And even worse - what will the Taxi drivers rant about now ? It used to be so simple, just say "trams" and no more making polite conversation just sleep through the journey.
This Edinburgh fiasco was badly commissioned (a new separate arms length company led by someone with no experience) the plan was really flawed (avoids the main train station, demolishes a dedicated busway, has a dubious route....) and a badly setup contract, lots of independent subcontractors etc....
I would love if it had been thought out and done properly. But from a project management and budget point of view it is so funny to actually be sad.
Should they get rid of it after spending so much - probably not at this stage imo. It'll probably be a really short / rubbish setup to start with but hopefully when they come to extend the line to it's original length (and the originally promised 2 lines!) hopefully they'll have learnt their lesson and not let anyone from the council anywhere near contracts, budgets, planning and responsibility.
You'd never catch Glasgow City Council wasting money like that....
The guided buses lane was absolute madness - a driver could competently conduct a bus all the way across the city but suddenly needed guided assistance over a mile or so of virtually straight route? Bo....ks.
I think the idea here was too avoid the queues of traffic to reduce bus journey times with little impact on regular traffic, not to help the drivers steer!
OT but, I use to work for RMC (Ready Mix Concrete) and one of their first contracts was filling in the gaps in the roads left when they lifted trams lines around London.
http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/history2/45/RMC-Group-p-l-c.html
The tram will interface properly with the airport, anyone that says otherwise is a taxi driver/EEN reporter.
Really? My understanding was that it doesn't go right to the terminal. Is that wrong?
It certainly does not interface3 with the railways properly
Yep, short walk on covered walkway from terminal at airport, so no further than most other airport rail links.
There is to be an interchange at Haymarket that will tie it into the rail network - not perfect but I guess having Waverley in a big hole below street level made linking into that too difficult/ expensive.
Trams are so early 90's. Most other cities have moved on through their own version of the hulme arch and are now on millenium wheels. We should just introduce civic ideas quotas - once there are five you've got to go away and come up with a new idea.
What is the latest civic must have / folly?
So actually then neither is a proper interface. The tram should go directly to the terminal as it does on many other airports. Not to do so is stupid. Same with the trains. So you want to get the tram from leith to get a train to london. An interchange at haymarket where you still have the to go down a significant height is useless. How do you get from heymarket to waverly to get your london train - get on a tain and get off again?
Its half baked.
TJ, don't the trams run along Princes Street? not far from Waverley surely! The lines, or tunnels directly into the station do not have capacity for any more services as i understand it, they restrict train movements as it is.
If it gets you from the airport into town without having that stupid really long and uncomfortable bus journey then even with a covered walkway I'm definitely in.
Although will it be any better than busses? IIRC the entire point about the Manchester ones, and why they were an innovative idea was that they were tram/train hybrids. So fast(ish) train speeds on the miles of existing but unused old rail lines all over the place but going onto roads in the town centre so you could get right to the shops without needing any new station capacity (Manchester having closed its main railway station in the 60s).
Surely something similar would be a pre-requisite for modern trams, otherwise it's just an expensive bus lane, isn't it?
There is to be an interchange at Haymarket that will tie it into the rail network - not perfect but I guess having Waverley in a big hole below street level made linking into that too difficult/ expensive.
as I understand it the main focus of rail development in edinburgh over the next decade is driven by the need to cater for the new high speed trains to daaan saaarf and will be focussed at haymarket as there are technical issues with them coming into waverley - can't electrify waverley because of the headroom in the tunnel to the south or the platforms too short rings a bell.
RS - think of people with impaired mobilty? It should be right into Waverly station and right into the airport terminal. An ionterface at heymarket is no good if you want a train from waverly
MOlgrips - manchester had two main train stations when I lived there in the 80s and the railway the tram goes on was not disused. The trains were stopped and replaced by the tram
TJ, while it would nice to accommodate everyone, Waverley is a huge headache to get any more services into so just not going to happen, 99.9% of people will be fine accessing waverley from princess street like they have to just now. The trams should be about moving bodies into and out of the city centre during rush hour, and this is its biggest fail in my eyes as it doesn't offer a big enough advantage over the bus.
I meant the 'main' one as in Manchester Central. It had various rail lines pointing towards it I think although not going all the way.
Trams are a brilliant idea if you're living in 1890.
I actually applied for a job with those well regarded german contractors as Edinburgh Tram design manager about 18 months ago. In hindsight I was bloody lucky that I didn't get it.
It does go to the Airport and it does stop outside Waverly and through Haymarket.
Just as an aside - I was working for Network Rail when the Scottish Parliament cancelled the Edinburgh Airport Rail link - which we had spent a shitload of time and effort developing. It would have provided a link from Dundee, Stirling, Glasgow etc directly to the Airport and then on to Edinburgh. It was cancelled for no good reason other than they were already comitted to building the Tram.
The 'Sheffield' tram service may be a good one, but it's a little daft to name it the 'sheffield supertram'. That name suggests one can use the tram to get around sheffield.
don't get me wrong, it does a fantastic job of shuttling people around from hillsborough, to the meadowhall shopping centre. Just in case the good people of hillsborough get bored of the hillsborough shopping centre...
perhaps it should be called 'the happy hillsborough shopping day out to meadowhall tram service'.
Sheffield grinds to a halt about 3 times a week when a tram breaks down on west street*. i dread to think what would happen if these things were allowed to use busier roads...
not to mention the nightmare of rail-renewal every 20 years...
(*quite why the tram uses west street i've no idea. it's a very long detour to go from Cathedral to kelham island - which is about a 5min walk, or 15mins on the tram)
On the new this morning they were talking about a 100 or 200 million overspend like it was no big deal 😯
Lets take a conservative £1bn for the final cost of the trams. What would that have paid for that might actually be of use to someone?
[i]What would that have paid for that might actually be of use to someone? [/i]
Could have kept the Vulcan flying for YEARS! 😉
(see [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/save-the-vulcan ] this thread[/url] from a couple of days ago if you don't get the reference...)
The guided buses lane was absolute madness - a driver could competently conduct a bus all the way across the city but suddenly needed guided assistance over a mile or so of virtually straight route? Bo....ks.
"I think the idea here was to avoid the queues of traffic to reduce bus journey times with little impact on regular traffic, not to help the drivers steer! "
Of course it was so why not just let the drivers use their skills on a separate tarmac lane on the line chosen instead of building a comparatively expensive concrete channel and modified buses.
I meant the 'main' one as in Manchester Central. It had various rail lines pointing towards it I think although not going all the way.
I don't think Manchester Central was ever the main station for Manchester, which was and is Piccadilly (4th busiest in the UK after B'ham New St, Glasgow Central & Leeds, according to Wikipedia). Victoria is the second busiest, & Metrolink runs directly from one to the other.
IIRC all the off-street bits of the network at the moment were conversions of existing heavy rail; I think the Chorlton stretch is the only bit of disused track bed to be used in the expansion.
Andy
[i]Of course it was so why not just let the drivers use their skills on a separate tarmac lane on the line chosen instead of building a comparatively expensive concrete channel and modified buses. [/i]
But when you put bus lanes down they're used by normal traffic too, people parking up or unloading etc, they stop at junctions for traffic to turn across them.
Put down a concrete channel and the bus can go MUCH faster in complete safety and no other traffic can use it. The problem lies with the bus going faster, a driver can't steer it between narrow kerbs at those speeds so it needs to be guided. It's basically a cheap and slightly more versatile version of a tram network.
Still runs into problems at junctions though cos you need to lower the kerb so other traffic can at least cross it so you're not far off square one again...
TJ - The tram station at the airport is at the end of the covered walkway, i.e. exactly the same distance you need to walk if you're getting a taxi out of the airport.
alsidair - its still not as it should be. It should be right in the terminal. Why have a walk of a couple of hundred m? WIt means its useless for mobility inpaired people.
Its just stupid that it doesn't go right to the terminal and also join properly with the train station.
It just shows a lack of joined up thinking
TJ - Waverley is already packed and the St Andrews Square stop is 5 mins walk away from Waverley anyway. Waverley is stuck between Castle Rock and Princess Street/ Gardens so no space to expand, and only 4 lines go into Waverley from the west and more would encroach on the Gardens and mean digging some fairly serious tunnels so unlikely to happen. If most people can make the trip down some steps (as they do now), and there is a viable option for the less able then what's not to like?
The airport link will be great - it's linked to the terminal undercover, and will be closer to the airport entrance than the distance from security to the new end of the terminal (Gates 12 upwards), and will hopefully get quite a lot of taxis off the road.
Even if it only runs from Princess St to Ingliston and the Airport it will be fine by me.
I think the point, TJ, is that the cost associated with terminating the tram line inside the terminal building would be pretty high compared to stopping just outside it.
And as for linking with the railway network, you have to work with what is there already. The levels at Waverley make things very difficult and Haymarket Station is on a very complex and busy road junction. It's all about a finding the solution which is the best compromise for the tram, pedestrians, cyclists, cars, HGVs, buses, taxis etc etc and all the while thinking about interchanging between these different modes of travel. You wouldn't obtain a perfect solution without a blank canvas and a massive pile of cash.
I don't know how anyone can defend this.
Its ridiculous that its not in the terminal and no proper intrerface with the trains is stupid.
So for example I live in North berwick and I want to go to the airport. Train to Waverley - either climb the steps and go outside to get a tram to the airport where I again will have to go outside and walk a couple of hundred m to the terminal building. Or get another train from Waverley to Heymarket then go up escalators to outside to get the tram.
Thats twice you have to walk reasonable distances outdoors / climb steps with your luggage
I don't care what the practical considerations are - this is half baked. If you are going to do something like this do it properly. This is supposed to be the basis of a system for the next century - so do it properly or don't do it.
Have you actually used modern european integrated transport systems?
Edit - amsterdam - an escalator in the terminal building takes you to the train station. Fast links to city centre and loads of other destinations
Geneva- main train station underneath the airport - Ok you go about 20 m under a covered walkway - again you have a choice of loads of trains.
Say you want to go from Glasgow or Stirling to Edinburgh airport> You will have to go past the airport on teh train and then go back out on the tram. Bonkers. From stirling the train avctually goes past teh runway.
Double edit - its not "just outside" if it is as stated above - its a couple of hundred m away
Triple edit
Its the poverty of ambition that gets to me. Want a tram link do it right
"I don't care what the practical considerations are"
That says it all.
When you start with a city built on volcanic hills so there's lots of steep gradients and you can't tunnel at all easily, the railway line runs through the middle in a deep trench and the whole thing is a World Heritage Site then I guess the options for integrating transport are pretty limited.
Do taxis not drop you off right outside the door of the place?
The point being Stu that it is an inadequate compromise. Its poverty of ambition. compromise it so much its actually no advantage over what is there already.
There are tunnels under the city built a hundred years ago.
Its half baked and half hearted.
I can easily beat the Airlink bus from West End of Princess Street to the end of the airport road on the A8. Usually pass one or two on my commute, and I could save a few mins by using the Gogar roundabout or underpass but I doubt I'd live too long. Takes quite a few mins getting from the Gyle side of the A8 to the cycle path on the north side of the road at Maybury, round the tram depot works and back over the RBS bridge and onto the south side again.
I bet the tram will be quicker than me regardless, which is an improvement.
Anyway no point arguing TJ, I think the trams will be pretty handy for getting me out of Leith if I ever have the misfortune to end up there, or getting to airport.
You clearly think the current plan is underambitous and they should have gone for something even bigger and more expensive, so we'll never agree.
I hate the trams as much as you do probably but your arguments are ridiculous TJ.
Having visited a number of quite amazing cities with a proper intergrated transport solution I am still unsure (like TJ) why they are bothering with a half hearted attempt.
You either invest this type of money in something that actually works for real people to use or do what they seem to be doing and offering an alternative to a bus... nothing more.
To expect a non english speaker to arrive in Edinburgh by plane and navigate several seperate non linked transport systems is just daft.
Just try it next time you go abroad. The places that work and grow and become centres of capital and business are the ones where everything 'works' seamlessly. Travelling through Switzerland, Germany and Holland are exercises of joy.
Travelling anywhere from Edinburgh by any type of public or private transport is just simply harder than it needs to be. The current tram plan will do nothing to solve this.
With TJ on this.
(Plus the tracks are lethal to cyclists 🙂 )
Given the limited nature of the trams I just can't see how the cost stacks up compared to having an airport train station, which seems like the obvious solution - especially given the train lines which are already near the airport.
Talking about this in the office and of our 40 or so staff think the trams are anything other than lunacy. Even that one admits the only reason he likes the idea is because he lives in Costorphine and will be able to use the trams to get into town on occasion. Even though we all use the airport and trains a fair bit it doesn't sound like anything thinks they'll actually use them to get to the airport (other than the same chap in Costorphine) - primarily because none of the rest of us live anywhere near the tram route.
I don't know why you think my argument is ridiculous. I want a true integrated transport solution and this is not it.
The railway station on the airport estate would have been a good idea.
I think it is absurd that the trams do not interface with either the rail or airport properly and I believe it is absurd to defend this half hearted and half baked compromise as good enough. Look at waht I posted about travelling form Glasgow, Stirling or North Berwick to the airport by train.
But it is a start, and better than the current state.
I'm with TJ! What this tram project needs is much more money thrown at it.
I believe the phrase is cost/benefit analysis.
Just out of interest. Given the limited number of tram stops there are going to be: How far do you think people with limited mobility will be travelling in order to get to a stop to get on the tram. I rather think the 150 metres of covered walkway at the airport end will be the least of their problems.
TJ, we all want an integrated transport system but its ridiculous because you seem to think anything is possible when in fact there are a lot of constraints associated with what you want which have already been outlined above! Yes it would be nice to have everything connected within the same building without having to use stairs or go outside but its not possible at waverley at least. I'm not sure about the airport situation but a little walkway is hardly the end of the world.
There are far greater issues with the tram solution like the fact its nothing more than a glorified bus service and still has to conflict with traffic on cross streets. It will do very little to reduce car trips into the city centre which should be the main aim in my eyes. Trips to and from the airport are small change compared with everyday peak hour commuter trips.
At the airport end, it goes pasty the Ingliston Park and Ride and RBS, so it could reduce car journeys by a reasonable amount - [i]on that route[/i].
stu - its not that is the problem. No matter what is done in the future it will never integrate with the railways or airport properly
If Waverley really is impossible for integration between rail and tram to do then why not at the gyle? Or around murreyfield?
The shoretcomings of the present design will always be there - it will remain impossible to transfer from a train to the tram easily, it will still be that when you catch a train from Stirling you have to go all the way into edinburgh to catch the tram back out despite actully passing within a few hundred yards of the runway, same for Glasgow.
My view it should be like the Manchester setup - capable of running on railway as well as on rails on the street, it should interface properly with the railways at some point and there should be some way of getting quickly from the airport to Glasgow and Stirling.
The money saved by not building dedicated track from wherever it joins the railway to the airport could have been used to sort the airport link out.
Its badly designed with built in flaws that cannot be sorted later
Its not that I believe it needs more money its that the wrong priorities are being tackled. it should be the basis for an integrated transport system not a stand alone sytem that does not integrate properly
By the way. you don't have to go all the way into Edinburgh to change to the rail network. There is an interchange at Edinburgh Park.
imnotverygood
Not all trains stop there either stirling or Glasgow - is that going to alter?
Is the tram right next to the rail?
