Sir Roger DeLodgerley wrote:All factually correct of course Alycidon, but I've always felt that the decision to maintain Central rather than St. Enoch was as much a political one, as it was a purely practical one
Sorry to disagree Sir Roger but the following facts stand up to scrutiny, I am assuming that the decision to close would have been taken as part of the Beeching Report in 1963
1) Approach viaduct - Central = 6 tracks; St Enoch = 4 tracks, potential bottleneck there even with the existing level of service, never mind imposing additional cross city services. Central also had the benefit of seveeral loops and sidings on the approaches which were ideal for stabling EMUs and DMUs
2) Number of Platforms - St Enoch = 12, Central = 14, even with 14 and Hamilton Circle/Lanark services now going via the low level Central still needs double banking
3) The tight approach curve, with lots of non standard trackwork was a nightmare to maintain, the modern railway likes standard prefabricated turnouts, not the bespoke trackwork that aproached St Enoch
4) No access to the Cathcart Circle, access to the Pollokshields West line would have been possible with some realignment at Strathbungo, but there would have been no way to connect to Pollokshields East, which is the important route as this in turn accesses the Neilston and Kirkhill routes
5) Central had already been electrified by 1963.
6) Glasgow had not given up on the long term future of the Central Low Level Line, although it was closed in 1964 all infrastructure was left in place pending publication of what eventually became the Clyderail Report. Had St Enoch been chosen the future of this line may not have been so certain
7) No access to the West Coast Main Line, a link is possible today but at that time Gushetfaulds Freightliner terminal was built where the link would have run, this in turn restricts access to Polmadie depot.
The defence for Glasgow Central rests M'lud