Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Queen Street on track for multi-million pound revamp in flagship line upgrade

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 21 June 2009
GLASGOW's Queen Street Station is to undergo a multi-million pound expansion, Scotland on Sunday has learned.
The landmark – which dates back to 1842 – will get new and longer platforms and, sources suggest, an airport-style passenger terminal.

The upgrade will be made as part of the Scottish Government's proposed £1 billion revamp of the flagship Edinbur
gh to Glasgow route.

Transport planners had long feared they would not be able to boost capacity between Scotland's two biggest cities because Queen Street, which is accessed through a long and narrow tunnel, could not handle longer and more frequent trains.

However, it is now understood they have come up with a plan to drive existing track right into what is currently the station's passenger concourse and add an extra-long curling platform in an area now used as a taxi rank.

Sources yesterday said the ambitious plans would leave little room for passengers in the current concourse, forcing station owners Network Rail and the Scottish Government to build a new two-level airport-style terminal next to the existing glass-ceilinged Victorian structure.

Network Rail, however, would yesterday only confirm it was looking at platform expansion. A spokesman said: "As part of the Edinburgh and Glasgow improvement programme we are examining how capacity at Glasgow Queen Street could be enhanced.

"The options under consideration include lengthening some existing platforms and creating an additional platform by utilising the current car parking space. This project is at an early stage and many elements, including funding, have yet to be finalised."

Scotland on Sunday, however, understands that the Scottish Government will almost certainly look to Network Rail to raise the funds needed for Queen Street's upgrade, probably, insiders said, by asking the state-owned company to borrow against its considerable track and other infrastructure assets.

A spokesman for First Minister Alex Salmond said: "Network Rail's borrowing powers are being used to improve the railways across Scotland.

"It is ironic that an agency of government has borrowing powers when the Scottish Government does not."

Sources said it was too soon to work out how much the station's expansion would cost.

Transport Scotland, the Scottish Government agency in charge of the nation's railways, said expansion plans at the Glasgow station were designed to allow the agency to meet its ambition of increasing the number of trains between Glasgow and Edinburgh from four an hour now to six an hour by 2016.

A spokeswoman for the agency said "Analysis is under way to assess the infrastructure improvements required at Queen Street to provide sufficient capacity for the requirements of the proposed 2016 timetable.

"The options being considered are designed to increase the operational flexibility of the station layout and consider combinations of realigned, extended and perhaps additional platforms."

The spokeswoman hinted that the station's passenger areas may be improved as well.

The Scottish Government has also been exploring potential sites for a third railway station for Glasgow. But proposals to reopen the old St Enoch station – at a site close to the shopping centre of the same name – now look unlikely to go ahead, sources said.

There are also doubts over an alternative third station site close to the existing Central Station. The so-called Central East Station would have been in Jamaica Street.

"Expanding Queen Street will buy us a decade," one source said. Ultimately, however, Glasgow may need new infrastructure if it is to cope with huge rising demand for train travel, transport insiders believe. The number of passengers using Queen Street alone has more than doubled in the past five years to nearly five million people annually.



The full article contains 615 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 20 June 2009 7:43 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
 
1

truthsleuth,

21/06/2009 01:52:10
It seems to me this development has more to do with a retail potential and shoppers rather than a rail staion and passengers.

Just like Birminham New St which was similarly acclaimed as a rail development costing £600million with funding coming from private sector. For this £600million the rail passenger got a glass fronted atrium and shopping mall just like an airport.In the end the private sector contributed nothing, the taxpayer plus network rail funded the whole exercise.
For £600million the rail passenger got 14 new escalators and a glass fronted waiting room which did nothing for delays etc.

Don't be fooled no passenger I know wants airport style travelling experience. Spend the money on the trains and station. If private developers want a retail experience let them fund it.
2

truthsleuth,

21/06/2009 01:59:43
I would think the 6 trains per hour would be easy if the line were electrified.

It should take an electric train about 4 niutes to clear the tunnel giving 15 trains (ideally) per hour.

Lengthening of platforms I cannot see as necessary from memory as many of the old steam trains were 6 or more coaches plus a loco on both ends.
3

truthsleuth,

21/06/2009 02:00:37
Out the money into electrification the rest is window dressing and 'money for the boys'.
4

truthsleuth,

21/06/2009 02:02:39
#2 - should have read - about 4minutes to clear the tunnel

#3 Should have read - Put the
5

john z,

edinburgh 21/06/2009 08:33:12
Poster 1,

I cannot agree more. This has all the hallmarks of the famous 'enhancements' which get regularly done to Heathrow. What it really means is taking away the space passengers currently have, create a sealed glass box waiting room that will be much too small, and use all the previous open space for shops - or to use the planning vernacular - 'retail opportunities'.

This sounds like a seriously cack-handed plan.

An 'airport style' travel experience, is bad enough in airports, without making our train stations like that as well.
6

gus1940,

Edinburgh 21/06/2009 09:09:11
Build a new bus/rail Transport hub in the East end astride The Argyll Line.

Build the Crossrail system to run in to the new station which would have all through platforms and would incorporate a bus station.

This could be funded to a great extent by closing and sedling off the land for development of Central, Queen Street, Buchanan Street and land south of the river from Central.

Just look at a map of Glasgow and its existing rail network to see how such a project would improve transport not just for Glasgow but for Central Scotland as a whole together with rejuvenating the East End.

People will argue that the present staions are centrally situated but don't forget that none of London's mainline stations are in the centre and commuters use the tube to get to their final destinations.

The station I propose would connect with the centre via the Argyll Line and the line to Queen St. Low Level which would continue to operate.

The new station with its through platforms would allolw for through running of trains from The South, South West and East to the West Highland, Inverness and Aberdeen lines something which is precluded by the fact that Central and Queen St are 100% terminal stations.

7

Andrew,

Cumbernauld Commuters' Association 21/06/2009 10:23:06
2&3 AGREED! Electrification would have trains ascending Cowlairs Incline with relative ease. Extra plaforms in the car park? Previously, THERE USED TO BE several 'LOCAL' PLATFORMS where the car park is and Platform 1 was severely shortened for the station's offices!
Furthermore, Queen Street would be SO MUCH QUIETER with electric traction & passengers might even be able to hear the announcements!
8

Rob Royston,

Bishopbriggs 21/06/2009 11:04:51
A new, third terminus station (St Enoch)? Glasgow is a small town by todays standards and should not even have one terminus station.

Having said that, the infrastructure that exists would support the ideas suggested. The idea of a new Superstation to the East would be great but will it attract the travellers as the present systems seem to do?

What Glasgow really needs is a fast Inter Station people moving system which would also go to the Bus terminus. There are many systems in use worldwide and I am sure Glasgow could come up with an inovative system that would let it keep the benefits of its old railways that access direct into the heart of the City.
9

WeAreDeRosa,

21/06/2009 11:41:12
#7 ""The number of passengers using Queen Street alone has more than doubled in the past five years to nearly five million people annually."
"Doesn't tell you something?"

Yes indeed - Glasgow Queen Street Station needs expanded just like Edinburgh Waverley is and also the people of Edinburgh just can't get enough of Glasgow.
10

WeAreDeRosa,

21/06/2009 12:22:57
#6 Surely there is a case then for making GLA the sole central Scotland Airport? Direct motorway (and soon rail links) exist - why waste money on providing these at EDI when they aren't needed? The infrastructure is already in place.
11

Rob Royston,

Bishopbriggs 21/06/2009 13:05:12
#12 I'm not sure if your comment is serious or if you are baiting #6, but as a regular air traveller, I have to tell you that EDI is always my choice unless I am changing at London or Amsterdam. Any other European hub and its got to be EDI. Even Aberdeen and Newcastle are better served than GLA when it comes to European hub connections.

You mention the new Rail Link. Well, most of Scotland have to ask where it links to? As far as I can make out it just dumps you at Central. People going to Queen Street and Buchanan Bus Station will find it easier to get the bus from the airport as they do now.
12

Rob Royston,

Bishopbriggs 21/06/2009 16:21:11
#16, I can't speak for Joe, but Glasgow and my own council at East Dunbartonshire both makes me angry. I only live 4 miles from Glasgow's centre but if I want to go anywhere to the South and West serious obstacles are put in my path at busy times.

If I take the bus into Glasgow and want to get to either of the two main rail stations, I find a big shopping centre blocking out the sky when I exit the bus terminus. If I take the train, I have to cross the city centre from one station to the other.

If I use my car and am going to say, Greenock, I will often opt for the Erskine Bridge as it is shorter and avoids the Glasgow gridlock. There were meant to be roads built by-passing Bishopbriggs, Milngavie and Hardgate but these ideas have long since been shelved and houses are built on the land put aside at Bishopbriggs and the route past Milngavie/Bearsden is now built up with fast-food outlets and a football clubs training centre.

I see Glasgow as a big robber barron that wants to get a slice of everything that passes by. From a travellers perspective it's a dead-end City, with dead-end railways, roads, airport and bus services.
13

Rob Royston,

Bishopbriggs 21/06/2009 18:25:21
#20, re your last paragraph, I have heard them mention this from time to time although I can't think of any benefits that come my way. I think it is just another example of their need to control everyone around them, so that they can make some cash out of us :o)
14

The Ghost of Sir William Arrol,

The Forthy Bridge 21/06/2009 19:36:41
I don't know why airport Joe is complaining about investment at Queen St. The E&G runs there! If one end of the route is congested the whole timetable gets snarled up.

The electric train timetable will offer faster journeys between the cities and more departures. A cheap to build connecting tram link at Gogar to Edinburgh Airport will provide air travellers with a faster and more frequent timetable to Scottish destinations than would ever be possible with the EARL project.

In 10 years or so when fuel scarcity has killed off affordable flying and EDI is deserted the Scottish taxpayer will not have wasted £1 billion on an underground airport railway with no passengers.
15

Rob Royston,

Bishopbriggs 21/06/2009 23:16:13
22 AIasdair, Well, none of them apply to me. The only times I go into Glasgow they make money out of me one way or the other.
16

Southsider71,

Newton Mearns, Glasgow 22/06/2009 12:29:56
Both Stepps and Bishopbriggs are similar to Newton Mearns, in that you would only go to these places if you live there, or know someone who does. Just miles of suburban housing. As for the M74 being unnecssary, well i can only speak for myself, but i just love being stuck in the 8am car park that is the kingston bridge as thousands of vehicles try to get on to the bothwell street off ramp and into town...a real joy - Not! The M74 extension cant come soon enough for people like me whose average commute time into central Glasgow is an hour and sometimes more...

As for the Queens Street upgrade...if it improves efficiency, great. Hopefully they will remove the 60s extension to the hotel as part of it.
17

WeAreDeRosa,

22/06/2009 15:59:52
#26

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Delays-stretch-on-Europes-busiest.2421819.jp
18

WeAreDeRosa,

22/06/2009 16:02:23
#13 - No it wasn't a serious comment - merely highlighting the idiocy of another contributor.
19

Si-co onalist,

Edinburgh 22/06/2009 17:10:54
The Glasgow crossrail scheme was an ideal opportunity to link the s/w and Garl with the east and north of the country and to take some of the heat off Q/S high level, especially with the electrified Airdrie-Bathgate line fast approaching. London is going ahead with its own crossrail; what a pity this one has been shelved.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.