Edinburgh Tram developments

[enginedin]

The bioquarter is actually the area around the Royal Infirmary, at Little France

Correct (although I'd say more simply it's the name given to the expanded Edinburgh Royal Infirmary campus, which now includes various academic, Government, and commercial research institutes as well as the ERI and the new Children's Hospital: "Sick Kids")

Roslyn. About 8 miles south of the centre

I guess you're thinking of the Easter Bush campus, which has the University of Edinburgh Vet School (and associated animal hospitals), the Roslin Institute (most famous for the creation of Dolly the sheep), some of the Government environmental research labs (Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, and Forestry Research), as well as some other commercial science organisations (the whole area is sometimes branded as the Midlothian Science Zone https://midlothiansciencezone.com/).

I think the city council are using it a lot and tying to make it a thing

I'm probably biased (given I'm a Scottish-based scientist), but I've heard the name banded around since well before Covid - the development of the area is formally a partnership between Edinburgh Uni, NHS, Scottish Government (via Scottish Enterprise) and City of Edinburgh Council: https://edinburghbioquarter.com/

 

[A330Alex]

The rationale provided in the council papers for running down Nicholson Street rather than Lothian Road is facile to the point of almost insulting, and if that's the quality of the analysis they've done more widely then I'm worried the new line is heading for the same kind of overruns as the original airport route.

I struggle to understand this. IMO running down the Bridges corridor is clearly superior.

- Significantly increased catchment.
- Covers major trip generators (Royal Mile / UofE etc) and links Princes St to the South East
- Enables South East - Newhaven journeys
- Less new build track required

 

[takno]

I struggle to understand this. IMO running down the Bridges corridor is clearly superior.

- Significantly increased catchment.
- Covers major trip generators (Royal Mile / UofE etc) and links Princes St to the South East
- Enables South East - Newhaven journeys
- Less new build track required

The UofE is covered by all routes apart from the down-the-meadows option. It's arguably rather better covered by the Lothian road route.

Trips from the south to the west are of course also somewhat faster that way and were deliberately missed off the analysis, even though it's likely to be a more substantial flow than south to Granton. The analysis didn't even appear to consider the possibility of connecting the lines and operating a network, rather than having two lines and furiously refusing to even have a common stop.

Ultimately though, the whole thing fell down on some lazy assumptions that the route through South bridge could basically just be made to work with the magical removal of buses and other traffic. The removal of buses wasn't justified and won't happen, and I'm not aware of any meaningful plans to remove other traffic. The trams will just join the mess and make everything run even slower.

It isn't exactly an analysis at all - it's a table with some cherry-picked comparisons, where wholly unjustified claims have been made to support a decision which had clearly already been made.

I'm not saying that Lothian Road is the right answer by the way - South Bridge would suit me personally a lot better. It's just that without a serious amount of advance planning and stakeholder buyin South Bridge cannot be made to work. Rushing-it-all-through with a Soviet-style whitewash report strongly suggests that we're heading for another monumental and expensive disaster.

 

[InOban]

I don't understand why the Mound was ruled out as too steep when the old trams ran that way.

 

[takno]

I don't understand why the Mound was ruled out as too steep when the old trams ran that way.

By contrast they're apparently going to have no trouble at all sweeping left around the corner by the Scotsman.

 

[VioletEclipse]

I don't understand why the Mound was ruled out as too steep when the old trams ran that way.

The old trams had similar dimensions to a double decker bus, the modern trams are more similar to a train in dimensions. It doesn't mean that going around tight corners at an incline is impossible (eg Bank Street to North Bank Street), but putting the modern trams on the mound would probably be extremely difficult. In my opinion via the Bridges makes the most sense from a demand perspective, but Lothian Road - Brougham Street - Melville Drive would likely be significantly easier to build.

 

[MCR247]

I don't understand why the Mound was ruled out as too steep when the old trams ran that way.

It might be for the best. I remember reading something about the CAF Urbos cracks being to do with the forces exerted on the body when dealing with tight corners and gradients at the same time

 

[Edgar Ætheling]

By contrast they're apparently going to have no trouble at all sweeping left around the corner by the Scotsman.

The current fleet (and probably any modern, low floor, multi-module tram) would be unable to handle the gradients of the Mound. These vehicles are often stretched to their limits at places on the existing line (St Andrew's Street for example) when railhead conditions are challenging. For the same reason I always thought that Orchard Brae would have been a no-go for trams.

 

[Tivvy]

This is the core of the problem. There are 60 buses an hour each way down Nicholson street, and only about 6 of them have their route covered by the new tram route. You might get away with slightly reducing frequency on other routes so that you got rid of maybe a quarter of the buses, based on the assumption that a proportion of their passengers are only travelling within the area covered by the tram. Beyond that you'd end up having to make people change onto the tram which, even if it did work in reality, isn't going to work in this case because there aren't any sensible interchange points.

I had very similar thoughts while making my way (by bus) down the Newington corridor yesterday afternoon. As far as I can tell, only the 49 follows the proposed tram route from the Bridges to the Royal Infirmary (RIE) via Lady Road, three times an hour in each direction, so it might be even worse than you suggest. There are other buses to the RIE, like the 7 and 8, but these serve other areas after Cameron Toll to get there (quite helpfully for the people who live in them). Then of course there's the folk wanting to get to Penicuik, Lasswade, etc, none of whom the tram extensions will be helping any time soon. My guess is that such people are intended to change between tram and bus at Newington Station, but since by then you're almost in the city centre I can't see that working unless waiting times are very short. (Cameron Toll would be a painful interchange, given the road layout there.)

On top of that, the area south of Salisbury Rd is not that densely populated (by Edinburgh standards), and then from Cameron Toll onwards the route is flanked on at least one side by parkland or a golf course, serving only a tiny fraction of the Inch housing estate. The biggest workplace near the southern end of the route (the University's Kings Buildings campus) is probably just a shade too far from either the Newington Station or Cameron Toll stops to be an attractive option for people who work or study there... which makes even this staunch supporter of tram networks wonder who this extension is for.

I guess taking the route down Mayfield Rd and/or Gilmerton Rd to serve higher-density residential areas and/or Kings Buildings is unfeasible from an engineering perspective. Plus it would extend journey times to RIE.

Ultimately though, the whole thing fell down on some lazy assumptions that the route through South bridge could basically just be made to work with the magical removal of buses and other traffic. The removal of buses wasn't justified and won't happen, and I'm not aware of any meaningful plans to remove other traffic. The trams will just join the mess and make everything run even slower.

Interestingly, there is a proposal going to the same transport committee meeting about A circulation plan for Edinburgh - item 7.2 on this agenda. The basic idea seems to be to kick private transport out of the city centre Low Emissions Zone, which would at least leave trams and buses largely uncontended north of Preston St, which I suppose would help a bit.

 

[och aye]

Thanks - there’s an idea. I would have to ask ScotRail very nicely.
I did actually attempt to film a last tour accompanied by NR operatives during the snagging phase, but certain other people in authority asked me to delete the footage in their presence as “it is now an operational area”.
Shortly afterwards I discovered a freely accessible NR presentation online that showed all the same areas in some detail.


Thanks for that link.
I think my daughter works in that area but I’ve not heard it called that before.

Well that's annoying! Hopefully now that ScotRail are fully managing the station, you may have better luck this time. It would be nice if they could let you bookend your fantastic video series.

 

[Sussexscot]

Although I was not part of the design team, I worked alongside those who were and heard first hand the problems the design team suffered. The Client specified that the trams that were being considered would be no longer than 40m and must be light to reduce current consumption on hills. In the end the Client opted for the heaviest and longest tram at the time, 42m long. This meant a total redesign of Gogar depot as everything had to be stretched to accommodate the longer trams. I suppose that the current tram therefore is limited on its hill climbing capability.

It is a shame that the Mound has been ruled out as I feel that the optimum solution for going south from Princes Street is a triangle junction at the foot of the Mound for trams only (other traffic uses the current restrictions) with the trams using George IV Bridge and Potterrow. I feel that South Bridge is too narrow to accommodate all the bus routes, double track tram lines and places for delivery vehicles to park whilst servicing all the shops on South Bridge. Between Surgeons' Hall and Salisbury Place, South Clerk Street is a bit wider but still not wide enough to accommodate all the traffic need so I suggest that South Clerk Street is used for southbound traffic, including trams, with Causewayside taking the northbound traffic. This will make room for tramstops, bus stops and delivery vehicle parking. I agree that Newington Road is wide enough to accommodate trams' needs though parking for the residents would be an issue.

It will be "interesting" how the Council's ideas are taken forward.

 

[Siemens Trains]

Although I was not part of the design team, I worked alongside those who were and heard first hand the problems the design team suffered. The Client specified that the trams that were being considered would be no longer than 40m and must be light to reduce current consumption on hills. In the end the Client opted for the heaviest and longest tram at the time, 42m long. This meant a total redesign of Gogar depot as everything had to be stretched to accommodate the longer trams. I suppose that the current tram therefore is limited on its hill climbing capability.

It is a shame that the Mound has been ruled out as I feel that the optimum solution for going south from Princes Street is a triangle junction at the foot of the Mound for trams only (other traffic uses the current restrictions) with the trams using George IV Bridge and Potterrow. I feel that South Bridge is too narrow to accommodate all the bus routes, double track tram lines and places for delivery vehicles to park whilst servicing all the shops on South Bridge. Between Surgeons' Hall and Salisbury Place, South Clerk Street is a bit wider but still not wide enough to accommodate all the traffic need so I suggest that South Clerk Street is used for southbound traffic, including trams, with Causewayside taking the northbound traffic. This will make room for tramstops, bus stops and delivery vehicle parking. I agree that Newington Road is wide enough to accommodate trams' needs though parking for the residents would be an issue.

It will be "interesting" how the Council's ideas are taken forward.

Might be a daft question but if new rolling stock is required for the north-south lines do the carriages really need to be the same design as the east-west lines? For example I imagine the London Underground uses significantly different types of trains for each line.

 

[edwin_m]

Might be a daft question but if new rolling stock is required for the north-south lines do the carriages really need to be the same design as the east-west lines? For example I imagine the London Underground uses significantly different types of trains for each line.

Both Croydon and Nottingham use two different vehicle types, due to needing to expand the fleet before the original ones were life-expired. Dublin had shorter and longer versions of the same design on different lines, but the short ones were later lengthened. Although Manchester's fleet is uniform at first sight, there are differences affecting which vehicles can run on the Altrincham line. Having two vehicle types isn't impossible but it makes life a bit more difficult for operators and maintainers, especially if it's not possible to use any vehicle on any service.

 

[computerSaysNo]

I feel that South Bridge is too narrow to accommodate all the bus routes, double track tram lines and places for delivery vehicles to park whilst servicing all the shops on South Bridge.

I suspect they'll put an island stop on North Bridge with traffic going round the outside of it, then just plain line through South Bridge with trams and road traffic all sharing two lanes and pavements widened to occupy the remainder of the road (the council is currently planning to widen the footpaths).

 

[takno]

I suspect they'll put an island stop on North Bridge with traffic going round the outside of it, then just plain line through South Bridge with trams and road traffic all sharing two lanes and pavements widened to occupy the remainder of the road (the council is currently planning to widen the footpaths).

Not arguing that the pavements need to be wider, although the point where that's most desperately required is by the Tron where the road is narrowest. Where does all that leave the bus stops, and vehicle loading/unloading?

 

[Sussexscot]

Not arguing that the pavements need to be wider, although the point where that's most desperately required is by the Tron where the road is narrowest. Where does all that leave the bus stops, and vehicle loading/unloading?

With using the Mound being a definite no-no and South Bridge really too narrow for everything that wants to use that road, then perhaps if the trams do a 90 degree turn at the Tron and head up the Royal Mile. Yes it is pedestrianised but there are other places in the UK where trams run on such areas so it is a possibility if the political will is there. Trams could then use George IV Bridge and Potterrow. This would avoid the really big problem that is South Bridge. I can imagine the outcry if someone proposed to widen South Bridge and the redevelop shops etc on the bridge! When I was last on a number 5 tram going south over the Bridges, there was hardly any traffic, unlike today!

 

[enginedin]

the really big problem that is South Bridge.

But they've just spent 5 years strengthening renovating it *takes tin hat off*

 

[InOban]

They're planning to remove all private cars off both the Bridges and the Mound within the next couple of years. Where the traffic will go, I've no idea.

 

[VioletEclipse]

With using the Mound being a definite no-no and South Bridge really too narrow for everything that wants to use that road, then perhaps if the trams do a 90 degree turn at the Tron and head up the Royal Mile. Yes it is pedestrianised but there are other places in the UK where trams run on such areas so it is a possibility if the political will is there. Trams could then use George IV Bridge and Potterrow. This would avoid the really big problem that is South Bridge. I can imagine the outcry if someone proposed to widen South Bridge and the redevelop shops etc on the bridge! When I was last on a number 5 tram going south over the Bridges, there was hardly any traffic, unlike today!

While you're right, it does to some extent make sense to route trams from North Bridge up High Street, Lawnmarket and George IV Bridge, I just can't imagine that being so much as seriously proposed. Imagine the public outcry! Although come to think of it, honestly I somewhat like the idea of trams on the High Street, but it's almost definitely not gong to happen.

 

[K.o.R]

Sounds a bit like the loop in Croydon. Down High Street, George VI Bridge, Lothian St and onto Potterrow which can then run parallel to the A7/South Bridge until you get to a point where traffic has thinned enough that you can bring the two directions back together?

 

[waverley47]

The last couple of posts have suggested the High Street as a valid alternative, but it really isn't.

High Street is pedestrianised, and the council want to keep it that way. It's the flagship of the World Heritage Site, and it's where most tourists want to take their photos. And most importantly, it's absolutely rammed for most of the summer. Putting even one way trams down the hill just isn't workable.

It's also a heck of an extra distance, around quite a few very slow corners, for trams to go through St. Patrick's Square, Potterrow, Bristo Place and down the High Street, adding easily an extra ten minutes on.

Furthermore, Bristo Place is going to become two way traffic in the near future, as Forrest Road is pedestrianised, tying in with the cycle route from George Street, up the Mound, along George IV and down to the Meadows. There won't be room for threading trams through there.

There are exactly two workable solutions.

The easier to build, but longer and less popular route down Lothian road, that unfortunately doesn't go where most people want to go.

Or the more expensive, but much more popular route straight down Clerk Street.

It will be the latter, and it will be associated with a slew of new measures to curb car traffic across the Bridges.

 

[Siemens Trains]

The last couple of posts have suggested the High Street as a valid alternative, but it really isn't.

High Street is pedestrianised, and the council want to keep it that way. It's the flagship of the World Heritage Site, and it's where most tourists want to take their photos. And most importantly, it's absolutely rammed for most of the summer. Putting even one way trams down the hill just isn't workable.

It's also a heck of an extra distance, around quite a few very slow corners, for trams to go through St. Patrick's Square, Potterrow, Bristo Place and down the High Street, adding easily an extra ten minutes on.

Furthermore, Bristo Place is going to become two way traffic in the near future, as Forrest Road is pedestrianised, tying in with the cycle route from George Street, up the Mound, along George IV and down to the Meadows. There won't be room for threading trams through there.

There are exactly two workable solutions.

The easier to build, but longer and less popular route down Lothian road, that unfortunately doesn't go where most people want to go.

Or the more expensive, but much more popular route straight down Clerk Street.

It will be the latter, and it will be associated with a slew of new measures to curb car traffic across the Bridges.

Absolutely correct. Routes with the heaviest bus density and passenger demand are the clearest candidates for running trams. I've seen how trams have created difficulties for other traffic (including buses) on Shandwick Place and Princes Street. I imagine Leith Walk is the same although I'm not down that way often these days. Going up the bridges towards the infirmary will be their strong preference.

 

[NotATrainspott]

As the network develops, it will become increasingly clear that the solution is really just to build more tram lines. The aim of the game is to get people moving into and around the city. Trams are generally better than buses and absolutely better than cars and taxis at doing that. Making life harder for 1 passenger who needs to use a car in order to make life easier for 10 passengers who would use the expanded tram service is generally worth it, and politicians need to understand that. Turning the city centre into an LTN (i.e. maintaining full accessibility to private vehicles but not being available as a through route for anyone) is critical to manage increases in pedestrian flows, let alone trams and any remaining buses.

We need to just keep going and building more tram lines out in the suburbs to provide more of the city with a direct tram service. Once the city centre section is too full, we can spend the bit of money needed to add in a second city crossing like in Manchester; this enables higher frequencies on existing branches and makes more marginal ones easier to justify.

 

[Kingston Dan]

As the network develops, it will become increasingly clear that the solution is really just to build more tram lines. The aim of the game is to get people moving into and around the city. Trams are generally better than buses and absolutely better than cars and taxis at doing that. Making life harder for 1 passenger who needs to use a car in order to make life easier for 10 passengers who would use the expanded tram service is generally worth it, and politicians need to understand that. Turning the city centre into an LTN (i.e. maintaining full accessibility to private vehicles but not being available as a through route for anyone) is critical to manage increases in pedestrian flows, let alone trams and any remaining buses.

We need to just keep going and building more tram lines out in the suburbs to provide more of the city with a direct tram service. Once the city centre section is too full, we can spend the bit of money needed to add in a second city crossing like in Manchester; this enables higher frequencies on existing branches and makes more marginal ones easier to justify.

Quite.

 

[takno]

As the network develops, it will become increasingly clear that the solution is really just to build more tram lines. The aim of the game is to get people moving into and around the city. Trams are generally better than buses and absolutely better than cars and taxis at doing that. Making life harder for 1 passenger who needs to use a car in order to make life easier for 10 passengers who would use the expanded tram service is generally worth it, and politicians need to understand that. Turning the city centre into an LTN (i.e. maintaining full accessibility to private vehicles but not being available as a through route for anyone) is critical to manage increases in pedestrian flows, let alone trams and any remaining buses.

We need to just keep going and building more tram lines out in the suburbs to provide more of the city with a direct tram service. Once the city centre section is too full, we can spend the bit of money needed to add in a second city crossing like in Manchester; this enables higher frequencies on existing branches and makes more marginal ones easier to justify.

I have zero objections to the city being an LTN. The problem is that the old town is also a complex warren of relatively narrow streets serving tall buildings with often only a single entrance, whilst filled to the brim with pedestrians, and South Bridge is a fine example of this. low-traffic is not no-traffic, and tram lines are inherently more limited when somebody is, for example, trying to put up scaffolding. The service is going to end up falling apart regularly.

The suburbs meanwhile are quite spread out, meaning that you aren't going to get a comprehensive tram network, and people are better served by reliable regular buses like the ones we have.

Even if you are on the network, as I will be if the southern line ever gets built, it's a solid 5 minute walk uphill from the nearest bus stop on the route to the nearest proposed tram stop. Given that I'm only 10 minutes from town on the bus anyway, and the average wait for a bus is around 2 minutes, the tram is always going to be slower, less mobility-accessible and more limited in the range of destinations I can get to without changing.

I'm all for trams in cities where they fit, particularly where they go along wide roads or down former railway routes, but honestly in southside Edinburgh I think they're mostly a low quality replacement for buses.

 

[dcsprior]

I don't think there's any route you could run to get there without cutting straight through some very inviolable parkland, and then you'd manage to avoid all the places you wanted the tram to go to on the way. Once you're past the Bridges, the road is effectively four lanes all the way so there's no massive issue fitting it in. Obviously the resulting journey won't be any faster or more comfortable than running a limited-stop bus would be, but that isn't the point for some reason.

Tram-train:

• Waverley -> Brunstane -> Niddrie / Craigmillar -> Cameron toll on railway
• Cameron Toll -> Hospital ("BioQuarter") -> Shawfair Park -> Shawfair Station on road
• Shawfair -> Newcraighall -> Brunstane -> Waverley on railway

And another service doing the same in reverse

 

[takno]

Tram-train:

• Waverley -> Brunstane -> Niddrie / Craigmillar -> Cameron toll on railway
• Cameron Toll -> Hospital ("BioQuarter") -> Shawfair Park -> Shawfair Station on road
• Shawfair -> Newcraighall -> Brunstane -> Waverley on railway

And another service doing the same in reverse

The primary issues with this being that there isn't any spare capacity on the railway to fit in tram-trains to Waverley, it's a really long way round so probably wouldn't be any quicker, and it goes to a huge effort to avoid all the large population centres you'd want to serve

 

[stuu]

...but the city is too small to just go underground.

Rennes says hi. There are plenty of cities smaller than Edinburgh with underground routes, especially trams/stadtbahn type lines in Germany

 

[Austriantrain]

Rennes says hi. There are plenty of cities smaller than Edinburgh with underground routes, especially trams/stadtbahn type lines in Germany

It’s usually not cost effective though and many German cities have fallen into the trap that their underground systems are very expensive to maintain.

Although an underground core can, of course, be plausible sometimes.

 

[waverley47]

Rennes says hi. There are plenty of cities smaller than Edinburgh with underground routes, especially trams/stadtbahn type lines in Germany

The fact that other similar cities can and have built underground systems has no bearing on whether or not an underground system in Edinburgh is practical or affordable I'm afraid.

Tram-train:

• Waverley -> Brunstane -> Niddrie / Craigmillar -> Cameron toll on railway
• Cameron Toll -> Hospital ("BioQuarter") -> Shawfair Park -> Shawfair Station on road
• Shawfair -> Newcraighall -> Brunstane -> Waverley on railway

And another service doing the same in reverse

Please see the following post about why the sub is unworkable.

The sub isn't going to happen.

This has been done to death. Please see this thread (https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/edinburgh-south-sub-feasibility-study.236261/#post-5818425) for many of the reasons as to why the sub is basically unusable for trams or passenger workings.