• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Edinburgh Tram developments

overthewater

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2012
Messages
8,180
Would the extra cost, be covered by the extra passengers? No one in there right mind would asked for a loan for a project which was so over budget and have alot of public angry. The public might be a bit happier now but if you asked them shall it be extended I bet 99% would use some rather strong words. Add in the fact , I doubt anyone in Leith will wont to put up with another couple of months or years of building works again.

Unless someone comes along and say here is a 5% loan over 15 years to build the extension, and the work on Leith walk can be done within months, then were stuck like this until 2020.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Well back to the crowding issue, they are only using half the fleet so could increase frequency. The trams are also in a low density configuration because of the airport runs so more seat/standing could be fit in by sacrificing luggage space.
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,826
Location
Featherstone, West Yorkshire
I don't like the trams, I think that is probably clear.
However, they are now here, and the only way they are going to be at all successful is to be extended down to Leith.
My problem with this is that I don't think it should be done in the next few years, as parts of Leith still haven't recovered from the last load of works, and I don't want the foot of Leith walk to go the same way as Shandwick Place with all the little shops being replaced by mostly supermarkets.


As an aside, I finally got round to going on a tram recently; from York Place to the airport and back in the middle of the afternoon on a saturday.
I went on with low expectations, and was underwhelmed, to be totally honest.
The street running sections are painfully slow, which I find remarkable considering the amount of disruption they cause to traffic flow by bering given ultimate priority at every junction. York Place to Princes Street in 7 minutes is pathetic, and works out at an average of just over 5mph.
Once you're past Haymarket, the main thing that struck me was how choppy the ride is. For a brand new system running with effectively new trams on new track, I'd have expected it to be pretty smooth, but it wasn't. Maybe the tracks were done by the same people that do the roads in Edinburgh and that's what they think smooth is. <D
Inside, it was a bit on the sweaty side. It was a sunny day, but not the warmest recently, and I found myself sticking to the seats because of the humidity. All of the six windows were open, but it made little real difference. I think I'll be giving them a miss when it gets properly warm in the next few months.
As expected, the tram was fairly well used, and almost busy from Shandwick Place outwards, with most seats taken and a handful of people standing.

All in all, not bad, but not great either.

My main criticisms are the slow speed, the choppy ride (especially around Balgreen) and the trams themselves, both inside and out. They're just so dull.
Yes, they've given them a slightly swoopy livery and front end, but they're still just big white blobs of bland trundling around looking boring, and it gets worse on the inside, where's it's a veritable sea of drab colours. The most interesting thing is the blue lino on the floor. The walls are beige, the seat backs are light grey, and the handrails are white. Even the navy blue on the seats is a bit dull. Nothing about the interior makes me want to go back and travel on them again, because it's just so boring and uninspiring. It feels like they were designed by a committee. The opportunity was there to do something interesting; they were ordering bespoke trams and could have done pretty much whatever they liked with the interiors, but they didn't. :|
 
Last edited:

ModernRailways

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2011
Messages
2,050
The slowness hit me when I travelled on them. Manchester trams seem to fly along in comparison. It was very much a stop start or at least seemed to be like that, and it wasn't even down to their being frequent tram stops it was just traffic lights and junctions and a generally slow speed.
 

overthewater

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2012
Messages
8,180
The amount of times I see trams sitting at the west end or Haymarket going now where because of the traffic ahead is a joke. Its not well designed and should have never been built. The amount of mis-management over the last 15 years is disgusting.
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
20,413
Location
0035
The slowness hit me when I travelled on them. Manchester trams seem to fly along in comparison. It was very much a stop start or at least seemed to be like that, and it wasn't even down to their being frequent tram stops it was just traffic lights and junctions and a generally slow speed.
Really? I find the Manchester Tramway to be painfully slow; the segregated sections of the Bury and Altrincham lines excepted. The number of random sharp corners compared with unexplained slow-running on straight pieces of track doesn't help. The Eccles line in particular is painful.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,399
Location
Bolton
Really? I find the Manchester Tramway to be painfully slow; the segregated sections of the Bury and Altrincham lines excepted. The number of random sharp corners compared with unexplained slow-running on straight pieces of track doesn't help. The Eccles line in particular is painful.

The Eccles line is hideous. But Trafford Bar - East Didsbury and Victoria - Newbold (Oldham Town Centre section excluded) are the same as the sections you mention now. I suspect you just went on them while it was 'bedding-in'.
 

WestCoast

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,588
Location
Glasgow
I've noticed most UK tramways are relatively slow on sections which aren't segregated, I've been on them all and I think Sheffield is maybe the one that feels the fastest. In comparison, in Amsterdam in particular the trams seem to fly about and anyone in their way will need to move sharpish!
 

overthewater

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2012
Messages
8,180
The Edinburgh Trams should have went down the middle of George street but of course the parking spaces needed to be kept. This alone would have helped speed up the service while causing last traffic chaos.
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,387
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
I like this observation:
. . . . Maybe the tracks were done by the same people that do the roads in Edinburgh and that's what they think smooth is. <D
I haven't travelled on an Edinburgh tram yet, but I do recognise the reference to the characteristically erratic vertical properties of the Capital's roads.
 

ninja-lewis

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2012
Messages
68
15 years sounds to me like a very good packback period for a significant infrastructure investment...
Unfortunately, it's not the payback period for the tram project.

There is a 15 year agreement in place with TfE hence there a business case was prepared in August 2013 with a 15 year forecast for TramCo and Lothian Buses. This is the only publicly available business plan for the project but it is out of date as it assumed that Ingliston P&R would attract a premium fare as well as the airport. TfE and CEC have been very careful to say that TramCo is ahead of target when it comes to revenue but we do not know if that target is now lower since we do not know what the revenue figure is.

Per the 15 year forecast (all figures cumulative):
Tram Revenue - £228m
Tram Operating Costs - (£185m)
Operating Surplus - £42m
Infrastructure Access Fee (to CEC) - £39.625m
TramCo Dividend - £2.331m

Altogether CEC receive £72.419m from TramCo over 15 years.

However, CEC is responsible for key areas of maintenance, namely:
Tram Maintenance - £24.595m
Tram Conservation Maintenance - £4.597m
Infrastructure Maintenance - £52.527m
Tram and infrastructure refurbishment - £36.411m
Total cost to CEC - £118.131m

In other words operating the tram will cost CEC £45.712m over 15 years. CEC is intending to cover this deficit through the £45.045m dividend expected from Lothian Buses over the same period.

This is presented by CEC as breaking even over 15 years from a TfE perspective. In reality, the diversion of the LB dividend in this matter represents a sizeable cut to CEC finances.

That's still not the full picture however.

When the project went overbudget, developer contributions dried up and no further funding was forthcoming from the Scottish Government, CEC took out a £231m 25 year loan to partially complete the line to St Andrew Square. This is incurring interest of £5.8m per year at the current low interest rates so about £87m over 15 years (assuming interest rates remain low).

Altogether the project represents a deficit to CEC of £132m or £8.8m a year compared to CEC's pre-tram finances.

Which brings back to the Payback Period, which measures how long it takes for the cumulative positive cashflows (income) of a cumulative project to equal the negative cashflows (operating costs + finance costs + initial capital expenditure), ignoring the time value of money.

Far from paying back the £775m cost of the line to SAS in 15 years, the project will have an even deeper hole of nearly £900m to repay.

The quoted £80m to complete the line to Newhaven is now several years out of date and is unlikely to offer a reliable indicator of the costs to complete (the utilities diversions were never completed in Leith). Furthermore, a key part of the business case was serving new housing at the Waterfront. Following the financial crisis, Forth Ports have scaled down the housing plans in favour of increased light commercial developments.
 

reb0118

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
28 Jan 2010
Messages
3,217
Location
Bo'ness, West Lothian
.....should have went....

Oh dear. Going, going,....gone!


....... down the middle of George street.....

I take your point but George Street, to me anyway, is much more architecturally pleasing than Princes Street and should be left alone. I wonder if the council have plans to increase the pedestrian zone on George Street.
 
Last edited:

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,826
Location
Featherstone, West Yorkshire
I take your point but George Street, to me anyway, is much more architecturally pleasing than Princes Street and should be left alone. I wonder if the council have plans to increase the pedestrian zone on George Street.

Well, from what I've been hearing, the trial has been a failure, so I wouldn't be too surprised to see it extended.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The Edinburgh Trams should have went down the middle of George street but of course the parking spaces needed to be kept. This alone would have helped speed up the service while causing last traffic chaos.

No it wouldn't.
It'd still cause as much traffic through most of the city centre, it would just offset it by one block. It would also likely make the West End worse, as there would be the need for a more complex junction, and you'd have more tight corners to negotiate around Charlotte Square and St. Andrew Square.
 

overthewater

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2012
Messages
8,180
STV news are reporting it would only cost £145M to extend the line down to Newheavn.

Thats pretty cheap compared to what was suggested, My biggest concern would be that roundabout outside the playhouse and John Lewis.

http://news.stv.tv/east-central/132...take-system-to-original-destination-newhaven/


Edinburgh City Council would have to find an extra £145m to extend the tram line to the original extended destination of Newhaven, a report reveals.

Taking the tram to Newhaven would almost double the number of projected passengers, with an extra 8.7 million using the system on top of the existing route.

In spring, council official were asked to look at the costs and impact of four potential extensions for the project, which currently runs from the airport to York Place.

They looked at taking the line to MacDonald Road, the foot of Leith Walk, Ocean Terminal and Newhaven.

ADVERTISEMENT

A report published on Friday shows the capital cost of extending the trams to Newhaven would be £144.7m, £126.6m to Ocean Terminal, £78.7m to the bottom of Leith Walk and £47.3m to MacDonald Road.

It also looks at how many extra passengers would use the system. Project figures estimate ten million journeys will be made on the existing route in 2027.

They estimate Newhaven would bring an additional 8.7 million trips, Ocean Terminal 7.7 million, bottom of Leith Walk 3.5 million and MacDonald Road just 700,000.

The report will be presented to councillors next week and officials have until the autumn to carry out further consultation before a decision is made.

As well as approaching potential contractors to see if they agree with the figures, officials would look at where the money will come from.

So far, extending the route to MacDonald Road is the only option which has been effectively ruled out as there is no business case to support the short extension.

Transport convener Lesley Hinds said the tram project was always about regenerating certain parts of the city.

She said: "The whole principle of the tram was the growth of the city, particularly Leith and the Granton area of the city.

"I am extremely pleased with the progress of the business case, which already shows the clear economic impact the extension of the tram line could have on the city.

"We don’t want to make any rash decisions about the future of the project, and that’s why further due diligence is required to ensure a robust financial case that can be used as a basis for an informed judgement. We will also be exploring all avenues for funding, and considering a series of new and innovative options with a view to delivering best value."

The initial tram project was beset with problems, finally opening after six years of construction and £231m over the initial budget.

It saw work stop for over a year during a dispute between the council and contractors and was cut back from the intended destination of Newhaven to the city centre.

Councillors are anxious to make sure the same mistakes are not made again.

Ms Hinds said: "It is essential that we learn from our past mistakes and I am confident that this process will deliver thoroughly researches, strategic options for a tram extension."

Council leader Andrew Burns said they want to make sure mistakes of the past are not repeated.

He said: "We are just being really, really careful here we don’t want to have any repetition of the mistakes of the past.

"We want to make sure before we press the construction button that we want to make sure we have had the best advice possible. The residents of Edinburgh would expect that given the history of the project."
 
Last edited:

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Generally between a third and half the cost of a tram extension is the vehicles to operate it (£2-3m each), since they have a load lying around unused it automatically makes an extension look a load cheaper.
 
Last edited:

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,224
STV news are reporting it would only cost £145M to extend the line down to Newheavn.

Thats pretty cheap compared to what was suggested, My biggest concern would be that roundabout outside the playhouse and John Lewis.

http://news.stv.tv/east-central/132...take-system-to-original-destination-newhaven/

Excellent news.

The Picardy Place area - the roundabout outside the Playhouse and John Lewis - is going to be massive reconfigured regardless of whatever else is done with the tram. With the massive increase in land value when the new St James Centre development opens, the idea of having a grass-surrounded roundabout next door is absurd. Instead, the road will become a sort of triangular gyratory taking up basically all the space available, then leaving a triangle in the centre for another new hotel building. The original tram scheme involved rebuilding the roads this way but without building the new hotel; the St James developers want that hotel so they would reconfigure the roads anyway. Even without any other tram funding being available, they would pay for the York Place tram stop to be moved to the northern edge of the inside of the internal triangle.
 

overthewater

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2012
Messages
8,180
Where can you view these plans?

I get the feeling it will only go to Ocean Terminal, as going to Newhaven is not cost effective since you need an extra £20 million, to gain 1 million passengers. Yet extending from Bottom of leith walk to OT, costs £50 million, getting 4 million passengers. That x2.5 as much cost for the extra passengers? Unless of course Newhaven still getting more flats.
 
Last edited:

Kite159

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
19,287
Location
West of Andover
Generally between a third and half the cost of a tram extension is the vehicles to operate it (£2-3m each), since they have a load lying around unused it automatically makes an extension look a load cheaper.

And don't they have a lot of spare materials lying around somewhere which was ordered before the extension was axed?
 

me123

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2007
Messages
8,510
As I've said before, extending the trams down to Leith and Newhaven will be a worthwhile project. The route down to Leith would be popular and would replace lots of buses from the road. It would be a viable route. The fact that it makes use of the trams already sitting idle surely also helps matters.

Certainly, there's also plenty of other routes that would benefit from trams. Certainly, the proposed Line 3 down to RIE and Musselburgh would also be a beneficial route that would improve capacity down a busy bus corridor.

However, the fiasco of the original project has turned the Scottish public against trams for the foreseeable future. Any future project would definitely need to be managed very carefully to reinstate public faith in large scale public transport projects.
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,224
Where can you view these plans?

I get the feeling it will only go to Ocean Terminal, as going to Newhaven is not cost effective since you need an extra £20 million, to gain 1 million passengers. Yet extending from Bottom of leith walk to OT, costs £50 million, getting 4 million passengers. That x2.5 as much cost for the extra passengers? Unless of course Newhaven still getting more flats.

Ocean Terminal is the first place where it would be feasible to turn back more trams than are currently able to run, but Newhaven would still be better. One of the reasons why the MacDonald Road option has been discounted already is that it doesn't have particularly good economies of scale - what's the point mobilising a contractor and team to do only a tiny little amount of work? If that's the case, then it may actually cost more to split the completion works into separate phases than it would to do the whole lot at once. Building only Ocean Terminal to Newhaven would then cost too much on its own, so it would have to be combined into some other tram works. I do hope they go for the full option so that they can get on to the other line components rather than dithering about the part of the route with the most solid business case.
 

kylemore

Member
Joined
28 Aug 2010
Messages
1,046
This is the only way a Silk Purse will be made out of this Sow's Ear!

As for Public Perception I used to think that would be a problem as well, but from what I've seen recently that can be easily managed by "Them".
 
Last edited:

overthewater

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2012
Messages
8,180
As long as the tram can be paid off quickly and doesn't interfere with the buses, most of the public will be happy. Hopeful the trams can free up buses for other routes.
 

me123

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2007
Messages
8,510
Another 15 years before its paid for its self? There is no chance of it extending down to Leith before that point then.

The cost of the extension to Leith is, relatively speaking, quite cheap in comparison to the significant number of extra journeys that it would generate. I think there's a reasonable chance of it happening.
 

ninja-lewis

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2012
Messages
68
The cost of the extension to Leith is, relatively speaking, quite cheap in comparison to the significant number of extra journeys that it would generate. I think there's a reasonable chance of it happening.
For the avoidance of any further confusion, the existing line does not have a payback period of 15 years. Instead it is forecast to just about break-even over that period (providing we ignore significant maintenance costs picked up by the council, the interest on the council loan, and the opportunity cost of using the Lothian Buses dividend to prop up TramCo).

Realistically the tram will never payback the capital expenditure, extended or not.
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,224
For the avoidance of any further confusion, the existing line does not have a payback period of 15 years. Instead it is forecast to just about break-even over that period (providing we ignore significant maintenance costs picked up by the council, the interest on the council loan, and the opportunity cost of using the Lothian Buses dividend to prop up TramCo).

Realistically the tram will never payback the capital expenditure, extended or not.

Once the tram pays back its day-to-day running costs it's not as important to pay back the initial capital cost, since inflation and general economic growth will fade it into nothing. If that weren't the case, then we would have very little public transport infrastructure whatsoever.
 

Ken Hunter

Member
Joined
4 Jan 2015
Messages
9
Location
Edinburgh
Edinburgh City council wants more Government cash. The Government has in the past said no. They should stick to their guns.
 

92002

Member
Joined
27 Mar 2014
Messages
1,134
Location
Clydebank
Edinburgh City council wants more Government cash. The Government has in the past said no. They should stick to their guns.

The original Scottish Government funding was for the complete system.

So why should the Council get more.
 

34D

Established Member
Joined
9 Feb 2011
Messages
6,042
Location
Yorkshire
Generally between a third and half the cost of a tram extension is the vehicles to operate it (£2-3m each), since they have a load lying around unused it automatically makes an extension look a load cheaper.

Out of interest, are all vehicles used presently, or are some parked up unservicable?
 

Top