Edinburgh Tram System

[tbtc]

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

Sheffield made a few mistakes, though (to be fair) the Manchester system was only opened once Sheffield was being built, so we didn't have anything to "learn" from

Hillsborough was a mess of roadworks for a long time, despite the trams not opening for a long time, a bit like Leith. Local shops were up in arms about things, a lot of independent places closed...

The other big problem in Sheffield was the lack of bus integration, meaning a long period of competition between tram and bus (rectified since Stagecoach run both modes of transport now). At least Edinburgh wouldn't have this problem, so should be more similar to Nottingham (where local buses are designed to compliment the tram, not compete directly against).

I honestly think that if/when the Edinburgh system is up and running it'll work fine, it'd become the default way to get to the places it serves, it'd link in with the trains and buses, it'd be a success. BUT, will it ever get that far?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.
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!

The lack of ECML train services only really affects London though (and Peterborough on some trips), since XC are replacing them on a "train for train" basis. Plus, the loadings on East Coast services into Glasgow are hardly over double figures for a nine coach train.

The A1 is an issue (having been up it last week), though this is as much of an English problem (Morpeth - Berwick), can't argue there.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I honestly think that if/when the Edinburgh system is up and running it'll work fine, it'd become the default way to get to the places it serves, it'd link in with the trains and buses, it'd be a success.

I tend to agree, the difficulty with these opinions is the Point of View. Edinburgh folks think that they can manage with busses, but the thousands of visitors have perceptions with very different perspectives. High spending, short term, visitors by air excpect (and deserve?) rapid, simple and forgettable point-to-point travel.

The A1 is an issue (having been up it last week), though this is as much of an English problem (Morpeth - Berwick), can't argue there.

Last week, eh? Some people have to do it 10 times a week - every week.
Traffic on the A1 is frequently stationary in summer months. Very frequently.
But the problem is NOT "an English problem" because, as most English people fail to grasp, there is no English Governement and hasn't been for 300 years. The Scots won't dual the A1 through Northumberland because its not in Scotland, and the English won't dual it because they don't have the authority.

 

[tbtc]

Last week, eh? Some people have to do it 10 times a week - every week.
Its frequently stationary in summer months.
But the problem is NOT "an English problem" because, as most English people fail to grasp, there is no English Governement and hasn't been for 300 years. The Scots won't dual the A1 through Northumberland because its not in Scotland, and the English won't dual it because they don't have the authority.

The point I was making was that there is as much single carriageway on the English side of the border nowadays.

I'm old enough to remember the Mussleburgh by-pass being built. Then extended to the far side of Tranent. Then Haddington. Then Dunbar.

However, with the exception of the Berwick by-pass (which isn't proper dual carriageway) I can't think of a lot of improvements on the English side north of Morpeth.

There is clearly the ability to build/improve roads in England (witness the upgrade of the A1 to Motorway standard in North Yorkshire and similar upgrades of the A1 further south, removing roundabouts between Peterborough/Doncaster), but not the political will to upgrade the section north of Morpeth.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . but not the political will to upgrade the section north of Morpeth.

Absolutely correct!
(Most of the stationary summer traffic is between Morpth and Berwick).
There is no government capable of considering it to be 'their' problem!

 

[Tom B]

I tend to agree, the difficulty with these opinions is the Point of View. Edinburgh folks think that they can manage with busses, but the thousands of visitors have perceptions with very different perspectives. High spending, short term, visitors by air excpect (and deserve?) rapid, simple and forgettable point-to-point travel.

Hmm. Airlink? A rapid Express to the city centre?

 

[WestCoast]

Hmm. Airlink? A rapid Express to the city centre?

Whatever way its dressed up, it's still a bus. It may well be limited stop but it's still subject to the traffic conditions along Corstophine Road.

It's adequate and does the job, but it's not what other "world class tourist destinations" have.

 

[Eng274]

Whatever way its dressed up, it's still a bus. It may well be limited stop but it's still subject to the traffic conditions along Corstophine Road.

It's adequate and does the job, but it's not what other "world class tourist destinations" have.

A rail link would shave about 15 mins off the expected 30min journey time, and would be a more reliable 15 minute journey time due to no traffic etc. But a service linking the intermediary points (e.g. Murrayfield, Maybury) for hotels say every 20-30 mins would still be needed.

As for the 'world class' fantasy, it's the council's "other world-class cities have trams and we don't" argument that got the city into this mire in the first place; its clear trams aren't adequate for Edinburgh, and while a rail link would be beneficial, a bus service, minor or major, will always be needed.

 

[Blindtraveler]

and the points that are all being made here are all related to tourists. They've managed for years and what nobody gets is the fact the tram would take an indirect route and wouldnt even stop outside the terminal.

Rail link supporters should also ask themselves if it had gone ahead, where are the platforms at haymarket and waverley coming from? The money thats been wasted on this could have been used to replaced every bus in Lothians fleat, or rebuilt haymarket, or repair our amazing collection of potwholes, or refurbish the haymarket based 158s, or.... The list is endless

 

[90019]

Rail link supporters should also ask themselves if it had gone ahead, where are the platforms at haymarket and waverley coming from? The money thats been wasted on this could have been used to replaced every bus in Lothians fleat, or rebuilt haymarket, or repair our amazing collection of potwholes, or refurbish the haymarket based 158s, or.... The list is endless

IIRC, in theory, the whole of Lothian's fleet could have been replaced and the service run for free for something like 7 years for the money spent on the trams.

Haymarket has platform 0, which could in theory be used for an airport link. Alternatively, I've wondered if the North Berwick services could be extended to serve an airport link.

 

[Eng274]

and the points that are all being made here are all related to tourists. They've managed for years and what nobody gets is the fact the tram would take an indirect route and wouldnt even stop outside the terminal.

Rail link supporters should also ask themselves if it had gone ahead, where are the platforms at haymarket and waverley coming from? The money thats been wasted on this could have been used to replaced every bus in Lothians fleat, or rebuilt haymarket, or repair our amazing collection of potwholes, or refurbish the haymarket based 158s, or.... The list is endless

Depending on which line the rail link diverges from, the proposal would have saw it being possibly merged into Fife services or the Bathgate/Dunblane services I believe, so it would not require any extra capacity at any stations, just a timetable re-jig.

There was also the issue with whether the new rail terminus would be underground or not; underground would mean it could be placed underneath current buildings and right at the terminal building, but would be more costly to build and would require electrification and electric trains to serve it, since diesels in underground stations aren't allowed(?)

The tram would stop at a terminus that is just beyond the current private hire taxi pick up point (no more than 2 minutes walk to the terminal entrance!) much as I hate the idea of the trams, i wish this urban myth that the trams 'wont even go to the airport' would disappear!

 

[WatcherZero]

and the points that are all being made here are all related to tourists. They've managed for years and what nobody gets is the fact the tram would take an indirect route and wouldnt even stop outside the terminal.

Rail link supporters should also ask themselves if it had gone ahead, where are the platforms at haymarket and waverley coming from? The money thats been wasted on this could have been used to replaced every bus in Lothians fleat, or rebuilt haymarket, or repair our amazing collection of potwholes, or refurbish the haymarket based 158s, or.... The list is endless

Arent they removing the bus TVM's because the local dont like them, even though their primarily there for tourists?

 

[90019]

Arent they removing the bus TVM's because the local dont like them, even though their primarily there for tourists?

I've not seen many people using them, so I wouldn't be too surprised if they are.

 

[tbtc]

and the points that are all being made here are all related to tourists. They've managed for years and what nobody gets is the fact the tram would take an indirect route and wouldnt even stop outside the terminal.

Rail link supporters should also ask themselves if it had gone ahead, where are the platforms at haymarket and waverley coming from?

I agree that there are no spare paths through Haymarket for a dedicated Airport train (and that if there were any additional paths then they should be used for existing busy routes). I have the same problem with dedicated Airport trains on the Glasgow Central - Paisley line.

However, 158>185 has picked up on the "trams won't even stop outside the airport" part, so I feel I ought to question your use of the "indirect route". Since the trams will run from the city centre/ Haymarket to the Airport, I'd call that a pretty "direct" route. As the crow flies it's not dead straight, but if this is the fastest way of getting a tram to the airport (compared to running a tram along the A8 though the traffic) then I think its the right one. Plus, there are a lot of direct train services between places which aren't exactly a straight line - but I'd never describe them as "indirect".

 

[Blindtraveler]

I've not seen many people using them, so I wouldn't be too surprised if they are.

the equipment was life expired and they didnt see it viable to renew it. They claim the trial was a success though.



--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree that there are no spare paths through Haymarket for a dedicated Airport train (and that if there were any additional paths then they should be used for existing busy routes). I have the same problem with dedicated Airport trains on the Glasgow Central - Paisley line.

However, 158>185 has picked up on the "trams won't even stop outside the airport" part, so I feel I ought to question your use of the "indirect route". Since the trams will run from the city centre/ Haymarket to the Airport, I'd call that a pretty "direct" route. As the crow flies it's not dead straight, but if this is the fastest way of getting a tram to the airport (compared to running a tram along the A8 though the traffic) then I think its the right one. Plus, there are a lot of direct train services between places which aren't exactly a straight line - but I'd never describe them as "indirect".

i should have been clearer - geographically it makes sense and I woant argue with that, but not convinced the running time wil be as good as expected if and when the system gets going. can see there being issues along the way but I'm happy to be proved wrong.

As to spare paths and airport rail links I can only agree with the above.

The whole tram idea lost any remaining credibilitty when the section from the city to Leith was put back indefinately. Scrapping or not wil be affected to an extent by the political situation, which as we know wil be different after tomorrow.

 

[Tom B]

Arent they removing the bus TVM's because the local dont like them, even though their primarily there for tourists?

I think they're removing them because they're a waste of time.

Buying a bus ticket at the machine requires the driver to check it, stamp it, hand it back - whereas buying a ticket on the bus requires the passenger to throw money in the chute and the driver to press a button.

 

[WatcherZero]

Point was they were installed so tourists could work out where they needed a ticket too and how much it would cost before they got on the bus rather than having a long conversation with the driver.

 

[Nightrider]

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.

Do you think the result in tomorrows Scottish election will play a part in deciding the outcome of the meeting on May 26th?

 

[Eng274]

Do you think the result in tomorrows Scottish election will play a part in deciding the outcome of the meeting on May 26th?

I doubt it, the trams are being managed (hmm) at council level, Transport Scotland and the Scottish Parliament are powerless/unwilling to do anything about it. The minority SNP govt tried to get rid of it but was voted down by the other parties.

I haven't read any MSP candidate literature which mentions the trams at all, it's a pity we have to wait a couple of years til the next council elections to hear what the parties think about the tram sham.

 

[matchmaker]

I doubt it, the trams are being managed (hmm) at council level, Transport Scotland and the Scottish Parliament are powerless/unwilling to do anything about it. The minority SNP govt tried to get rid of it but was voted down by the other parties.

It looks as if that might change........................

 

[Blindtraveler]

well now the race is run and won by the SNP lets see if a predominently nationalist bumch of edinburgh M S P's acts fast enough to put the breaks on it. I have hope!

 

[WatcherZero]

Tbh im not expecting extra funding forthcoming but now they have a majority I wouldnt be surprised if they 'see the light' and stop trying to kill it now it isnt useful as a political potato.

 

[90019]

Princes Street closes to buses for Edinburgh tram works

Edinburgh City Council has announced it is to close Princes Street from July until next spring to allow works on the tram line to be repaired.

But the council said it could not guarantee that trams would run along the Scottish capital's most famous street in the project's first phase.

The council said work had resumed in the areas around the tram depot at Gogar and at Haymarket.

It follows the completion of mediation over the controversial project.

The tram company Tie and the multinational consortium building the £545m line, Bilfinger Berger and Siemens (BBS), have been locked in a bitter dispute as costs rocketed and delays mounted.

The council's chief executive said it was still not known how much the project would finally cost, where it would run and when it would start to operate.

Moving forward

Officials said Princes Street, which is already closed to cars, would shut to buses from 3 July.

It will be reopened on Sunday 4 September for the fireworks display marking the end of the Edinburgh International Festival before closing again.

The street will also be opened over the Christmas and New Year Festive period between 26 November this year and 6 January 2012.

The remedial works are planned to end by April next year.

Edinburgh City Council held a briefing on tram works providing information on some of the outcomes of the mediation process ahead of reporting to a special meeting on Monday 16 May.

At the briefing, officials from the contractor and Edinburgh City Council leader Jenny Dawe apologised to the people of Edinburgh for the disruption.

The council said BBS had agreed that it would carry out a programme of remedial works to fully repair the road surface on Princes Street.

It said the contractors would be paying for the remedial work and not the taxpayer.

Other works on Princes Street will also be undertaken including erecting street lighting and remaining overhead line equipment poles and work around the tram stop.

Ms Dawe said it had been a "difficult" period but the tram project was now "moving forward".

She said: "We had hoped to avoid the scenario of a further traffic diversion from Princes Street but having listened to the advice from council officers and the infrastructure contractor I understand why this is necessary.

"We will work closely with the city's business community to ensure any impact is managed effectively before the diversion is put in place and during the period of works."

Vic Emery, chair of Tie, added: "It was vital that the momentum of the project was restored.

"All parties involved are in agreement that, through the mediation process, good progress has been made in identifying the key issues that lay at the heart of the dispute, and a measure of goodwill has been re-established."

What a surprise, they're having to repair the tracks again.

 

[tbtc]

What a surprise, they're having to repair the tracks again.

Nine months???

 

[Eng274]

aaaaaaarrrghhhhhh!!

That is my rag being lost. On a Lothian Bus..

Suppose this is a hefty sh*t sandwich in that:

remedial works are carried out at the consortium's expense
---------------------------------------------
Works will take NINE SODDING MONTHS
---------------------------------------------
Works include street lighting and OLE poles

This bit does disturb me though:

But the council said it could not guarantee that trams would run along the Scottish capital's most famous street in the project's first phase.

Why are they doing these works then, if no guarantee can be made that this is money well spent in the short term (I use that phrase loosely) of the tram project's grand plan. I.e. if the work on Princes Street will not be imperative to a reduced tram line running to Haymarket, why don't they wait until they DO know when trams will run along it!

The ground works on the road are much needed though, and I hope that the extra time will be fully utilised to do a proper job of it this time round.

I do not relish the 350-400 buses per hour being wedged onto George Street again though.

 

[VTFan1980]

Bring on the trams! Beats travelling by slow and rattling buses.

 

[90019]

Bring on the trams! Beats travelling by slow and rattling buses.

I'm assuming you don't live in Edinburgh then.

 

[Blindtraveler]

wel the bussds sure wil be slow again. I'm appaplectic whth rage, we've had too much!

 

[YorkshireBear]

wow, well sorry is all i can say.

Would you rather see it abandoned or completed properly?

not rethorical just a question.

 

[tbtc]

if the work on Princes Street will not be imperative to a reduced tram line running to Haymarket, why don't they wait until they DO know when trams will run along it!

Agreed.

At this rate, they'll have resurfaced each inch of Princes Street a dozen times before any tram runs from one end to the other...

 

[Bill EWS]

"At this rate, they'll have resurfaced each inch of Princes Street a dozen times before any tram runs from one end to the other... "

Well, isn't it better that they get the job completed as best as possible so that when the trams do get up and running things run more smoothly! I understand the bitterness over the terrible mess they have made of the Tram building but surely the job needs completing rather than throw away the many Millions of £'s already spent on the project! It seems a bit foolish to moan about the cost of the project just for personal and/or political bias, yet, apparently happy to see the amount already spent just wiped away and get nothing for it. Not to forget the massive extra cost of having to undo all the work as it stands at the moment. In my opinion.