Richierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4022 posts, RR: 6 Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2665 times:
Quoting OA260 (Reply 2): Shame about that. Although the bus service in good a rail link would have been ideal.
Does anybody know how far GLA is from the nearest train line? What sort of new track length were we talking about here? It would be ashame if it was just a short distance.
Acelanzarote From Spain, joined Nov 2005, 782 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2619 times:
Cost cutting perhaps, but cannot help thinking it would have made
a few jobs while being built plus created some jobs once finished
and helped Glasgow poss get some new flights which would have
made more jobs etc. So shorted sighted I guess....
Plus when the games are on in 2014......!
from the Island with sun and great photo's.. Why not visit Lanzarote
Jsnww81 From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1857 posts, RR: 17 Reply 7, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2449 times:
Incredibly short-sighted, but show me a transport policy in the UK that isn't. Almost every city Glasgow's size in continental Europe already has a rail link - the real shame is that it's taken this long, and gotten so close to fruition. Is it possible to build any piece of infrastructure in the UK in less than 20 years anymore?
And before anyone tears into me, at least the UK *has* a rail transport infrastructure. We here in the US haven't even gotten that far.
Tcxdegsy From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 500 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2379 times:
It's a shame, as EARL was cancelled a couple of years ago (EDI's rail link), and the folks in Glasgow were gloating at the time that GARL was going ahead.... not now!
next flights: BA1441 0566 0581 1446 EDI-LHR-MXP-LHR-EDI
Noelg From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2358 times:
What a shame. Getting to the city from GLA can be an absolute nightmare - I usually get a cab in the morning but that can take an hour in morning rush hour down the bloody M8, and get a bus back - which is better value for money (£6 vs £25), but still takes a while and is prone to traffic. A rail link would be ideal.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16819 posts, RR: 57 Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2312 times:
Quoting Aerecosse (Reply 1): so much for getting things ready for the Commonwealth Games in 2014.
Yeah, that's gonna be a mess without a rail link. Good luck, Scottsmen. Good thing you guys are tough!
By738 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Sep 2000, 1982 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2188 times:
Quoting Noelg (Reply 9): Getting to the city from GLA can be an absolute nightmare - I usually get a cab in the morning but that can take an hour in morning rush hour down the bloody M8,
I dont understand this at all. Paisley Gilmour St mainline railway station is but 7 mins in a cab from GLA, with a frequency of every 10 mins to the city centre with a journey time often less than 14 mins. Its a no brainer and beat the "cab" everytime
Gordonsmall From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2001, 1995 posts, RR: 24 Reply 13, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2153 times:
Am I the only person who is thankful for this cancellation?
GLA doesn't need a rail link! It is very well served by other public transport links and despite protests otherwise the M8 between GLA and the city centre is far from being a heavily congested road (outwith the rush hour(s) of course, but during rush hour every road in central scotland is congested!).
The rail infrastructure in the Glasgow area is though already heavily congested at more or less all times of the day, particularly the line(s) between Glasgow Central and Ayr, and the last thing they need is more rail traffic.
Statistically, people who have had the most birthdays tend to live the longest.
Richierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4022 posts, RR: 6 Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2069 times:
Quoting Jsnww81 (Reply 7): And before anyone tears into me, at least the UK *has* a rail transport infrastructure. We here in the US haven't even gotten that far.
What, you don't consider the A train at JFK a viable rail link?
Most of the rail links at US airports happened by accident - because the airport just happened to run very close to an existing train line (BWI and EWR come to mind).
Quoting AirNz (Reply 6): How/why would such a rail link be specific in helping get new flights????
It probably wouldn't but it could make the airport more attractive to potential new airlines. I think most people have to agree that one of PIK's few redeeming qualities (besides the beautiful, scenic area it is in) is that it has its own train station and there is frequent service from Glasgow. But I do have to say, the last time I was in Scotland, the whole rail link to PIK was a mess for a tourist like me staying near, say, Edinburgh. The two train stations in Glasgow (Glasgow Central and Glasgow Queen Street) are not convenient for connecting with baggage and one has to allow for a lot of extra time. I couldn't find a train that took me to Central easily from where I was staying. I guess there is no one answer that satifies everybody!
AFGMEL From Australia, joined Jul 2007, 734 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2049 times:
Quoting Gordonsmall (Reply 13): GLA doesn't need a rail link! It is very well served by other public transport links and despite protests otherwise the M8 between GLA and the city centre is far from being a heavily congested road
Yes, now. What about the future? When the airport here in MEL was built in the late 60s is was in a paddock in the middle of nowhere, well served by roads. You should see it now anywhere near peak hours.
Aerecosse From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2009, 83 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days ago) and read 1993 times:
Quoting Richierich (Reply 14): The two train stations in Glasgow (Glasgow Central and Glasgow Queen Street) are not convenient for connecting with baggage and one has to allow for a lot of extra time. I couldn't find a train that took me to Central easily from where I was staying. I guess there is no one answer that satifies everybody!
another reason that crossrail should have been developed. It would allow passenger trains from the north & east of Scotland (which currently terminate in Queen Street) to travel onto the southern & western lines (which terminate in Central) allowing a direct connection through to Paisley Gilmour St and ulimately the GLA airport rail link....... no need to change trains/stations. This would make GLA a more attractive proposition for many travellers from the N&E and therefore potentially lead to increased traffic volumes & increased flight options.
Gordonsmall From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2001, 1995 posts, RR: 24 Reply 18, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1806 times:
Quoting AFGMEL (Reply 15): Yes, now. What about the future? When the airport here in MEL was built in the late 60s is was in a paddock in the middle of nowhere, well served by roads. You should see it now anywhere near peak hours.
Well, in fairness, GLA is hardly an airport that has sprung up out of knowhere in the last couple of years!
The fact is that GLA has grown pretty much as big as it is ever going to. There will be single digit growth as be begin to climb out of the current 'economic crisis' but that will almost certainly be wiped out again at the tail-end of the next cycle.
Quoting AFGMEL (Reply 15): An airport link would be so useful.
How exactly? The only positive thing it would provide is fast, frequent, low-cost travel to and from the city centre from the airport. But we have that already!
In terms of ROI there is no justifiable case for any further rail connections to airports in Scotland.
Statistically, people who have had the most birthdays tend to live the longest.
AFGMEL From Australia, joined Jul 2007, 734 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1703 times:
Quoting Gordonsmall (Reply 18): How exactly? The only positive thing it would provide is fast, frequent, low-cost travel to and from the city centre from the airport. But we have that already!
I have been to GLasgow, but not for a very long time so I can't comment. Maybe it has reached its peak growth and is unlikely to boom? What if it does?
A train here would fit right into our public system. 10mins rather than the hour+ it would take in peak hour. It's almost too late for us though. Lots of opposition from locals etc etc. It's so much better to plan ahead before growth makes it difficult. While I agree that wasting money is a bad thing, having good infrastructure is rarely a waste.
Nighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 4989 posts, RR: 38 Reply 22, posted (3 years 8 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1240 times:
Quoting Gordonsmall (Reply 13): Am I the only person who is thankful for this cancellation?
not the only one - i'm thankful as well. The scheme should never have been given the go-ahead in the first place. The original investigation into rail links said the EDI link would be profitable and would pay itself off eventually (assuming it was done to budget, which never happens). The GLA scheme on the other hand was never expected to be profitable and would require subsidies to keep running. It only got the go-ahead because EDI was getting one, and Glasgow politicians would complain if they didnt get one too.
Quoting Richierich (Reply 14): But I do have to say, the last time I was in Scotland, the whole rail link to PIK was a mess for a tourist like me staying near, say, Edinburgh. The two train stations in Glasgow (Glasgow Central and Glasgow Queen Street) are not convenient for connecting with baggage and one has to allow for a lot of extra time.
The Glasgow link would have been the same, and that was part of the reason it was never expected to be profitable. The Edinburgh scheme on the other hand would have connected Newcastle, Aberdeen and Glasgow to the airport.
Quoting Gordonsmall (Reply 18): In terms of ROI there is no justifiable case for any further rail connections to airports in Scotland.
If the EDI scheme can be done on budget, then it would provide a decent ROI. Glasgow was never expected to.
Quoting Acelanzarote (Reply 5): and helped Glasgow poss get some new flights
when's the last time an airline decided not to serve a destination because they didnt have a rail link? I dont think the scheme would have attracted any new flights.
Sponsor Message: 
From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 461 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 24894 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4022 posts, 
From Spain, joined Nov 2005, 782 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Sep 2000, 1982 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jul 2007, 734 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
