Edinburgh tram goes live tomorrow!
Discussion
Leithen said:
AndrewEH1 said:
Seen those tracks. Never really though about them...sadly it seems the council didn't either. Having that loop open to passengers would solve so many issues!
They've been the matter of much discussion for many years. We occupied offices on the site of the Newington Station 20 years ago and there was talk of a disagreement over the cost of rolling stock. The central platforms remain, so it wouldn't take much too renew them. It would reduce bus activity within the south side, and perhaps reduce car movements. But it wouldn't do anything to solve the traffic problem in and out of the city.
AndrewEH1 said:
Junior Bianno said:
Given the tram debacle, it's quite hard to believe that there is an actual existing fairly central train loop....that since 1962 has only used for freight! The stations have been removed but the tracks are operational. Network rail are just about to electrify it as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Suburban_an...
Seen those tracks. Never really though about them...sadly it seems the council didn't either. Having that loop open to passengers would solve so many issues!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Suburban_an...
Wiki says it's going to be electrified. Wiki also says that reinstating passenger services would be a low cost initiative, yet the Scottish government decided it wasn't cost effective? I'm sure that could save a few bus miles since it goes from portobello to the town centre, and there's always a lot of traffic about mornigside etc
Leithen said:
They've been the matter of much discussion for many years. We occupied offices on the site of the Newington Station 20 years ago and there was talk of a disagreement over the cost of rolling stock. The central platforms remain, so it wouldn't take much too renew them.
It would reduce bus activity within the south side, and perhaps reduce car movements. But it wouldn't do anything to solve the traffic problem in and out of the city.
It might, if commuters from east or west to inside the bypass thought they could have an easier life with 2 trains than a train and a bus?It would reduce bus activity within the south side, and perhaps reduce car movements. But it wouldn't do anything to solve the traffic problem in and out of the city.
Although I suppose that's not going to be a great number of people.
alangla said:
Of course an alternative could be to reduce it to 1 freight track & squeeze in 2 tram lines
Network Rail are said to be strongly opposed to reducing freight capacity on the South Sub given its key role in relieving the bottleneck between Haymarket and Waverley. Besides, it is actually fairly narrow in places with some tight bends and given that the trams are almost full-size heavy rail already, it's one or the other really.
I went on the tram for the first time today. I was not impressed. It's incredibly slow on some parts of the route, slowing to 10 mph to "navigate" a bend, slowing down and speeding up frequently.
The worst thing was the heat and the stink of sweat - it looks like they de-specced air conditioning, but the original carriages were designed for air conditioning so had no opening windows. It looks like a single, small opening window has been retrofitted per carriage. We were boiling on the way back (yes, Scotland does have sunny days) and other passengers were commenting on how uncomfortable the tram was - it wasn't remotely full either.
Very disappointing.
The worst thing was the heat and the stink of sweat - it looks like they de-specced air conditioning, but the original carriages were designed for air conditioning so had no opening windows. It looks like a single, small opening window has been retrofitted per carriage. We were boiling on the way back (yes, Scotland does have sunny days) and other passengers were commenting on how uncomfortable the tram was - it wasn't remotely full either.
Very disappointing.
RichB said:
0a said:
The worst thing was the heat and the stink of sweat - it looks like they de-specced air conditioning...
If that's the case it's ridiculous for a brand new mass transport system in the 21stC. An article: http://www.scot-buzz.co.uk/business-economy/scanda...
It was exactly like travelling on a packed Victoria line in summer - but worse, as you are overground so a victim of the greenhouse effect.
0a said:
The two trams I travelled on today didn't have air conditioning.
An article: http://www.scot-buzz.co.uk/business-economy/scanda...
It was exactly like travelling on a packed Victoria line in summer - but worse, as you are overground so a victim of the greenhouse effect.
Not a bad rant, but glossing over a few truths. An article: http://www.scot-buzz.co.uk/business-economy/scanda...
It was exactly like travelling on a packed Victoria line in summer - but worse, as you are overground so a victim of the greenhouse effect.
No doubt the inclusion of air conditioning at x million cost would have received similar criticism for being a waste of money for the 320 days a year it's switched off.
The whole point of the tram route avoiding the Glasgow Road is to relieve congestion, not add to it.
The Airport is expanding toward the Tram stop, so in a few months the horror of the four minute walk will be relieved from the poor sausage's lardy legs.
Given how much there is to criticise about the trams, a pretty poor effort really.
Sorry, you are mistaken about my intentions - I didn't intend to write an full blown cost benefit analysis of the Edinburgh tram with my last post. I merely related the experience of a single journey on it.
If you take out the question of cost (it's spent now after all) then the tram should stand up as a useful, modern public transport system. Even removing the cost element, it is poor in terms of speed (there are sections of the route where is is forced to travel glacially slow) and the air conditioning was an issue.
My journey was not on a particularly hot day, but the journey was uncomfortably hot with fellow passengers commenting that they would hate to travel in rush hour. The carriages were clearly designed to be air conditioned, so have almost no opening windows (they have retrofitted one per carriage). One lady with a baby got off short of her destination to continue her trip by bus.
As useful public transport - aside from the cost - it appears the tram is a poor option.
The excuse about the route - if the route you need to take to avoid causing more congestion is so convoluted that it negates the benefit of a tram (efficient point to point travel) then don't build the thing.
I did travel on Lothian buses today - absolutely fine. It was a hotter day and with the windows open the bus was perfectly comfortable, and despite frequent stops it was quick enough for my purposes.
If you take out the question of cost (it's spent now after all) then the tram should stand up as a useful, modern public transport system. Even removing the cost element, it is poor in terms of speed (there are sections of the route where is is forced to travel glacially slow) and the air conditioning was an issue.
My journey was not on a particularly hot day, but the journey was uncomfortably hot with fellow passengers commenting that they would hate to travel in rush hour. The carriages were clearly designed to be air conditioned, so have almost no opening windows (they have retrofitted one per carriage). One lady with a baby got off short of her destination to continue her trip by bus.
As useful public transport - aside from the cost - it appears the tram is a poor option.
The excuse about the route - if the route you need to take to avoid causing more congestion is so convoluted that it negates the benefit of a tram (efficient point to point travel) then don't build the thing.
I did travel on Lothian buses today - absolutely fine. It was a hotter day and with the windows open the bus was perfectly comfortable, and despite frequent stops it was quick enough for my purposes.
0a said:
Sorry, you are mistaken about my intentions - I didn't intend to write an full blown cost benefit analysis of the Edinburgh tram with my last post. I merely related the experience of a single journey on it.
I was commenting on the article you linked to - unless of course you wrote that too! 
I travelled on it three days last week, six journeys. I didn't find the heat an issue. The route isn't exactly convoluted either - it follows a different route to that of the Glasgow Road, thank goodness. Extra capacity is needed, and for many it will serve as a perfectly acceptable alternative to being stuck outside the Zoo.
I'm much more concerned about the graunching noise on tight turns on the track sections. It sounds and feels wrong.
Meanwhile to the North of the city, a new bridge will open increasing the capacity coming into the city limits, but doing nothing to help access within the city.
Leithen said:
Meanwhile to the North of the city, a new bridge will open increasing the capacity coming into the city limits, but doing nothing to help access within the city.
Slightly OT - but I thought the marginal benefits of linking up the M9 and M8 with the A90 would exceed the benefits.I.E. to ease traffic at Gogar/Maybury, from all the people wanting to get to Barnton, they could've made a flyover to go from M9 to A90 and vice versa, if that makes sense. (Just now there's only 2 sides of the "triangle" as it were".
Edited by simoid on Sunday 8th June 23:28
Got the tram in today from Ingliston Park and Ride.
My...god...is...it...slow.
It just never picks up any speed and stops everywhere. I didn't time it exactly but I think it took around 25mins to get from Ingliston to Haymarket. To be honest, with the parking, waiting around for the tram, the journey and walk to the office, it would add at least 30 minutes to the commute from Glasgow. b
ks to that...
The tram itself is perfectly nice. Seemed very empty - I was on it around 7.30 and by the time it reached Haymarket it had about a dozen people on it....and it does make a horrible noise going round corners.
My...god...is...it...slow.
It just never picks up any speed and stops everywhere. I didn't time it exactly but I think it took around 25mins to get from Ingliston to Haymarket. To be honest, with the parking, waiting around for the tram, the journey and walk to the office, it would add at least 30 minutes to the commute from Glasgow. b
ks to that...The tram itself is perfectly nice. Seemed very empty - I was on it around 7.30 and by the time it reached Haymarket it had about a dozen people on it....and it does make a horrible noise going round corners.
Leithen said:
AndrewEH1 said:
Leithen said:
Edinburgh needs an Octopus(Hong Kong)/Oyster(London) card system badly.
Does the Ridacard (Lothian buses & trams only) not cover that? No First buses though...I've lived in Hong Kong and I try to return there every year. Octopus is a fantastic initiative. Problem is that Hong Kong and SE Asia are technologically and culturally a number of years ahead of the the UK and Europe. I'm sure we'll have something similar one day.
[quote=alangla]
But grade separation at Sherrifhall & Hermiston Gait roundabouts would make a big difference. I'm sure I'd read somewhere that some of the mine workings from Bilston Glen pit were under Sherrifhall, hence why it couldn't support a flyover, but Borders Rail seem to have managed to put an underpass underneath it! Years ago, I reckoned that grade separating Auchenkilns would solve a load of the problems on the (then) A80 & it appeared to be correct, I think the same applies for these two roundabouts.
/quote]
Sherrifhall is affected by mine workings from Monktonhall and Bilston Glen, but it also sits on a minor geological fault. That's why it's a roundabout and not a flyover the A7/A68.
I didn't know that Borders Rail has put a tunnel in - that's interesting. Perhaps we have a better understanding or better abilities now?
But grade separation at Sherrifhall & Hermiston Gait roundabouts would make a big difference. I'm sure I'd read somewhere that some of the mine workings from Bilston Glen pit were under Sherrifhall, hence why it couldn't support a flyover, but Borders Rail seem to have managed to put an underpass underneath it! Years ago, I reckoned that grade separating Auchenkilns would solve a load of the problems on the (then) A80 & it appeared to be correct, I think the same applies for these two roundabouts.
/quote]
Sherrifhall is affected by mine workings from Monktonhall and Bilston Glen, but it also sits on a minor geological fault. That's why it's a roundabout and not a flyover the A7/A68.
I didn't know that Borders Rail has put a tunnel in - that's interesting. Perhaps we have a better understanding or better abilities now?
Junior Bianno said:
Well - the trams seem like a total disaster financially, but having commuted to Edinburgh from Glasgow on and off for the past year, it's clear to see they need to do something in Edinburgh. It's an absolute basketcase transport-wise. Glasgow is far from perfect, but has a network of motorways close to the city centre, an underground/low level rail system and huge suburban rail network. Edinburgh has none of this and it shows. Not saying they should knock down swathes of the city centre to build motorways, but crawling from miles from the bypass to city centres on clogged local roads isn't very 21st century. A lot of the track beds from the old suburban rail network are still there as cycle paths - wonder if they could be used economically as a basis of some new rail lines.
Going to try the tram from Ingliston on Monday...see if it can reduce the misery!
I think you're being a bit unfair there. Every city has transport challenges. Glasgow may have the M8 running straight through it but it's also a nightmare to drive in, and a bigger nightmare to park in.Going to try the tram from Ingliston on Monday...see if it can reduce the misery!
Edinburgh is not perfect but it's not too bad.
Leithen said:
I'm looking forward to chatting with my Father in-law who is a civil engineer involved in Hong Kong's excellent MTR underground/light rail system. Given the sums involved, I wonder whether any form of under grounding would have been feasible. Although perhaps the rather large mass of igneous rock in the city centre precludes such an option.
As with nearly all these problems, there is no single solution - it has to be an integrated system. I don't have a problem with trams being part of that, but there has to be a master plan for integration rather than an ad hoc mish mash.
Apart from incompetence in the prelim stages, I suspect that the main cost problems came from the nightmare of 200+years of utilities/services under the city streets. This has always been one of my biggest complaints about the city and almost all other cities in the UK. If there was ever going to be a billion pound plus project worth funding, it would be the thorough re-working of every street's services.
The consequences of the jungle of different utilities haphazardly digging up streets with no regard to other services has led to cities continually being dug up, road surfaces and pavements almost always being a deteriorating morass of different patches and disruption, cost and delay to supply of all the services and transport.
If you were in charge of a city and had any long term vision, you'd systematically rework every street so that all services were accessible through tunnels/pipes with easy access points, grid pavement systems that allow connection to properties and immediate restoration of surface etc etc.
Our cities would be transformed. It would cost billions upon billions.
But then, the utility companies are making billions upon billions of profits....
You're right that the Hong Kong's MRT is excellent as is the KCR, but you're comparing apples with organges.As with nearly all these problems, there is no single solution - it has to be an integrated system. I don't have a problem with trams being part of that, but there has to be a master plan for integration rather than an ad hoc mish mash.
Apart from incompetence in the prelim stages, I suspect that the main cost problems came from the nightmare of 200+years of utilities/services under the city streets. This has always been one of my biggest complaints about the city and almost all other cities in the UK. If there was ever going to be a billion pound plus project worth funding, it would be the thorough re-working of every street's services.
The consequences of the jungle of different utilities haphazardly digging up streets with no regard to other services has led to cities continually being dug up, road surfaces and pavements almost always being a deteriorating morass of different patches and disruption, cost and delay to supply of all the services and transport.
If you were in charge of a city and had any long term vision, you'd systematically rework every street so that all services were accessible through tunnels/pipes with easy access points, grid pavement systems that allow connection to properties and immediate restoration of surface etc etc.
Our cities would be transformed. It would cost billions upon billions.
But then, the utility companies are making billions upon billions of profits....
The Edinburgh tram systm covers a comparatively much smaller area with lower passenger volumes. Itr supplements rather then replaces existing transport solutions and doesn't need to be underground.
Not sure what "ad hoc mish mash" you're talking about but the trams are as integrated as they need to be - I think.
simoid said:
AndrewEH1 said:
Junior Bianno said:
Given the tram debacle, it's quite hard to believe that there is an actual existing fairly central train loop....that since 1962 has only used for freight! The stations have been removed but the tracks are operational. Network rail are just about to electrify it as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Suburban_an...
Seen those tracks. Never really though about them...sadly it seems the council didn't either. Having that loop open to passengers would solve so many issues!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Suburban_an...
Wiki says it's going to be electrified. Wiki also says that reinstating passenger services would be a low cost initiative, yet the Scottish government decided it wasn't cost effective? I'm sure that could save a few bus miles since it goes from portobello to the town centre, and there's always a lot of traffic about mornigside etc
0a said:
I went on the tram for the first time today. I was not impressed. It's incredibly slow on some parts of the route, slowing to 10 mph to "navigate" a bend, slowing down and speeding up frequently.
The worst thing was the heat and the stink of sweat - it looks like they de-specced air conditioning, but the original carriages were designed for air conditioning so had no opening windows. It looks like a single, small opening window has been retrofitted per carriage. We were boiling on the way back (yes, Scotland does have sunny days) and other passengers were commenting on how uncomfortable the tram was - it wasn't remotely full either.
Very disappointing.
No air con?? Really??The worst thing was the heat and the stink of sweat - it looks like they de-specced air conditioning, but the original carriages were designed for air conditioning so had no opening windows. It looks like a single, small opening window has been retrofitted per carriage. We were boiling on the way back (yes, Scotland does have sunny days) and other passengers were commenting on how uncomfortable the tram was - it wasn't remotely full either.
Very disappointing.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff