THE SPT PLAN(S) 

At the time of publication and presentation of the thgRAIL Subway2020 plan the SPT had no published material showing any ambition for the Subway. Indeed in the Regional Transport Strategy the Subway was relegated to unspecific expansion and improvement beyond 2017. Now (perhaps prompted by our plan?) the SPT have two plans now less - the first being published in March 2007 and the second in October 2007.

There is no suggestion of how the two plans mesh, particularly as they will apparently be sharing infrastructure on at least part of the route. The natural assumption is that PLAN 2 replaces PLAN 1, but this would represent a gross waste of time and taxpayer's money so the SPT stress that is not the case. 

How then will they work?

We can only guess, perhaps this explanation will help you form your own opinion. 

THE SPT PLAN 1 

It is difficult to present the SPT plan in any meaningful way other than to use the verbatim comments from the press releases on their web site. There is no micro site or any other dedicated page devoted to explaining the Subway plan. The only known graphic appeared in the Evening Times newspaper and it is not clear if this was generated by the press or for the press.

What we do know is – 

• WS Atkins, engineers, were commissioned in June 2005 to report on the options for the Glasgow Subway 
• Their report was delivered to the SPT some 20 months later At that time, the SPT was conducting a public consultation of their 15 year plan “A Catalyst for Change” – the Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) but made no mention of the Subway plans 
• WS Atkins reported a variety of options for the Glasgow Subway which included: 
  • a minimum investment complete closure of the Subway; 
  • its replacement with a bus service; 
  • an upgrade to a light railway an extension to Maryhill 
  • a railway extension and link to Maryhill 
  • an enhanced extension to incorporate a new railway system linking to the Cathcart Circle 
  • a circular route extension serving the inner East End of Glasgow, and 
  • an upgrade of the existing system 
• The Atkins report was published as part of a press release through the Glasgow Evening Times newspaper on 13/3/07 
• Three days later, with no public consultation, the SPT Board backed a proposal to adopt two of the Atkins’ recommendations as policy: 
  • An upgrade of the existing system at a cost of £270 million, and 
  • The East End Extension at an estimated cost of £2.3 billion 
• As part of the Evening Times news report, the paper also conducted an on line poll asking “Should the Subway be extended?” The poll recorded on of the paper’s best ever responses and over 600 people supported the idea that the Subway should be extended. 
• The SPT took ownership of the poll result – claiming it showed public support for their plans (rather than a general support for the principle of the Subway being extended).

For further details of the WS Atkins report see SPT Press release - 

http://www.spt.co.uk/news/story385.html  

For further details of the SPT’s acceptance of the Evening Times readers’ poll – 

http://www.spt.co.uk/news/story385.html  

THE SPT PLAN 2

Unveiled on 12th October 2007, the new plan for the Subway was presented as an east - west extension running from Celtic Park to the SECC with a future option of extending the new line from the SECC to Yorkhill. The proposal seeks to take advantage of existing infrastructure, firstly running a new line in old disused railway tunnel (beneath London Road) then running a light railway within the heavy rail Argyle Line suburban rail service between Bridgeton and the Exhibition Centre stations. At Argyle Street Station there would be an interface with the St. Enoch Subway Station (although detail;s of that connection are not available). International management consultants, Grant Thornton, have been instructed to carry out the initial feasibility study for the scheme which is billed as a "lasting legacy" should Glasgow be successful in achieving the nomination as host of the 2014 Commonwealth Games.

Once again, details of the scheme are, at best, sketchy and the Evening Times newspaper provided the only know indicative drawing of the plan. The viability of the plan is however questionable. Out with major sporting and cultural events at either end of the new line it is doubtful that there would be the necessary patronage to use a meaningful service and the competition from existing bus routes and indeed the Argyle Line itself would undermine any realistic investment. A new light rail system providing a service on this route (with a maximum 12 minute journey time) would require a maximum of two train units (even though it would be feasible for a single train to operate the service four times an hour) and the infrastructure, investment, staff, tooling and training to provide a depot for such a service would, in the opinion of thgRAIL, render the new plan as non viable. The same service could be provided by the existing heavy rail service perhaps splitting the existing routes to terminate at the suggested new stations, i.e. Hamilton to Exhibition Centre and Milngavie to Parkhead.

Grant Thornton have apparently been given 18 months to carry out their instruction. thgRAIL presented our paper on the scheme to the SPT, Grant Thornton and Transport Scotland within 18 hours of the announcement.        

For further details of the announcement of the new plan, see SPT Press release - 

http://www.spt.co.uk/news/story436.html  

For further details of the thgRAIL analysis of the plan, click here to download in Adobe format. 

For the Evening Times commentary, click here: http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/display.var.1755423.0.0.php