https://www.getglasgowmoving.org has produced a vision of Clyde Metro.
It’s a vision from their perspective with a clean and readable map
It is ambitious and to me an idealised outcome for a Greater Glasgow Rail and Metro scheme.
I like parts of it, I have doubts on some aspects and questions on others.
Nevertheless, in the absence of news from official sources, it’s worth pushing the issue and seeing what comes from the Glasgow City Council led process. As far as I understood, things were at a consultant’s report stage and this would be due around Winter 2025/26 with further decisions afterwards.
My thoughts
Most modern tram systems from a starting point of zero are establishing one or two lines.
Metro as a starting point is a different matter.
Cities in Europe with some existing tram networks have went Pre-Metro, then Metro from Tram based systems.
Ambition of the Get Glasgow Moving Mqp is one thing, but realisation another.
I think ambition and reality need to meet as a big bang whole network investment is unlikely to happen.
Phased extension of branches seems to be way that systems England in Birmingham and Manchester have expanded.
Edinburgh’s proposals to extend their system are partly based on older proposals that were scaled back and new lines that are now being cautiously scoped and consulted upon.
As for Greater Glasgow.
I think the conversion of existing heavy rail network to Metro is unlikely although there is one part of the Glasgow system that would be a likely better prospect as a tram conversion – the Cathcart Circle lines.
The Argyle line proposal to serve Exhibition Centre and then Partick before new infrastructure to Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Braehead and Glasgow Airport seems problematic to me.
Capacity on the section Partick to Hyndland has been covered in transport reviews with 24 paths per hour seen as maximum.
Therefore any diversion of the Argyle Line westward would, in my view, be better crossing Clyde after Exhibition Centre Station and looking to interchange with the Govan Subway before QEUH and Braehead and would be involving tunnelling to at least the QEUH.
(That’s a lot of digging and underground works likely requiring tunnel boring machines)
This would be likely to be biggest capital cost commitment in such a metro project and if planned to have a Glasgow Airport to Lanarkshire terminuses spine, then it’s better to be a heavy rail route .
Directing the Argyle Line to Govan allows a subway interchange to Partick, it frees the capacity bottleneck and allows greater frequency on the North Clyde Lines but removes the bottleneck issues at Partick and Hyndland.
The proposed Kelvin-Cart line may alleviate some of that by taking the via Singer to Milngavie and Dalmuir services through the tunnel that exist at Botanic Gardens and under Great Western Road from Kelvin Bridge.
Again, I think that is an ambitious solution, although linking to Glasgow Cross, using the City Union Line and linking to Cathcart Circle would avoid movements on Argyle Line and be a creative solution.
The capacity available via Glasgow Central and Glasgow Cross sections with both Argyle and Kelvin-Cart at metro interval frequencies might be another question.
The City Union Line is logical to remove Paisley Canal services from Glasgow Central, to link via what was previously called Glasgow Crossrail to Bellgrove utilising the Springburn Branch and getting to Anniesland via the North Commuter line.
I would doubt extension westward. The questions I would have are in terms of fully double tracking the existing Paisley Canal line.
The issue of the built upon trackbed west of the Canal Street station would make an expensive land acquisition, even before the work needed to clear the cycle and walking path routes beyond Paisley Canal.
I see the potential westward with the former railway infrastructure. Kilmacolm/Bridge of Weir, Linwood, Former Paisley West station all would have merit.
But there are engineering challenges even with a former railway route.
I think those paths would better suit a modern tramway and using a short stretch of Canal Street in Paisley and then going onto the old railway formation.
I was disappointed to see that a connection to Johnstone North and Kilbarchan was not considered, it would offer another possibility.
Both would work well as part of a Renfrewshire Tram running from Kilbarchan or Kilmacolm to Paisley Canal, interfacing with Railway there and at Paisley Gilmour Street before connecting with Glasgow Airport and Braehead.
Extending to QEUH and Govan Subway would tie nicely in terms of other destinations and interchanges.
Perhaps that might be necessary if a big infrastructure commitment like a new tunnel from Exhibition Centre to Govan is seen as too costly.
I mention Renfrewshire Tram.
I do, as I think running any tram over the recent Renfrew Bridge is an unlikely prospect. I think the West Tram proposed on the map falls at the use of both new bridges north of Glasgow Airport.
The section from Duntocher to Dock Street might be better joining the Cross Tram at Scotstoun.
The northern part of the City Union Line running from Paisley Canal to Paisley St James, Glasgow Airport, Renfrew and Braehead, In my opinion, would work better as a tramline through Paisley as outlined above.
A connection westward would serve Linwood, Johnstone, Kilbarchan, Bridge of Weir and Kilmacolm giving a logical mix of destinations that could perhaps be extended to the Royal Alexandra Hospital (known for its all day parking issues) and perhaps even through the southern parts of Paisley toward Barrhead.
Given thicker lines for existing heavy rail and thinner ones for Tram, I have assumed that the Get Glasgow Moving proposal map is set on that basis and I do think has a number of obvious questions.
The extension of heavy rail lines might be possible using old routes that were cut in the 1950’s and 1960’s.
Although, I would be cautious about conditions of former tunnels and former trackbeds, there also will be issues of headway for electrification to consider.
Non-electrified sections of the Glasgow Railway System still exist, notably the City Union Line and Maryhill/North Commuter Line and may require modernisation as well as electrification for frequent services.
I very much agree with potential for Glasgow Cross as an interchange but do wonder about routing back through Glasgow Queen Street Low Level.
Large infrastructure projects aren’t likely to be part of the Clyde Metro plan due to cost.
There’s already been an element of project hesitancy in terms of a tram solution for the link from Paisley to Glasgow Airport being rolled into the thinking for Clyde Metro.
Critics can look at the cancellation of GARL in 2009 and the way the City Deal has handled tram/train and other proposals.
A link that isn’t cleared through Transport Scotland’s processes isn’t likely to happen.
There’s political and other factors at play and the debacle over the first phase of Edinburgh Trams means that commitment to a large scale public transport scheme for Glasgow will always carry doubts.
A Holyrood election in 2026 won’t particularly help and other matters will be presented as more important for public spending.
Getting back to the GGM map,
The route pattern and service frequency from Dalmuir to Springburn, Airdrie and Lanarkshire through the North Clyde and Argyle Line is well established and frequent.
I think care is needed to establish how to improve on that and I see the logic of the Cross-City line proposals but both existing lines would be radically changed by the Argyle and Kelvin-Cart proposals.
I have always seen the merit in using the City Union line to connect up the Paisley Canal, Springburn and Maryhill/Anniesland lines but do think that such a proposal may be about as big a bang as Scotrail may be happy with on the network.
The Cathcart Circle as I mentioned at the start may be better converting to tram and using run offs to use existing road bridges to access city centre and do a loop up one side of Central Station to Buchanan Bus Station and Queen Street going back down the other side of Central Station.
Trams may allow other run-offs the Cathcart Circle toward Castlemilk or Newton Mearns and I think that will be part of the thinking for Clyde Metro.
I note those are both covered by the Cross Tram routes on GGM map, but the overall routing east, then south of that proposal isn’t as direct as branching off from the Cathcart Circle.
The existing branches of the Cathcart Circle to Newton and Neilston may need thought as to whether Trams or Tram/Train vehicles are better suited for performance and use of the existing infrastructure.
Although tram/train may be advantageous for converted lines like the City Union Line proposal and offer opportunity to run off from existing infrastructure.
Conclusion
I’ve written and blogged in detail before on a proposed Metro for Glasgow.
Issues that I see.
Scotrail are seeking to replace existing suburban train fleets and that’s the existing Class 318 and 320 trains with options that may also include the Class 334 units. These trains cover almost all the lines that the Get Glasgow Moving plan will use. The timescale will be the near future in the next five or so years.
Some conversion of existing Heavy Rail and some new tram lines are likely to be the proposal with options to extend in future.
I don’t see a ‘big bang’ at start of the process and think there will be a cautious approach to what can and will be done.
Glasgow’s Railways will have issues in terms of trains per hour, terminal capacity and network congestion that the proposed new suburban train fleet will not solve.
Removing services or service groups from Glasgow Central will be a selling point for Clyde Metro.
As I said, I see the attraction to a Cathcart Circle conversion to tram with a City Centre loop and the use of the Union City line to connect Paisley Canal and Springburn, Maryhill/Anniesland sections.
I think that is most likely conclusion of Clyde Metro with Tram proposals, most likely Paisley Gilmour Street to Glasgow Airport, Braehead and Govan Subway via the Queen Elizabeth Hospital.
Scotrail and Network Rail are aware of the capacity issue at Partick/Hyndland corridor and the Argyle line might be unpicked to an extent, but I can’t see it being rerouted toward Glasgow Airport unless substantial funds are available and a commitment is made by both Scottish and UK governments to a ‘big scheme’ as part of the Clyde Metro programme.
With HS2 trains running to Glasgow Central in the 2030’s the capacity of the station needs to be expanded and Clyde Metro could help by removing some existing services away.
That may give the programme some impetus, but changes from Network Rail to GBR structure, a possible change in government at Holyrood and the City Deal programmes might affect what’s available for spending.
Certainly the timescale of HS2 and its longer trains will need thought and it has been mentioned and covered by previous NR documents on delivery periods.
Arguments can be made that Greater Glasgow needs similar transport infrastructure to cities like Manchester or Birmingham, but recent announcements on a delay to the proposed Leeds/West Yorkshire system indicate the thoughts of the UK Treasury toward public transport spending outside of the London Metropolitan area.
Bus interests will obviously be against tram routes and metro system that would abstract from their busiest routes and services.
Timing of Scottish regulation and implementation of SPT’s proposals aren’t likely to dovetail well with the introduction of Clyde Metro and will introduce realpolitik and objections to proposals like GGM’s map.
Realism and deliverable first phases of Clyde Metro might encourage future phases and as I said, there are factors at play that will see a cautious approach to what the City Deal grouping finally propose.
I think it’s likely that the initial offering as Clyde Metro will be underwhelming to those that have followed public transport in Scotland, but it will be down to politics both local for area and at Holyrood.
Chic Gibson - A blog of sorts 