Edinburgh tram goes live tomorrow!
Discussion
SaqibCTR said:
technodup said:
This. Where I am on the south side of Glasgow I have the M8, M77 and M74 all within 5 minutes drive. I have three train stations within half a mile, all are one stop (5 mins) to Central and one is 20 seconds from my door. Buses are 5mins walk but the Subway is a bit further at 20mins. House prices are lower, we've better football and few tourists getting in the way- remind me why people want to live in Edinburgh? 
Likewise, if you're in the West End the transport links are excellent - subway stations, major bus routes, Charing Cross not far away, all 3 motorways easily accessible, Central Station etc.Indeed, Glasgow's miles better.
Leithen said:
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.
simoid said:
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
Edinburger said:
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.
Cities expand - infrastructure planning needs to be designed to accommodate that, hence my rant about street services being a complete mess. Edinburgh is not HK or Kowloon, but that doesn't mean that the constraints aren't similar.
As for the ad hoc miss mash that is the public transport system, it has been cobbled together without the forethought and planning that is needed. Ticketing is the prime example. Destination planning is still far from ideal.
25 years ago I visited a friend living in the outskirts of Cologne. A ticket bought on the bus (from a machine) at the end of the street was valid to the city centre involving both bus and light rail (overground/undergroud/overground). We inevitably drank far too much and returned late along the same route by which time the bus service had ended. Not a problem - a quick chat with the driver of the light rail service had the driver phone ahead for a taxi to meet us at the end of the route (this was before mobile phones). That is integrated transport.
An Octopus card would solve so much, but better route integration between services is a must. It's not just a criticism of Edinburgh, it's a nationwide problem.
Nick Grant said:
Edinburger said:
Glasgow might just be marginally better on transport links, but for every single other item you'd ever want to compare, Edinburgh is light years ahead
Concert venues? The Ikea in Glasgow is better
LOL 
Leithen said:
Edinburger said:
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.
Cities expand - infrastructure planning needs to be designed to accommodate that, hence my rant about street services being a complete mess. Edinburgh is not HK or Kowloon, but that doesn't mean that the constraints aren't similar.
As for the ad hoc miss mash that is the public transport system, it has been cobbled together without the forethought and planning that is needed. Ticketing is the prime example. Destination planning is still far from ideal.
25 years ago I visited a friend living in the outskirts of Cologne. A ticket bought on the bus (from a machine) at the end of the street was valid to the city centre involving both bus and light rail (overground/undergroud/overground). We inevitably drank far too much and returned late along the same route by which time the bus service had ended. Not a problem - a quick chat with the driver of the light rail service had the driver phone ahead for a taxi to meet us at the end of the route (this was before mobile phones). That is integrated transport.
An Octopus card would solve so much, but better route integration between services is a must. It's not just a criticism of Edinburgh, it's a nationwide problem.
As for the ticketing, that is integrated - you buy a ticket for the route at a single machine and that may be bus and tram.
Octopus would be fantastic but for lifestyle improivement rather then transport ticketing.
Nick Grant said:
Edinburger said:
Glasgow might just be marginally better on transport links, but for every single other item you'd ever want to compare, Edinburgh is light years ahead
Concert venues? The Ikea in Glasgow is better
LOL As for concert venues, well that's debatable but Glasgow maybe just edges it. We have Murrayfield, The Playhouse, Festival Theatre, etc. The new music venue beiung built by the SECC in Glasgow sounds fantastic!
Halmyre said:
Nick Grant said:
Edinburger said:
Glasgow might just be marginally better on transport links, but for every single other item you'd ever want to compare, Edinburgh is light years ahead
Concert venues? The Ikea in Glasgow is better
LOL Edinburger said:
alangla said:
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.
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?
Replying to 2 posts at once - Borders Rail & the South Suburban join between Brunstane & Newcraighall stations. If you look on the satellite pic you can see a triangle made by the suburban & what's currently the Millerhill yard - Portobello line (i.e. Borders Rail).
Junior Bianno said:
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.
We're staying in Falkirk for a few days in a couple of weeks and planning to visit edinburgh. Is getting the tram in from Ingliston the best bet for someone who doesn't know the city? Anyone know how much a family ticket is? Their website suggested £7 I think but the link on the site takes you to another site that doesn't mention itMy...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.
ooo000ooo said:
We're staying in Falkirk for a few days in a couple of weeks and planning to visit edinburgh. Is getting the tram in from Ingliston the best bet for someone who doesn't know the city? Anyone know how much a family ticket is? Their website suggested £7 I think but the link on the site takes you to another site that doesn't mention it
Unless you're especially interested in seeing the tram, I'd just get a train from Falkirk and avoid the hassle of getting to Ingliston.dxg said:
so, if glasgow's underground is the clockwork orange, what are edinburgh's trams going to be? the steamie?
I think that's media bks tbh. I've lived in Glasgow 36 years and never heard it called that once. Not even by students.Edinburger said:
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.
No big city is easy to park in, but Glasgow's grid system is easy to get around, there's only ever four directions to go, one is the one you want, one is the way you came and the others are wildcards. Unlike the medieval route planning of large parts of Edinburgh where a couple of turns ends you up where you started.Far be it from me to get involved in a city-spat but we'd nail you on transport, football, lack of tourists and tartan shops, retail (Harvey Nicols excepted), cuisine (it's salt & vinegar), music (claiming Murrayfield as a music venue is a stretch!) and many more I can't be bothered to think up. I'll concede that Edinburgh may be better for staying dry. Or getting wet if the brothels are still legal.
technodup said:
dxg said:
so, if glasgow's underground is the clockwork orange, what are edinburgh's trams going to be? the steamie?
I think that's media bks tbh. I've lived in Glasgow 36 years and never heard it called that once. Not even by students.Edinburger said:
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.
No big city is easy to park in, but Glasgow's grid system is easy to get around, there's only ever four directions to go, one is the one you want, one is the way you came and the others are wildcards. Unlike the medieval route planning of large parts of Edinburgh where a couple of turns ends you up where you started.Far be it from me to get involved in a city-spat but we'd nail you on transport, football, lack of tourists and tartan shops, retail (Harvey Nicols excepted), cuisine (it's salt & vinegar), music (claiming Murrayfield as a music venue is a stretch!) and many more I can't be bothered to think up. I'll concede that Edinburgh may be better for staying dry. Or getting wet if the brothels are still legal.
) but when artists such as U2, Madonna, Robbie Williams, Take That, Michael Jackson and many more have played at Murrayfield then I think it's reasonable to call it a music venue!Glasgow's grid system is ywith inconsistent one-way directions, stupid dead ends, meaningless rules and car parks which are always full.
Take ten visitors to Edinburgh and then to Glasgow. Which would they prefer?
King Tut's is about the only thing I'd say Glasgow is worth visiting for. But let's not make it a competition
alangla said:
Edinburger said:
alangla said:
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.
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?
Replying to 2 posts at once - Borders Rail & the South Suburban join between Brunstane & Newcraighall stations. If you look on the satellite pic you can see a triangle made by the suburban & what's currently the Millerhill yard - Portobello line (i.e. Borders Rail).
technodup said:
Unlike the medieval route planning of large parts of Edinburgh where a couple of turns ends you up where you started.
The medieval route planners (and especially the New Town planners) didn't do all that bad a job of Edinburgh. The problem is the modern "traffic management" imposed on those streets by the likes of David Begg.Edinburger said:
alangla said:
Edinburger said:
alangla said:
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.
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?
Replying to 2 posts at once - Borders Rail & the South Suburban join between Brunstane & Newcraighall stations. If you look on the satellite pic you can see a triangle made by the suburban & what's currently the Millerhill yard - Portobello line (i.e. Borders Rail).
Before - http://www.bordersrailway.co.uk/media/25516/sherif...
Tunnel structure in place - http://www.bordersrailway.co.uk/media/32884/dg8e61...
The two main reasons for the new route around Millerhill were:
a) to get a better angle on crossing the bypass (a short right angle crossing being easier and cheaper than extended crossing at a less perpendicular angle)
b) to create a new station serving Shawfair (new housing going up on the old Moncktonhall Colliery.
The new line actually severs the old Millerhill Road (its built on it at the northern end) so they're doing rearranging the roads slightly around there (again mainly to get nice perpendicular crossings of the rail line). They've had to grout up a lot of old mine workings in the area to protect the railway. Not so much the the colliery itself as just lots of very old, unmapped shallow holes in the ground that were left unfilled and covered over centuries ago.
Edinburger said:
Ha ha let's not make this into an Edinburgh v Glasgow thing (you'd just lose ) but when artists such as U2, Madonna, Robbie Williams, Take That, Michael Jackson and many more have played at Murrayfield then I think it's reasonable to call it a music venue!
Glasgow's grid system is ywith inconsistent one-way directions, stupid dead ends, meaningless rules and car parks which are always full.
Take ten visitors to Edinburgh and then to Glasgow. Which would they prefer?
King Tut's is about the only thing I'd say Glasgow is worth visiting for. But let's not make it a competition
You've hit the nail on the head. Edinburgh is the best city for tourists, but Glasgow is the best city to live and work in. Everybody knows that ) but when artists such as U2, Madonna, Robbie Williams, Take That, Michael Jackson and many more have played at Murrayfield then I think it's reasonable to call it a music venue!Glasgow's grid system is ywith inconsistent one-way directions, stupid dead ends, meaningless rules and car parks which are always full.
Take ten visitors to Edinburgh and then to Glasgow. Which would they prefer?
King Tut's is about the only thing I'd say Glasgow is worth visiting for. But let's not make it a competition
City allegiances aside, I've worked in Edinburgh for the past year, driving in and out of the city centre, and think I know it pretty well now. There's an inherent problem with the traffic. Virtually the entire public transport system relies on buses, which, pretty obviously, run on roads. This is a pretty major problem when the roads are narrow, rarely straight and dotted with traffic lights, roundabouts and one-way systems. There are virtually no fast roads within the bypass, so getting from there to the city centre is just turgid..especially in rush hour. The tram, unfortunately, looks like it's going to have very impact on this.
ninja-lewis said:
Sheriffhall
Before - http://www.bordersrailway.co.uk/media/25516/sherif...
Tunnel structure in place - http://www.bordersrailway.co.uk/media/32884/dg8e61...
The two main reasons for the new route around Millerhill were:
a) to get a better angle on crossing the bypass (a short right angle crossing being easier and cheaper than extended crossing at a less perpendicular angle)
b) to create a new station serving Shawfair (new housing going up on the old Moncktonhall Colliery.
The new line actually severs the old Millerhill Road (its built on it at the northern end) so they're doing rearranging the roads slightly around there (again mainly to get nice perpendicular crossings of the rail line). They've had to grout up a lot of old mine workings in the area to protect the railway. Not so much the the colliery itself as just lots of very old, unmapped shallow holes in the ground that were left unfilled and covered over centuries ago.
Thanks for linking to those photos - I hadn't seen them before. Shows the level of effort involved in building under the bypass.Before - http://www.bordersrailway.co.uk/media/25516/sherif...
Tunnel structure in place - http://www.bordersrailway.co.uk/media/32884/dg8e61...
The two main reasons for the new route around Millerhill were:
a) to get a better angle on crossing the bypass (a short right angle crossing being easier and cheaper than extended crossing at a less perpendicular angle)
b) to create a new station serving Shawfair (new housing going up on the old Moncktonhall Colliery.
The new line actually severs the old Millerhill Road (its built on it at the northern end) so they're doing rearranging the roads slightly around there (again mainly to get nice perpendicular crossings of the rail line). They've had to grout up a lot of old mine workings in the area to protect the railway. Not so much the the colliery itself as just lots of very old, unmapped shallow holes in the ground that were left unfilled and covered over centuries ago.
simoid said:
How's about some sort of overground monorail jobby, is it Chicago that has one? Probably not going to be popular with all, mind.
A system removed from the streets, unaffected by and not adding to the congestion would have made a lot more sense, and the billion £ budget is putting you in monorail territory.However I expect a monorail would have been seen as a bit too star trek by those with nothing better to do than create problems for edinburgh wouldn't it?
ninja-lewis said:
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.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff