Edinburgh tram goes live tomorrow!

[tuffer]

Swervin_Mervin said:

TheSnitch said:

HarryFlatters said:

I take it that you've never had to try to get out of the Gyle business park at 5pm? It wasn't great before, now it's a car park from half 4 until half 6, and it's worse if there's any incident on either the A71, M8 or the city bypass.

I'm neither for the trams, nor am I against. What I am against though, is gargantuan fk-ups that cost billions of pounds of taxpayer's money when there was a clearly cheaper solution available. A poster earlier in the thread the nail on the head... the railway line to Fife passes literally 20 feet away from the airport's boundary fence. TIE could have spend a tenth of the tram's final bill upgrading the lines and building a station and achieved much the same effect any not pissed off a quarter of a million people in the process.

At the risk of sounding like an old fart, it's a crying bloody shame that the politicians and planners of the 1960's did not possess the foresight to see that closing 55% of railway lines, together with increased car ownership would cause such congestion on our roads that what we really need back is the 55% of railway miles they got shot of. Putting all their resources and investment into a core of main routes was also a winner, wasn't it? As evidenced by the fact that when the line was washed away at Dawlish in the winter storms there was no alternative route, essentially cutting Cornwall and most of Devon from the rail network.

It's not just better public transport we need - it also needs to be properly integrated, otherwise it either becomes a white elephant or using it becomes a total pain in the arse

It goes even further back than that. The British have a history of faddism. The latest new thing comes along and we ditch whatever went before, wholesale, rather than use the new thing in our existing way of doing things.

Water borne freight lost out to rail. Rail lost out to roads. Etc. Look into Europe and the story's so often different. Essentially we're so far behind because of mistakes made by our predecessors some 50-100 years ago.

This may have been said before on other threads but have not researched it, how about instead of HS2 we just (just he says like its a minor thing) convert all the existing rail network to use double decker trains like the rest of Europe. Massive increase in capacity, no new lines and the only disruption is the modification of bridges, surely this is easier than building an entire new line at huge cost for very little gain. But then again, I work in IT Security so what would I know about the rail network.

[marshalla]

tuffer said:

This may have been said before on other threads but have not researched it, how about instead of HS2 we just (just he says like its a minor thing) convert all the existing rail network to use double decker trains like the rest of Europe. Massive increase in capacity, no new lines and the only disruption is the modification of bridges, surely this is easier than building an entire new line at huge cost for very little gain. But then again, I work in IT Security so what would I know about the rail network.

Tunnels might need a bit of adjustment too.

[tuffer]

marshalla said:

tuffer said:

This may have been said before on other threads but have not researched it, how about instead of HS2 we just (just he says like its a minor thing) convert all the existing rail network to use double decker trains like the rest of Europe. Massive increase in capacity, no new lines and the only disruption is the modification of bridges, surely this is easier than building an entire new line at huge cost for very little gain. But then again, I work in IT Security so what would I know about the rail network.

Tunnels might need a bit of adjustment too.

Minor issue.

[simoid]

tuffer said:

Minor issue.

Double the length of the trains instead then

[vonuber]

grumbledoak said:

No, the problem was insisting on a tram at all. Think what that money could have done for the buses.

Trams are perfectly viable as part of a public transport network.

[simoid]

vonuber said:

grumbledoak said:

No, the problem was insisting on a tram at all. Think what that money could have done for the buses.

Trams are perfectly viable as part of a public transport network.

Or... free bus travel for a decade?

[Runnyg]

On a day visit from the North yesterday so I parked at The Gyle and took a tram into the city centre at 11.00 and back at 16.45.

My thoughts on the experience, putting the issues of politics and project cost to the side, are :-

Pros. Low cost, no parking problems, smooth journey, no delays, lots of assistance.

Cons. Very poor weather protection at stops, noisy warning beepers when doors closing (probably petty)


Overall I was quite impressed but don't fancy waiting for a tram on a horrible day due to the lack of shelter.

Also I'd recommend avoiding the Westbound service immediately prior to a Murrayfield concert unless you are attending it.

[Runnyg]

On a day visit from the North yesterday so I parked at The Gyle and took a tram into the city centre at 11.00 and back at 16.45.

My thoughts on the experience, putting the issues of politics and project cost to the side, are :-

Pros. Low cost, no parking problems, smooth journey, no delays, lots of assistance.

Cons. Very poor weather protection at stops, noisy warning beepers when doors closing (probably petty)


Overall I was quite impressed but don't fancy waiting for a tram on a horrible day due to the lack of shelter.

Also I'd recommend avoiding the Westbound service immediately prior to a Murrayfield concert unless you are attending it.

[jshell]

simoid said:

vonuber said:

grumbledoak said:

No, the problem was insisting on a tram at all. Think what that money could have done for the buses.

Trams are perfectly viable as part of a public transport network.

Or... free bus travel for a decade?

The real pisser is that they are cutting perfectly good bus services to pay for this pile of shyte.

[tuffer]

tuffer said:

marshalla said:

tuffer said:

This may have been said before on other threads but have not researched it, how about instead of HS2 we just (just he says like its a minor thing) convert all the existing rail network to use double decker trains like the rest of Europe. Massive increase in capacity, no new lines and the only disruption is the modification of bridges, surely this is easier than building an entire new line at huge cost for very little gain. But then again, I work in IT Security so what would I know about the rail network.

Tunnels might need a bit of adjustment too.

Minor issue.

Damn, just realised I missed an opportunity:

Miner issue......

[vonuber]

simoid said:

Or... free bus travel for a decade?

But buses can and do get stuck in traffic, and can generally be slower due to the increased amount of stops compared to a tram. they also carry less people. A properly planned tram system should be quicker.

[Dogwatch]

Runnyg said:

noisy warning beepers when doors closing (probably petty)

Not at all. Can't speak for the Edinburgh trams but I was standing outside East Croydon station some years ago when one these things decided it was time to move off. The din from the warning gongs was incredible and unexpected - far more than seemed reasonable or necessary. The (then newish) juggernaut then rumbled off and you could feel the ground vibrations some distance away - a point strangely not highlighted by the 'green and silent' eco-types.

[HarryFlatters]

Leithen said:

However the A8 Glasgow Road from Ingliston to the Newbridge roundabout was packed and very slow moving. So if I was to try this public transport malarkey, I'd probably be much better off on the train from Gleneagles or Dunblane....

The traffic was tailed back because of a cow on the M8 near Livingston, which we can't really blame on Edinburgh Council

[simoid]

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/girl-14...

First pedestrian to collide with a tram - she's unhurt though.

[simoid]

vonuber said:

simoid said:

Or... free bus travel for a decade?

But buses can and do get stuck in traffic, and can generally be slower due to the increased amount of stops compared to a tram. they also carry less people. A properly planned tram system should be quicker.

Edinburgh has (had?) express buses that stop in the town centre once or twice, then don't stop again 'til well out of town. I'm sure you're perfectly correct that trams can and should be a good idea, but Edinburgh's bus system is pretty much unrivalled and is being sacrificed for what appears to be an expensive, badly planned tram system

[hairyben]

Know a few people in edinburgh and fair to say not a single person wanted this.

imagine how far a £billion would have gone improving majar roads and intersections in edinburgh, maybe a few underpasses etc, you could have cut traffic, improved safety and journey times for all the busses, cars, bikes and pedestrians alike.

but I guess that wouldn't have fitted some bullst big vision thing or dumped hundreds of mill in the pockets of party funders and friends.

[Leithen]

It's hard to see how any major road investment would ease congestion in a big way in Edinburgh - the major road arteries have pinch points that without a Mexico City demolition approach, make increasing volume well nigh impossible.

The need for improved light rail infrastructure has been generally accepted for a while - the question is whether the council picked the right option. The cost and limited route would suggest not. The Airport link could have been achieved by additional rail network serving Haymarket and Waverley. There is also a largely unused south circular track that still has central platforms that would not take a huge amount to bring back into passenger service.

Neither however deal with the increasing problem of commuter traffic from Fife, East and West Lothian. The bypass faces the same problems the original M25 did - too few lanes, and even if it was increased to three or four, that doesn't improve access to within the bypass - the same pinch points remain.

I'd love to know how much extra capacity for trains there is in Waverley and Haymarket stations, because that's got to be the best bet for dealing with the increasing car traffic coming into the city.

Today was my third day coming in from the Ingliston Park and Ride - ignoring it's infamous past and cost, it's quick, efficient, smooth and likeable. There are large areas within the Gyle/Edinburgh Park are that are yet to be developed - I can see that changing quickly with the additional transport link.

Negatives were non functioning wifi (a real first world problem) and the bizarre ticketing options. Edinburgh needs an Octopus(Hong Kong)/Oyster(London) card system badly.

[AndrewEH1]

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...

[Leithen]

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...

The beauty of the Octopus card (HK) is it's ubiquity across all sorts of payments, not just travel.

[alangla]

Leithen said:

Neither however deal with the increasing problem of commuter traffic from Fife, East and West Lothian. The bypass faces the same problems the original M25 did - too few lanes, and even if it was increased to three or four, that doesn't improve access to within the bypass - the same pinch points remain.

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.

Leithen said:

I'd love to know how much extra capacity for trains there is in Waverley and Haymarket stations, because that's got to be the best bet for dealing with the increasing car traffic coming into the city.

Waverley had a capacity increase not that long ago, with extra platforms going in etc, but I expect that's probably all been used up by the extra Fife services, Airdrie to Bathgate (remember, this has gone from generally 2 car every half hour to generally 6 car every 15 minutes) & the extra East Coast trains. Borders Rail will probably use up whatever's left I guess. Haymarket just seems to be a constant procession of trains. I'd be amazed if there was any (usable) capacity left there at all.