Forum menu
See the tracks are showing signs of wear and bits of them need to be replaced. Imagine how they'll wear when they actually have trams on them.
If the project had not soaked up so much capital and caused so much disruption it would be laughable.
If it actually was going to be any use - I don't want to start it all again but if it actually interfaced with teh airport and tha railway in any sort of useful fashion
An integrated transport system, eh? That's a really good idea, the gaps between different forms of transport in Edinburgh's transport infrastructure are just plain daft really.
If only they were using this opportunity to do so eh?
Going from the airport to town on the bus took almost as long as flying there from Cardiff.
An integrated transport system, eh? That's a really good idea, the gaps between different forms of transport in [s]Edinburgh's [/s] [b]UK's[/b] transport infrastructure are just plain daft really
Going from the airport to town on the bus took almost as long as flying there from Cardiff.
And Cardiff's a model useful airport????
Whenever I need to go anywhere (Edinburgh excepted) I have to drive to Bristol to get a plane...
And both Bristol and Cardiff airports are in fields in the middle of nowhere
Apparently they are going to open part of it next year - 1/2 a mile from gogar depot to gogarburn
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Edinburgh-trams-running-in-2011.6679441.jp
And Cardiff's a model useful airport????
Almost exactly what I was going to say. Its probably great if you don't actually want to go into Cardiff itself...
The quality of their info and source is impeccable isn't it 😕 I can't blame people for wanting to believe the worst but this is the Record and an unnamed source who is an "expert in civil engineering" though not neccesarily a civil engineer, and "probably" and "reasonable to assume" and "safe to say", oh and not actually the tracks at all despite what you may have been told by the headline and first 2 paragraphs.
molgrips - Member
"Going from the airport to town on the bus took almost as long as flying there from Cardiff."
It's faster than getting to London centre from any of the main London airports (other than City anyway).
Which part of 2011 is next year TJ?
I cross the tram lines every day on foot and there is definitely damage to the material around the actual track, but mostly at the areas where buses are turning over the tracks from side streets - the area around charlotte street has already been repaired once.
Whole thing is turning farcical - I can't really understand it as behaving like this must be suicide for bilfinger as every potential large project manager in europe must be seeing whats going on. And I cant understand how CECs project managers have stuffed up so badly either. At least they dropped EARL before too many millions had been spent on the same route the tram took.
Remind me once again - who voted in favour of the trams?
Hopefully the scots lot are paying the full amount for the fiasco.
We had the very first tram in england many years ago,at Birkenhead and run and built by a chap called,George Train.
You're OK project. The kindly UK government has given the Scots enough money back to pay for this - even after subtracting all the money the Scots are donating to the Olympics.
Mind you, if the Scottish National Party had won the vote to cancel the whole shambles, we might have seen better use made of the £500M or so. Still, I'm sure that the unionist coalition of Labour, Conservative and Lib-Dem think it was a great wheeze.
It was funny how it was forced thru. I still don't understand why apart from a sod the SNP vote
It does seem crazy - I don't know anyone that is, or has been, Pro Tram, even before it turned into a disaster project. I always thought some sort of electric buses (if such a thing exists) would have been a better use of a couple of hundred million.
I think they would be really great, they are great in manchester, buses stink. Shouldnt have got rid of them in the first place!
they possibly would be great, IF there was a network of them, but the justification of going from the Asda at Newhaven to almost the airport doesnt really make much sense, to me or indeed anybody I have spoken to.
All the pish about developing future routes are as likely to happen as Vince Cable making PM
[i]I don't want to start it all again but if it actually interfaced with teh airport and tha railway in any sort of useful fashion[/i]
I do admire the way that you're willing to return to the scene of previous idiocy.
The trams [b]do[/b] interface with both the airport and mainline train stations, just not as close as you'd like in TJ's mystical La La Land.
Still a shambles and a fine example of why the public sector shouldn't be trusted with expensive, complex projects, but the whole thing could do with less of the bollocks and plain lies spouted about it.
A tram to Gogarburn and then walk or get a taxi to the airport, that sounds like fun!
Good for the taxi firms though...
Ho hum - Member
"A tram to Gogarburn and then walk or get a taxi to the airport, that sounds like fun!"
It's really not like that at all. TJ got a bit upset because the trams won't drop you off at the baggage carousels but the tramline will service the airport just fine- the stop's going to be just beside the bus stops on Burnside Road. It could be closer but not by much, and it's still closer than most of the car parks.
Guys - no stretch of the imagination do they interface with the mainline trains properly and stopping a distance from the airport terminal is pish as well.
As a result it will be useless.
Its half baked.
Compare it to manchester
Are we doing this again?
The tram terminus at the airport is as close as it can be [i]while allowing for the planned extension of the airport building to eventually adjoin the tram terminus[/i].
TJ: "stopping a distance from the airport terminal is pish as well."
The buses and cars do that as well. Is that pish too? Is that why nobody goes to the airport?
The connection with the mainline stations isn't ideal but again, it's no worse than the existing bus-train connections and I don't think anyone's got a problem with those.
[img] 
[/img]
Tram terminal will be within green netting
within the shuttle bus area.
Its further away than the buses and cars stop. They stop right outside the terminal. You will have to walk several hundred yards and cross a road to get to the terminal from the tram.
No worse that the buses? - what poverty of ambition. It should be much better. It should be the basis for a modern integrated system.
Many people have issues with using the buses to get to the train - and the tram will not address this. How about if you have a lot of awkward luggage or have impaired mobility
Less than 200 yards actually. Less than the distance from the bus stops to the departure gate check-in area.
Do you really think that is acceptable? when I have walked to the taxi rank it feels a lot further than 200 yds and that is where the taxi rank is now.
TandemJeremy - Member
"Its further away than the buses and cars stop. They stop right outside the terminal. You will have to walk several hundred yards and cross a road to get to the terminal from the tram."
Some buses stop right outside, most don't. And only cars that are dropping off stop right outside, cars that are parking are mostly further away. Regardless of how you want to butter it, the distance from the tram stop to the terminal is less than you have to walk inside the terminal to get to most of the departure gates... it's also far less than you have to walk in heathrow to get to to the underground, and I think from memory about the same as to get from City to the DLR.
And then, since we're talking about integration- it's certainly easier to get from the planned tram stops onto the mainline trains than it is to get from the underground onto a mainline train at kings cross, never mind from the DLR to the underground to a mainline train.
Al droped me off at that taxi rank when I came up to see you TJ. I would agree it's too far away, but luckily I had my bike, so I took it out of the bag, re-assembled it and rode the 50 meters to the terminal.
If you go to Gatwick or Heathrow the busses and trains are much further away from the terminal and people still use them.
What poverty of ambition to consider this to be acceptable. At kings cross IIRC you have an escalator in the station complex. The interface between the trams and trains is rubbish. Its based at Haymarket not Waverley so useless for trains to the south.
Why is it acceptable to have to walk 200 yards from the terminal to the tram - crossing a road and going outside?
Tree - thats not where you get dropped off by a car usually.
This was an opportunity to have a truly integrated transport system like in other places where new urban rapid transport has been built. Inste4ad we are getting a "thats good enough" system as its nearly as good as the buses. 🙄
[i]I always thought some sort of electric buses (if such a thing exists) would have been a better use of a couple of hundred million. [/i]
Like these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_buses
In fact if anyone older than 50 had been involved in the 'project' they might have remembered them in Glasgow:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybuses_in_Glasgow
It's simple really they're putting the tram on the track then you get on at one end walk to the seat at the other end have a wee sit down then get off at the stop. You will have travelled approx the length of the tram that's the future of the Edinburgh tram scheme.
Oh the irony.... we found this under some psychodelic carpet we lifted during a building project at home. In teh same paper was news of Donald Campbell's attempt at the water speed record on Coniston Water...
[url= http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3540/3330372391_d660ca8a69.jp g" target="_blank">
What goes around (late and over budget), comes around (late and over budget)....
TandemJeremy - Member
You will have to walk [b]several hundred yards[/b] and cross a road to get to the terminal from the tram.
You see TJ, that change of heart makes me think you actually had no idea of where the tram terminus was going to be - and as I've already mentioned above, it is the intention to extend the airport terminal building further South and East.TandemJeremy - Member
Why is it acceptable to have to walk [b]200 yards[/b] from the terminal to the tram - crossing a road and going outside?
a
Personally, I think there should be a car drop-off lane actually [i]inside[/i] the terminal building. Of course, that would mean shutting it down for a while to knock a couple of big holes in it, then taking up some of the internal space but at least it would be [i]integrated[/i] right?
Should I also point out that the tram stops throughout town are more than 200 metres apart?
TJ - have you actually been to Edinburgh Airport recently? If you get dropped off by car you have to go into the multi-storey car park, and if the place is busy you may even have to go to the far end of this building which is as far out as the end of the taxi rank. And then cross a road.
This of course assumes that you're happy paying for this and not being left at the long stay car park.
I heard an interesting (and unsubstantiated) theory that Bilfinger Bergen really aren't as much at fault as we're being led to believe, they put a cost in based on surveying information that proved to be wrong, they had never budgeted for as much work as they're having to do as they had been given good reason to believe they wouldn't have to do it.
Suddenly makes you wonder if 'delinquent' is just in fact 'unwilling to dig up pipes and churchyards and gas mains that they were not informed about'.
Anyway, can someone remind me how the public were 'consulted' about the project before it started? My dad won't hear a word out of me on the subject because he claims I had my chance to say something when the plans were made public. I can only remember a debate about congestion charges..
Yes I was at the airport this summer - dropped off in the drop off area very close to the terminal.
Druidh - you claim it is 200 yards - I thought it further to the spot where you have told me the tram will be. It certainly seemed more than 200 yards last time I was lugging my luggage to that spot to get a taxi.
I still cannot believe you think this is acceptable and are defending it. Imagine a journey from the east lothian trains to the airport if you have mobility issues.
What poverty of ambition you have - is this the scottish cringe in action?
There was no referendum on the trams. The only chance anyone had to object was as part of the normal planning consent process. Having said that, if enough folk had voted SNP - and they'd got a majority government - it would have been scrapped after the parliamentary elections. It would still have cost us a bit to buy out the contracts as these were rushed through before the elections. Now, I wonder if rushing them through meant that scrutiny wasn't all it might have been?
TJ - you really do have the strangest way of arguing. In every recent thread, you've latched onto a catchphrase and repeated it in post after post as if that re-inforces your point. It's actually pretty childish and is something my daughter grew out of years ago.
As I've already explained the reasons for the placement of the tram terminus - twice - I can only assume that you're continuing this as a mere troll and I'll no longer be answering your posts.
What reason for the tram terminus to be where it is?
I genuinely don't understand why you think this is acceptable.
TandemJeremy - Member
"This was an opportunity to have a truly integrated transport system like in other places where new urban rapid transport has been built. Inste4ad we are getting a "thats good enough" system as its nearly as good as the buses."
The thing about good enough, is that it's good enough. Causing more disruption and more cost for "more than good enough" or "much better than it has to be" isn't that easy to justify is it? Putting the tram station where the main bus stops are- the only other option- would have meant disrupting all road access to the terminal for cars, minicabs and buses, and moving the entire bus station,all hugely disruptive to passengers and no doubt expensive. And in the end, the bus station would end up where the tram station is to be- so less "integrated" and "several hundred yards from the terminal".
The point I'm making when I compare with the existing services is that you can see in the real world how [i]terrible[/i] it is to go from the car park to the airport, or from haymarket to a 100 bus- and realise it's not terrible at all- it's simply not a problem.
But for some reason you're insisting on applying a higher standard to the trams and insisting that very good isn't any good. It's got to be perfect or it's useless.
It is of course possible that the tram station location is there so that future development is possible. I've been working on some transport stuff at a large airport where things that were allowed for in the early 70s are now being undertaken and what I'm working on is allowing for things to happen in the 2030s.