Edinburgh Tram System

90019 · 4 Nov 2010

158>185 said:
Also, on a trip along Princes Street today, I noticed the lines really are shocking; the tar thats been poured into the crevice between the road and the rail is all over the place, the road surface is crumbling where it meets the rails.

A lot of the tar was added afterwards, because they hadn't put enough in, so the rails were separating from the road surface.
The section at the bottom of the mound has already had to be repared once because it was in such a bad state.
Not sure if they've repaired the end by Waverley Bridge, which had huge holes where the tram lines had started to sink under the weight of all the traffic passing over them.

RailUK Forums

WatcherZero · 4 Nov 2010

Council cant raise council tax, the governments forced a 3 year freeze on council rates which the Scottish government supports.

starrymarkb · 4 Nov 2010

Didn't Manchester do a large program of utility work before Metrolink construction with the renewals making provision for the tram.

Nightrider · 3 May 2011

Any more updates on the Edinburgh trams?

WatcherZero · 3 May 2011

Tie have dropped their dispute of £100m of invoices from the construction consortium. This is probably because almost all claims they refered to the independent evaluator were ruled in favour of BAM. This means the Council has to choose one of three options when it meets on 26th May.

A. Call it quits and write the whole thing off
B. Open as far as Haymarket with the money left in the kitty, however its not thought that a service this short would be financially sustainable. This would use 7 trams.
C. Try and find £100m more from somewhere else to complete the Cross city link and have a sustainable service. This would require 17 trams.

Aictos · 3 May 2011

Will any part of the route be open and in service by December 2011?

90019 · 3 May 2011

ajax103 said:
Will any part of the route be open and in service by December 2011?

I doubt it.

WatcherZero · 3 May 2011

Some track may be finished by 2012 but at the current rate there wont be any services/full services until 2013/14.

Blindtraveler · 3 May 2011

As a resident of edinburgh I hope its scrapped! How reliable is that gen Re council decision on 26th may? Wanna get campaigning! I ask as this is news to us here as local media only broadcast what the powers that bee want and naturally anything that involves cutting there losses and stopping it aint mentioned to us, the people who dont want them and never have!

Aictos · 3 May 2011

WatcherZero said:
Some track may be finished by 2012 but at the current rate there wont be any services/full services until 2013/14.

I'm starting to think it will be like the Cambridge Misguided Busway with no end in sight for completion, it's easier to see the Central Belt being wired up with OHL then seeing trams in Princess Street.

Eng274 · 3 May 2011

The Borders Railway is scheduled for completion and will be up-and-running in 2014.

At the moment all the ancillary utility works are being completed, before a contractor to plan/build the line itself is sought. This will involve 35 miles of tracklaying; how can Edinburgh Council or its subcontractors or whoever the arbiter deems at fault, have cocked up 16 miles of light rail so much that a heavy rail project will overtake it in terms of progress?

PS this project was estimated as costing around £295m (against the trams £500m and rising) and will provide a vital new lifeline to the Borders region. This really makes the tram project look like a complete circus!

WatcherZero · 3 May 2011

Its a damn site easier to lay track on a former rail bed than through busy city streets.

90019 · 3 May 2011

Blindtraveler said:
As a resident of edinburgh I hope its scrapped! How reliable is that gen Re council decision on 26th may? Wanna get campaigning! I ask as this is news to us here as local media only broadcast what the powers that bee want and naturally anything that involves cutting there losses and stopping it aint mentioned to us, the people who dont want them and never have!

What worries me is that they don't seem to be able to accept that they've made a mistake, and they may plough on regardless of how badly it's going. After all, nothing that's happened so far has been enough to stop them.

I really hope they do cancel them now before they can waste any more money on them. Though I wonder what would happen to the tracks that are already in place - left as a warning to anyone planning something similar in future perhaps.

WestCoast · 3 May 2011

90019 said:
left as a warning to anyone planning something similar in future perhaps.

Other cities have managed to build successful light rail networks with far less hullabaloo! Just because the TIE are incompetent doesn't mean other projects are as well...

The whole scheme is quite depressing, but I still believe trams are a far transport solution than buses, judging from cities in Continental Europe where trams are virtually the norm.

Tom B · 3 May 2011

90019 said:
What worries me is that they don't seem to be able to accept that they've made a mistake, and they may plough on regardless of how badly it's going. After all, nothing that's happened so far has been enough to stop them.

I really hope they do cancel them now before they can waste any more money on them. Though I wonder what would happen to the tracks that are already in place - left as a warning to anyone planning something similar in future perhaps.

Exactly.

It is vital that the Council and the Government hold firm and do not hand a penny more to these incompetent buffoons. They've caused widespread disruption to the citizens of Edinburgh, caused serious issues for Lothian Buses, lined their pockets with cash and failed to deliver a thing.

90019 · 3 May 2011

WestCoast said:
Other cities have managed to build successful light rail networks with far less hullabaloo! Just because the TIE are incompetent doesn't mean other projects are as well...

I meant any future attempts in Edinburgh

WestCoast said:
The whole scheme is quite depressing, but I still believe trams are a far transport solution than buses, judging from cities in Continental Europe where trams are virtually the norm.

Being a better solution in some places doesn't mean they are everywhere, and Edinburgh is a case where they're not.
The whole thing so far has just been a farce, and I don't see it improving anytime soon. The estimated completion date is already years behind schedule and I've lost track of how far over budget they are now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Tom B said:
They've caused widespread disruption to the citizens of Edinburgh, caused serious issues for Lothian Buses, lined their pockets with cash and failed to deliver a thing.

I wonder how much they could've improved the flow through and around the city and improved the buses with all the money they've wasted so far.

WestCoast · 3 May 2011

90019 said:
Being a better solution in some places doesn't mean they are everywhere, and Edinburgh is a case where they're not.
The whole thing so far has just been a farce, and I don't see it improving anytime soon. The estimated completion date is already years behind schedule and I've lost track of how far over budget they are now.

Yes, fair enough. Although, had the tram works been going well, then opinions may have differed. Edinburgh does have an pretty good bus system (although it was better before the tram works

). In this case, I reckon they shouldn't have bothered with the trams and gone ahead with the airport rail link instead!

YorkshireBear · 3 May 2011

im confused by who is actually at fault? Surely if its been started it should be finished, tram systems once completed are a fantastic asset to a city, certainly are in sheffield

WatcherZero · 3 May 2011

jimmyowl1992 said:
im confused by who is actually at fault? Surely if its been started it should be finished, tram systems once completed are a fantastic asset to a city, certainly are in sheffield

The council owned scheme developer tie vastly under estimated the amount of utilities that would need to be redirected, groundworks, sites of historical interest, etc...

Since they provided the estimated works in the contract tendering they are at fault when the works the winning contractor bid on turned out to be vastly higher than they were led to believe. Its the opposite of the Cambridge Busway scheme where the contractor tried to get away with doing less work than the contract specified (e.g. drainage, ground foundation reinforcement) convincing the council they were not required when it turned out that they were and the work had to be done again.

Thats why in Cambridge almost all the extra costs are being borne by the contractor whereas in Edinburgh the costs are being ruled to be the Councils by independent arbitration.

djw1981 · 3 May 2011

ajax103 said:
I'm starting to think it will be like the Cambridge Misguided Busway with no end in sight for completion, it's easier to see the Central Belt being wired up with OHL then seeing trams in Princess Street.

Edin-Glas via Falkirk, and diversions via Falkirk G'ston, and Cumbernauld wired by middle of decade, and Stirling not long after; along with Whifflet, East Kilbride and Paisley Canal IIRC. The leaves really only the Shotts route and Anniesland needing infill electrification.

Tom B · 3 May 2011

jimmyowl1992 said:
im confused by who is actually at fault? Surely if its been started it should be finished, tram systems once completed are a fantastic asset to a city, certainly are in sheffield

Remember that Sheffield has a dysfunctional privatised bus system; Edinburgh has an efficient publicly run one.

WestCoast · 3 May 2011

Tom B said:
Remember that Sheffield has a dysfunctional privatised bus system; Edinburgh has an efficient publicly run one.

It's quite a rarity outside of London! In my opinion, Manchester has one of the worst, it feels like there is about a million companies who offer virtually no integration leading to high fares and poor service on the many routes without competition.

Blindtraveler · 3 May 2011

if they dont stop i'm moving. Cuts, jobs and people i know have been affected all for a tourist attraction.

90019 · 3 May 2011

Blindtraveler said:
Cuts, jobs and people i know have been affected all for a tourist attraction.

I wouldn't say it's even a tourist attraction.

Eng274 · 3 May 2011

Not content with a piece of 18th century horrendously under-budgeted piece of masonry at the top of a hill, Embra Cooncil want their own 21st century national disgrace to take the form of a horrendously under-budgeted sheds on wheels. At least the acropolis of the north doesn't need staff or lecky to draw the tourists.

Tom B · 3 May 2011

I did love the way that the tram had to be removed from Princes Street as it didn't have planning permission and was considered a static building!

tbtc · 3 May 2011

WestCoast said:
Other cities have managed to build successful light rail networks with far less hullabaloo! Just because the TIE are incompetent doesn't mean other projects are as well...

The whole scheme is quite depressing, but I still believe trams are a far transport solution than buses, judging from cities in Continental Europe where trams are virtually the norm.

I agree with you.

If they'd built it sensibly then it could be up and running from the Airport to Edinburgh Park (via the Gyle) in a short time (allowing them to get used to the trams, iron out any teething problems (e.g. Sheffield took a while to resolve ticketing issues when our trams opened). You link the Airport to the Scotrail train station via the shopping centre.

Then, when stage one beds in, you get on with building to Haymarket. Get the link to (the outskirts of) the city centre, linked to a big train station. All this time, you are training more drivers, getting more trams into service, earning a few quid in revenue.

Then, whilst the Haymarket section is running (and further shortcomings are tackled) you extend the tram through the city centre.

Then, and only then do you start buggering up Leith Walk!

The "lets try and build everything all at once" approach has failed (as can be seen from the need to rebuild the track on Princes Street)

DaveNewcastle · 3 May 2011

90019 said:
I meant any future attempts in Edinburgh

Being a better solution in some places doesn't mean they are everywhere, and Edinburgh is a case where they're not.

I hesitate to agree.
I'm possibly the only poster on here to have travelled through Edinburgh extensively by tram (the old ones!); meanwhile the world has moved on dramatically since then, but surprisingly, much of Edin's road network and useage has not. There are aspects of the full tram proposals which I doubted, many which I felt confident would work - and I still do.

Blindtraveler said:
if they dont stop i'm moving. Cuts, jobs and people i know have been affected all for a tourist attraction.

But is it?
I received the promotional releases of 'Visit Scotland's TV ads recently, and had to reply that they ought to send a copy to Transport Scotland, because of how difficult it is to actually visit Scotland.
[No GARL, No EARL, No continuous dual carriageway on A1, loss of EC trains to Glasgow, lack of car Parking in Edin. etc.]. My reply was very sympathetic!

Blindtraveler · 3 May 2011

Garl, not needed, same with erl. Can do nothing but agree on a1 and ec trains to glasgow. The 2 air rail links were in theory good ideas but in practice theres decent bus services to both and i'm of the opinion the money was needed elsewhere.

Car parking in edinburgh could most probably be solved by a few more out of town multi story jobs on existing park and ride sites and the scrapping of much of the mitred and zoned street parking which reading between the lines was put in place to fund trams anyway! My opinions here only

WestCoast · 3 May 2011

tbtc said:
I agree with you.

If they'd built it sensibly then it could be up and running from the Airport to Edinburgh Park (via the Gyle) in a short time (allowing them to get used to the trams, iron out any teething problems (e.g. Sheffield took a while to resolve ticketing issues when our trams opened). You link the Airport to the Scotrail train station via the shopping centre.

That would be a much more sensible option, but of course common sense is always left out of the planning!

Was there similar levels of project disapproval in Sheffield? I have read stories of angry local traders and disruption, and of course about the infamous ticketing issues (although I heard a rumour that Nottingham is getting rid of conductors?).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Blindtraveler said:
Garl, not needed, same with erl. Can do nothing but agree on a1 and ec trains to glasgow. The 2 air rail links were in theory good ideas but in practice theres decent bus services to both and i'm of the opinion the money was needed elsewhere.

Direct rail services to the airport would be a great benefit though? Especially with the numbers of tourists travelling between the city and the airport! A decent bus service is fine, but a rail link is far better option IMO.

Edinburgh Tram System

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member