Glasgow Railway Termini

Moderators: John, Sharon, Fossil, Lucky Poet, crusty_bint, Jazza, dazza

Re: Glasgow Railway Termini

Postby Alycidon » Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:20 pm

Anorak wrote:Neither the old map or Google Earth offer any suggestions as to why trains from St Enoch could not join up with the Cathcart Circle lines. They seem to be right next to each other!


It is all to do with History Anorak, the Cathcart Circle was strictly Caledonian Railway territory, whereas the line to Barrhead was a joint GSWR and Caledonian, so the line from St Enoch only connected with lines over which the GSWR would run trains. In pre grouping days there would have been few if any passenger workings over the link from Muirhouse Junction to Strathbungo junction as although this was a joint line the Caledonian didn't use its powers much. There were similar mising connections in the former layout of the Shields Junctions, where ther was no direct connection from Central to the GSWR Paisley Canal Line, but in order to close St Enoch this are was remodelled to alow direct access.

LMBK
[img]http://www.jhowie.force9.co.uk/emu314carcream.gif[/img]

We must perform a Quirkafleeg!!!!
User avatar
Alycidon
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1047
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:11 am
Location: Eaglesham

Re: Glasgow Railway Termini

Postby Charlie Endell » Sat Nov 15, 2008 12:57 pm

Found this superb photograph (well it's to me anyway!) on Railscot of a train from St Enoch at Muirhouse junction.

http://ccgi.ewanbeth.force9.co.uk/cgi-b ... 20Junction
User avatar
Charlie Endell
First Stripe
First Stripe
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 3:27 pm
Location: Cathcart (exiled from Soho)

Re: Glasgow Railway Termini

Postby duck » Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:32 pm

Maybe this could help too. I cropped the relevant section from the 1920 Railway Clearing House map.

Red = Caledonian
Yellow = Glasgow and Paisley Jnt ( Cal + G&SW)
Green = GSW
Red and Green = Glasgow Barrhead and KIlmarnock Jnt ( Cal + G&SW)

Image
User avatar
duck
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Normandy

Re: Glasgow Railway Termini

Postby chateaudulait » Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:10 pm

Hi guys, im a long term lurker who finally plucked up the courage to post :D Ive been following this thread with interest as Ive lived South of the river all my 37 years and I must have passed the afore mentioned tracks countless number of times. I often wondered what purpose the track above and behind the Brazen Head served, now I know. So for those who know the area it has now been established by previous posts that this track came from St Enoch ,, runs above The Brazen Head, behind the old railway club (now Liptons) and then behind the St Andrews Printworks.
Whilst upstairs on the bus at The Star Bar I could see what looked like the remains of a bridge which I assumed took the afore mentioned line over the mainline that goes to central. However what id like to know is where did the old St Enoch line go to then? There seems to be a gap between the printworks and Larkfield garage. Id imagine it would have went behind the old McNees but was there a bridge over Victoria Road?
Thanks in advance :wink:
chateaudulait
Busy bunny
Busy bunny
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: Glasgow Railway Termini

Postby Anorak » Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:24 pm

Welcome to the forums, chateaulait!


Image

The track actually runs under, rather than over, Victoria Road. The old track to St Enoch, behind Liptons Tearooms and the St Andrews Printworks, has been lifted and is now part of the site for the M74 extension. The eastbound track shown on the map passes under Cathcart Road at Aikenhead Road and joins the West Coast main line. It is still in place.

The multi-coloured map, posted by Duck, is very helpful in showing the route. I’ve just learned that the junction at Eglinton Toll was called Langside Junction even though it’s nowhere near Langside!

I want to discuss some of the other issues raised in this thread recently, when I get the time.
Anorak
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:19 am

Re: Glasgow Railway Termini

Postby chateaudulait » Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:41 pm

Thanks Anorak it all seems to make sense now. The only thing is where the track ran behind the printworks seems to be level with with Viccy Road. Perhaps it was lower than I thought it was, coming from the Gorbals or perhaps it was like a wee rollercoaster ::): Anyway thanks for solving a mystery for me mate.
chateaudulait
Busy bunny
Busy bunny
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: Glasgow Railway Termini

Postby Sir Roger DeLodgerley » Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:08 pm

Alycidon wrote:
Anorak wrote:Neither the old map or Google Earth offer any suggestions as to why trains from St Enoch could not join up with the Cathcart Circle lines. They seem to be right next to each other!


It is all to do with History Anorak, the Cathcart Circle was strictly Caledonian Railway territory, whereas the line to Barrhead was a joint GSWR and Caledonian, so the line from St Enoch only connected with lines over which the GSWR would run trains. In pre grouping days there would have been few if any passenger workings over the link from Muirhouse Junction to Strathbungo junction as although this was a joint line the Caledonian didn't use its powers much. There were similar mising connections in the former layout of the Shields Junctions, where ther was no direct connection from Central to the GSWR Paisley Canal Line, but in order to close St Enoch this are was remodelled to alow direct access.

LMBK


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. After all, as you have said, there was no direct connection from Central to the Paisley Canal line and one had to be created. A link could similarly have been created to allow trains from St. Enoch to take the Cathcart Circle lines, if the will had been there.

I still think that closing the only mainline terminus in Glasgow with links to both the north and south rail networks was extremely shortsighted. A hangover from LMS days when Caley decision making dominated the Northern Division of the LMS, and in due course the Scottish Region of BR, perhaps?
There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted.
User avatar
Sir Roger DeLodgerley
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:05 am
Location: Bedside Manor, Wilts.

Re: Glasgow Railway Termini

Postby Alycidon » Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:11 pm

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
[img]http://www.jhowie.force9.co.uk/emu314carcream.gif[/img]

We must perform a Quirkafleeg!!!!
User avatar
Alycidon
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1047
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:11 am
Location: Eaglesham

Re: Glasgow Railway Termini

Postby Sir Roger DeLodgerley » Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:25 am

Alycidon wrote:
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



Quite correct corect of course Alycidon and reasonably convincing argument for the retention of Central over St Enoch, although a more churlish individual than me might argue that it demonstrated the extent to which St Enoch had been neglected compared to its Caley neighbour from 1923 onwards.

Personally, I would have electrified the WCML via Kilmarnock rather than Motherwell and I would have opened Argyle Street station much closer to Buchanan Street (not reopening Central low level but reopening Glasgow Cross to cater for the east end of Argyle Street) and then you would have had mainline trains arriving from north and south of the city, bang in the centre of Glasgow giving passengers immediate access to low level trains, the subway, and bus services all within St Enoch square (more or less).

Could that have been (whisper it) an integrated transport system?
There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted.
User avatar
Sir Roger DeLodgerley
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:05 am
Location: Bedside Manor, Wilts.

Re: Glasgow Railway Termini

Postby Charlie Endell » Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:59 pm

I would love to have seen St Enoch retained as a railway station (finding out more about the station was the reason I stumbled upon this site in the first place) instead of Central (and I still like Central) but from a practical point of view it's impossible to argue the case for St Enoch (as Alycidon has superbly summarized). The old link from St Enoch is still there between Eglington Toll and Strathbungo but it passes over the Cathcart Outer Circle / Neilston line on a bridge and I don't see how it could possibly have linked up with this line (although if P'shields East, Q. Park, Crosshill and Mt. Florida had closed you could have run trains round to Cathcart via P'shields West and then sent them off to Neilston in reverse :P ; the Newton line can be accessed either via P'shields East or P'shields West and the present trains run alternatively on each route). I don't know whether St Enoch was listed (I'd have to assume it was) but (and someone else on here has pointed this out also) I would liked to have seen something similar done with it as was done with Manchester Central (closed in 1969, listed, and then converted into the GMEX Centre in the 1980s - sorry if the closure date is wrong). I believe there were protests about the destruction of St Enoch (firstly the roofs and then the hotel) at the time and I'd love to look through some contemporary newspaper coverage (I'd assume the Glasgow Herald and Evening Times would be my best bet) to get the full story.
User avatar
Charlie Endell
First Stripe
First Stripe
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 3:27 pm
Location: Cathcart (exiled from Soho)

Re: Glasgow Railway Termini

Postby davidlynch69 » Wed Dec 03, 2008 12:25 pm

Some great and interesting threads below. I totally agree with Charlie Endell’s comments that he “would love to have seen St Enoch retained as a railway station”, and so would I. Too young to remember the station operational I do remember as a young lad having the family car parked in the station after it had been converted to a car park.

St. Enoch’s is one of Glasgow’s biggest disgraces. Not the station or the hotel but the decision to scrap such an icon was disgusting. The hotel should have been renovated and the, extremely ugly, shopping centre that took it’s place, should have extended from the back of the hotel.

The decision around St. Enoch’s fate isn’t surprising as Glasgow is the most wasteful city I have ever known. The Empire Exhibition has gone, the Garden festival has gone, Glasgow’s Glasgow exhibition has gone, John Browns yard has gone (yes I know this was technically in Clydebank), St. Enoch’s hotel and station has gone. Anything good Glasgow gets or has it lets it ruin. Our city fathers are a joke!

Mistakes are still being made today, the Glasgow Airport rail link being the main one. Central station will struggle to cope with such a service and millions are being wasted on routing the track via Paisley Gilmour Street instead of reopening the old track that ran behind Renfrew Road, coming off the Arkleston Junction. Glasgow airport doesn’t need a rail link as Glasgow doesn’t need Glasgow airport. Hindered by the worst of parochial decision making, Glasgow and Edinburgh airports should both be closed and a new International hub should be located near Stirling with links to all major Scottish cities. But as with St.Enoch decision making in Scotland isn’t based on common sense.

St.Enochs has the opportunity to rise again, albeit in a less grand faced and a couple of hundred yards away. Glasgow’s crossover rail plan would reopen the approach bridge used by St.Enochs and a new station is planned for Glasgow Cross. Plans for the Glasgow Cross station are still a bit vague, but there is sufficient land for two through lines and the creation of a two platform halt. If the new station entrance was placed beside the open air car park which faces the St.Enoch centre it would be close enough to the city centre for daily commuters. Maybe the time has come to campaign for the new station to once again be called Glasgow St.Enoch.
davidlynch69
Just settling in
Just settling in
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 11:59 am

Re: Glasgow Railway Termini

Postby Charlie Endell » Wed Dec 03, 2008 8:48 pm

I was sent this link HERE

The last page of "People & Places" in the Urban Glasgow Collection has two photographs of St Enoch Sq. post hotel and station but pre greenhouse - it's enough to make you weep! My earliest memory of Glagsow (very vague - I was born in '69 so I reckon it would have been 1974 / 75) was of my grandfather taking me into the city centre and parking on the platforms of St Enoch station (I just remember the vaulted roof and not much else). I totally agree with dl69 - the hotel at least should have been renovated to maintain a "face" to the east side of the square. To think of all the bland hotels that have been built in the city since the destruction of this gothic masterpiece; a total waste. I would love to meet the persons in the planning department who were responsible for the decision and ask them to justify it.
User avatar
Charlie Endell
First Stripe
First Stripe
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 3:27 pm
Location: Cathcart (exiled from Soho)

Re: Glasgow Railway Termini

Postby Anorak » Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:04 pm

I’ve been having a look at the lines from St Enoch and Central after they met up on the way towards Paisley.

The two bridges at West Street carry the lines from each of the main line stations.

Image
This birds-eye view is looking down West Street towards the river. The track at the top is from Central, the track at the bottom was from St Enoch.

Image
This view is looking east with the entrance to West Street subway station top left. The track on the left is heading for Central and the track on the right for St Enoch.

Image
Under the low bridges at West Street, which are supported by cast-iron columns that look pretty ancient. I vaguely remember a double-decker bus ploughing under one of the bridges a few years back.



After the lines met up, the first stops for the trains from both stations were at Shields Road. Here each company seems to have had their own station. There were three parallel stations; Pollokshields, Shields Road and Shields, each with their own booking office and waiting rooms. Dr Beeching would have loved this one!

Image


Image
If all the companies managed to operate from two city termini, why would they need such a multitude of adjacent stations a mile or so down the line?
Doesn’t seem particularly user friendly if you were heading to town. I think I would have ignored them all and went to Shields Road Subway station!

Image
Found a remnant of one of the platforms, with a Paisley bound train approaching.
Don’t ask me which station the platform was for!
Anorak
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:19 am

Re: Glasgow Railway Termini

Postby Alycidon » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:49 pm

I did an analysis of the Shields Junctions for my own amusement a while ago, there are some fantastic photographs of the complex in W.A.C. Smiths book - An Illustrated History of Glasgow's Railways

The current route layout
Image

Pre-Nationalisation
Image
[img]http://www.jhowie.force9.co.uk/emu314carcream.gif[/img]

We must perform a Quirkafleeg!!!!
User avatar
Alycidon
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1047
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:11 am
Location: Eaglesham

Re: Glasgow Railway Termini

Postby aland » Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:53 am

interesting track plans there deltic9 surprising how little is left

out of interest they electrified the burma road (dive under at shields jnc) i have yet to see anything leccy use it as unless they have relaid the curves on the dive under they were too tight for passenger stock to use. i know on diesel hauled charters they crossed at shields and went donwn the rabbit hole. if anyone is interested on the hunterston to longannet can ride video by locomaster profiles you go down the burma road
aland
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:15 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Glasgow Chat (Coffee Lounge)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests