SWML, freeing up platform capacity at Waterloo, providing new connections e.g. with the Northern Line

Crossrail 2 has some sound reasoning for a central section, linking stations like Clapham Junction to St Pancras, additional capacity at Euston to handle increased numbers arriving there in HS2 etc

Crossrail 2 doesn’t really have the same justification on its proposed north eastern , there’s not the same missing links or gaps that need urgently filling IMHO

So I’m unconvinced by Crossrail 2 because it only ticks two boxes out of three.

Cathcart, well…

I can see the logic in wanting to double the frequency at suburban stations (which light rail would allow, as you’re no longer limited by capacity at Central), making it more competitive against the bus (trains are fast but a half hour wait can be off putting)

I can see the logic in wanting to free up half a dozen departures an hour at Central (high level), maybe that won’t mean as many as six additional departures on other lines because sometimes the capacity is constrained by bottlenecks on the approach to the station rather than platform occupancy, but it might help some lines get an extra path into Glasgow each hour

I can see the logic in a Central - Queen Street tram, it’s not a long walk for me but it must be a barrier to some people, so I can appreciate it’s always going to be on wish lists and that a tram every five minutes will be a lot cheaper than tunnels

But then what? There’s no real market I can see for a tram continuing north of Queen Street. Anniesland doesn’t seem important enough to warrant conversion, plus that line is used by WHL trains (which would mean Tram Trains which would mean £££).

So I’m in a similar “two out of three” position here. Given economies of scale etc, I don’t think that I’d set up a tram network for just the Cathcart lines, I think you’d need something at least twice the size to justify the depot/ disruption etc. hence the idea for a cross city link like in Manchester/ London. But I can’t see an “equal and opposite” destination to link things to north of the Clyde, unless you decide to embrace Street running and tackle some busy bus corridors?

Re the “equal and opposite” destination north of the Clyde, the Clyde Metro proposal would join the Cathcart lines to the Milngavie and Singer branches via the Argyle and Botanics lines (and some new track between Botanic Gardens and Hyndland). There would also be a new metro line from Exhibition Centre to the airport. The line from Botanic Gardens to Maryhill would also be re-opened. Anniesland branch would become part of a north circular metro line. There would be plenty of high demand branches on the west/north west of the city for Cathcart services to operate to.

 

[Falcon1200]

Something that does nothing for capacity on the Cathcart Circle is that with Covid, the 0841 Neilston-Central was withdrawn and has never been restored, meaning that at the end of the morning peak there is a 41 minute gap between the 0824 and the 0905! Plus, the 0905 is normally a 3-car and is full and standing well before reaching Central.

 

[drb61]

Re your last point, is there not demand for 6tph on the east side of the circle? Furious agreement with everything else you said.

6tph for all stations on the east side of the circle could possibly work if spaced at 10-minute intervals. I've had a quick go at some 'amateur timetable planning' for a possible Cathcart Circle recast and come up with the following (just key stations listed, but all stations served): -

GLC	00:00​	00:02​	00:12​	00:22​	00:30​	00:32​	00:42​	00:52​
LGS	00:13​				00:43​
MFL		00:12​	00:22​	00:32​		00:42​	00:52​	00:02​
CCT	00:16​		00:24​	00:34​	00:46​		00:54​	00:04​
NEI				00:51​				00:21​
NTN		00:26​				00:56​
NTN		00:16​				00:46​
NEI				00:20​				00:50​
CCT	00:16​		00:24​	00:36​	00:46​		00:54​	00:06​
MFL	00:18​	00:29​		00:38​	00:48​	00:59​		00:08​
LGS			00:27​				00:57​
GLC	00:29​	00:40​	00:42​	00:49​	00:59​	00:10​	00:12​	00:19​

Key features: -

• Langside gets an almost 15 minutely service to Central
• Mount Florida gets a 10 minutely service from Central and almost 10 minutely return service (skewed only by a pathing issue with the down Newtons and Inner Circle at Muirhouse North junction!)
• Cathcart gets an almost 10 minutely service to / from Central
• Southbound Newton services connect well with the Larkhall services (slightly longer wait for the Motherwell / Cumbernauld ones - about 19 mins)
• Northbound Newton services connect well with services from Motherwell / Cumbernauld (slightly longer wait for connections from Larkhall - about 23 mins)

Other considerations: -

• No account taken of East Kilbride, Barrhead and Kilmarnock workings - they would likely also need a recast to work with this timetable - electrification might provide the perfect opportunity for this. Some interworking with the above services to make best use of platform capacity at Glasgow Central may be possible once electrification is complete and the 318s / 320s replaced with a common fleet for Strathclyde suburban services.
• Neilston has quite a generous layover (29 minutes) but a few minutes of this may be absorbed if a new Barrhead South station opens
• Newton services would arrive in platform 2 and proceed to the turnback siding before returning to platform 1 for the inbound workings (20 minutes should be sufficient time for this)

 

[clc]

Yes I think there would be demand for 6tph on the eastern half of the circle. Mount Florida has the hospital, the college and a densely populated catchment plus there’s 400 new flats under construction on the old hospital site. And Queen’s Park and Pollokshields East serve the most densely populated district in the city with hundreds of additional homes u/c or in the pipeline.

The challenge, of course, is capacity at Central as operating 2tph on the circle requires 4 paths which is 2 more than pre pandemic. Conversion to ‘heavy metro’ routed away from Central High Level is the best solution imo.