• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Edinburgh Trams - New Tram Train Proposal to use south suburban line.

Joined
5 Dec 2025
Messages
244
Location
Central Scotland

This article shows monumental news for Edinburgh's transport, and raises lots of questions, regardless, I am excited!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

This would use the Edinburgh suburban line on tram trains
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

waverley47

Member
Joined
17 Apr 2015
Messages
838
Hmmmmmm.

I wouldn't necessarily trust the author, and the problems with this idea are very very well documented. Until the price tag is properly understood, and a plan for the infrastructure is properly written, this will not be happening.

Until there's a proposal document linger than a single image long, this is certifiable wibble.
 

Buzby

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2023
Messages
1,651
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
I hope you’re not holding your breath? The whole thing smacks of PR puffery, with anodyne quotes and nothing more than an aspiration. Maybe the long-touted north-south line in Glasgow will beat it, as that’s getting close to 50 years of similar stories?
 

kkong

Member
Joined
8 Sep 2008
Messages
1,126

This article shows monumental news for Edinburgh's transport, and raises lots of questions, regardless, I am excited!

The map in the BBC article shows an existing tram stop at Waverley, which didn't exist when I was there a few days ago!

8bd1b880-fdc4-11f0-9fd1-b16cd887f03f.jpg.webp
 

styles

Established Member
Joined
7 Dec 2014
Messages
4,615
Location
Gwynedd
Does the council have anywhere near the amount of money required for this?

The forecast for the extensions when they started the consultation a few months back was £2bn-£2.9bn.

It would be great to happen, but it sounds like the kind of promise that extending the Borders Railway to Carlisle has.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

The map in the BBC article shows an existing tram stop at Waverley, which didn't exist when I was there a few days ago!

8bd1b880-fdc4-11f0-9fd1-b16cd887f03f.jpg.webp
That's the Princes Street stop, which isn't strictly at Waverley station, but also isn't miles away either tbf. I do think it was perhaps short-sighted not to have it closer to Waverley though.

I think it's just a bad map, because they've called it 'Princes Street' above, but clearly tried to fit an icon and label in for Waverley, which makes it look like the name of the tram stop is Waverley. At a larger scale they could probably make it a lot clearer!

I also don't really like that the 'Connections South and East' is solid green, same thickness as the actual tram line proposals. If you didn't read the legend you might be mistaken for thinking there's a plan to extend the trams further south and east. It should be like a dashed or dotted line or narrower or something.
 
Last edited:
Joined
24 Sep 2020
Messages
244
Location
Midlothian
The map in the BBC article shows an existing tram stop at Waverley, which didn't exist when I was there a few days ago!
I presume it's to do with trying to squeeze a lot of text into the central area - Waverley should only apply to the railway station on the grey line below the word, rather than the tram stop above it, which should presumably be the Princes St one that's been artificially lumped in with the one on Shandwick Place, although that stop is still further away from Waverley than St Andrew Square is!
 

MadCommuter

Member
Joined
4 Oct 2010
Messages
733
Glasgow also had a tram/train proposal a few years ago for the airport link that slowly fizzled away.
 

waverley47

Member
Joined
17 Apr 2015
Messages
838
Does the council have anywhere near the amount of money required for this?

The forecast for the extensions when they started the consultation a few months back was £2bn-£2.9bn.

Not that long ago, when the proposal from the Herriot Watt guys came out, I wrote these two posts. I'm not sure the calculations will have changed. Conservatively, the conversion will cost anywhere between £1.2bn - £1.8bn, with most of that eaten up by linking it to the rest of the tramway.

Yes, tram-trains are proven technology. Yes, there is an old, underutilised alignment that looks on paper like it's perfect for trams. Yes, trams would be fantastic in theory.

But you'd be consigning the sub route to regular interval passenger trains, which would screw up the flexibility to hold and reverse trains around the back at short notice.

But you'd be signing up to purchase new tram-trains with dual voltage technology, which would inevitably be a microfleet, because NR wouldn't ever let you wire at 750v DC. On the contrary, this project would trigger the need to wire the lot at 25kv ac, unless you bought battery trains, and it's likely that at least some portion of that cost would have to be borne by Edinburgh Council.

But you have to buy and build the actual link between the trams lines at Haymarket and the sub, and I don't see any easy way of building that. Even at the most optimistic estimate, that's still the best portion of half a billion pounds just for that one link.

But you have nowhere to send them at the east end. From what I understand, the petition being rather light on details, they want to send the trams down the Leith Docks branch at Portobello Jn. Option one is you ask NR very nicely if there are paths across Portobello Jn: there won't be and NR will tell you to bugger off. Option two is somehow you get them off the sub at the Asda at the Jewel, down Harry Lauder Rd, across the big junction at Brunstane, and somehow onto the docks branch at a five meter height difference in a very cramped location. Best bet is another quarter of a billion.

But the sub points the wrong way. It's an east-west line across the main routes into the centre. It's unlikely you'll attract anyone onto the sub at a fifteen minute interval, when it would take longer than the buses that come more frequently. You can't run anything more than 4tph realistically because the signal sections are too long, unless you paid to resignal the lot, which costs a lot of money. Trams work best on radial routes, where decreasing journey times and increasing capacity have the most bang for their buck; on orbital route in cities the size of Edinburgh, buses are the way to go.

But, and actually this is probably the biggest problem, Edinburgh Council don't want it. There are at least three other routes in the works for the trams, each one costs the best part of a billion, not including the costs of buying the trams to run the routes. That puts the sub at the bottom of the pile, and at least a decade and a half away.

I live in Edinburgh, and converting the sub to tram trains would benefit me directly to an enormous degree. I would like it to happen, and I'd use it a fair amount. But it's not going to happen in my lifetime.

The two routes are Roseburn down to Granton, and down Newington Road to Cameron Toll and the Royal. For accounting purposes they are one route, for infrastructure purposes they are two completely separate routes. The southern route is much more costly simply because its down a very busy road, but that is where the confusion comes from.

With regards to the proposal...

Firstly, unless you propose to run the route as a disconnected entity, with captive rolling stock and a new depot, you're going to have to tie it into the existing route somewhere. That somewhere is going to have to be the western end of the city centre, otherwise you disconnect the sub from the depot whenever Princes Street is closed. Furthermore, you have to send trams from the sub into the city centre, which means somehow connecting them into the existing tram lines somewhere near Murrayfield, and sending them eastward, otherwise this line isn't ever going to break even. There isn't enough demand for an orbital tram route that doesn't go anywhere near the city centre, and if there isn't enough demand, then why would the council ever agree to fund it?

Indeed, they do propose to join the existing route westwards to Balgreen, crossing the E&G on a flyover. That's two junctions tying into the existing tram line and the sub. The southern end tying into the sub: you'd have to buy and demolish some of the Varamova Pharma factory, but ultimately not a deal breaker. The northern end, tying into the existing tram line: you'd have to buy some of the Murrayfield pitches, and then have a junction elevated above ground level to a significant degree, either above the Water of Leith or inside the back gardens on Baird Drive. Again, not a deal breaker, but this cost is going up and up and up.

They also propose running another new line from the sub (this is looking more and more like you're going to have to demolish the entire Varamova factory, which means more money) under the E&G (the bridge is already there so this is easy) somehow raise it up in an incredibly constrained site to join the existing line before it reaches Murrayfield Station. That's the main emergency vehicle access to Murrayfield Stadium that you're messing with, or you're buying part of Haymarket depot, which is too small already, and ScotRail would tell you where to get off.

At the eastern end, they propose a two level station for trams and trains, with a low part of the platform and high part of the platform. That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is the idea that you're going to use this project to remodel the entirety of the Niddrie Junctions, and Portobello Junction by extension. To get two platforms, presumably one in each direction, you'd need to rebuild the entire section between Portobello Junction and Newcraighall station, and any tram line heading north, and coming off after Brunstane station, which they propose, would mess around with signal overlaps to an extreme degree.

Then, after crossing on the Harry Lauder Rd bridge, you're building a mobility hub on the outskirts of Portobello that doesn't have direct trams to the city centre on an industrial estate bounded on one side by a main road and on the other by the ECML. its not an easy place to get to unless you're building a better access route than the very narrow Hope Ln footbridge, which will be necessary.

And finally, you're presumably going to have to redouble the Seafield branch, except the two bridges at Portobello Road and Fishwives Causeway, both of which were rebuilt at some point and only build wide enough for single track. Between Craigentinny and Salamander Pl, there's nothing worth serving unless you want to build a tram stop to serve a Halfords or a sewage farm?



All in all, this project can be summed up in two sentences.

If this project was in any way technically feasible, or economically lucrative, or socially beneficial, and the council knew about it, I'm sure that they would have jumped on the bandwagon; surely it would be in the council long term plan, or there would have been favourable words, or a feasibility study saying that it was a good idea. On the contrary, the opposite is true. There have been many proposals and petitions asking for this project, in every possible manifestation since the line closed, and never once has the council decided to go along with it.
 

leightonbd

Member
Joined
4 Oct 2013
Messages
366
Location
Was Edinburgh (South Sub) but more Strathspey now.
Looks like serious wibble compared to where the council actually are on planning any extension of the tram network at all - routes (the debate over Orchard Brae vs cycle paths is still unresolved; how exactly do you make the link from Newhaven to Grantown without getting your feet wet) plus OFC financing.

The council clearly want to keep momentum behind ‘more trams in Edinburgh’. I think this is just a stunt to achieve this. Are there specific council discussions at hand?
 

IanMac

Member
Joined
29 Jul 2024
Messages
82
Location
Whittlesey
The old trams (17 etc) had no problem getting between Granton (not Grantown) and Newhaven - except maybe during the East Coast floods, 73 years ago this afternoon!
 
Joined
5 Dec 2025
Messages
244
Location
Central Scotland
As far as I know they are putting it forward to the council executive, there is a article on the city of Edinburgh councils website about all the proposed tram extensions
 

ejstubbs

Member
Joined
19 May 2016
Messages
252
Location
Scotland
The old trams (17 etc) had no problem getting between Granton (not Grantown) and Newhaven - except maybe during the East Coast floods, 73 years ago this afternoon!

That was on-road running (map screenshot from https://maps.nls.uk/view/82877163):

Screenshot 2026-01-31 at 10.29.25.png

Which isn't to say that a similar solution wouldn't be chosen for the new trams.

From the Trinity Road junction westwards the new trams could use some of the solum of the old Edinburgh, Leith and Granton Railway on the north side of Granton Road, visible at the lower left-hand corner of the above. Eastwards from there it would likely have to be on-road running as there's nothing but a sea wall on the north side of Starbank Road. I suppose they could move the sea wall further north, though I imagine that the expense would be significant. (Something like that might be needed anyway to make more room at the "squeeze" at the Trinity Crescent/Trinity Road/Granton Road junction, where the old tramlines were reduced to single track through the squiggle.)

However, since the Granton-Newhaven link has been part of the plan for the trams since day one - it's shown a Phase 1c on the "tube map" diagram above - I would be disappointed (though not necessarily surprised) if any obvious engineering challenges along that route hadn't already been considered at some length.
 
Last edited:

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,890
Location
Featherstone, West Yorkshire
(Something like that might be needed anyway to make more room at the "squeeze" at the Trinity Crescent/Trinity Road/Granton Road junction, where the old tramlines were reduced to single track through the squiggle.)
That junction was rebuilt and straightened out back in 2014, so it's no longer an issue.
 

leightonbd

Member
Joined
4 Oct 2013
Messages
366
Location
Was Edinburgh (South Sub) but more Strathspey now.
The old trams (17 etc) had no problem getting between Granton (not Grantown) and Newhaven - except maybe during the East Coast floods, 73 years ago this afternoon!
I appreciate that (and I apologise for my mis-spelling): my point was/ is: it’s a super-busy road now (including buses and ADM lorries). I’ve seen trams, buses and cars integrated in plenty of places but this seems tight. The pinch point is at the bottom of my Edinburgh road! Car > tram in any local political flght? It’s a hypothetical argument for several years, in any event.
 

ian1944

Member
Joined
13 Dec 2012
Messages
691
Location
North Berwick
To pinch a bit of Sonnet 18:

So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this (new proposals for Edinburgh South Sub, Borders to Carlisle, Carmarthen to Aberystwyth, etc, etc ad nauseum).
 
Joined
24 Sep 2020
Messages
244
Location
Midlothian
To pinch a bit of Sonnet 18:

So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this (new proposals for Edinburgh South Sub, Borders to Carlisle, Carmarthen to Aberystwyth, etc, etc ad nauseum).
Surely it should be a Burns quote being adapted, especially at this time of year, perhaps "the best laid schemes o' mice an' men"....don't include these ones?
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
9,305
Location
Somerset
(Something like that might be needed anyway to make more room at the "squeeze" at the Trinity Crescent/Trinity Road/Granton Road junction, where the old tramlines were reduced to single track through the squiggle.)
Aka The Tram Pinch. Of course, the railway overbridge which constricted that junction has long been consigned to history, which would help any future alignment.
 

davido39

Member
Joined
13 Jan 2012
Messages
135
This is the new thing on the street thing. Even Malts is proposing a new Metro system. It is a way to make more money through corruption. Gavin Newsom comes to mind here.
 

ZackCulross

Member
Joined
9 Oct 2016
Messages
197
Location
Edinburgh
If trams use this, would it be correct that more indepth training for the drivers would be required as they would be sharing the lines with freight trains and also having to be monitored by network rail signal centre at waverly?
 

waverley47

Member
Joined
17 Apr 2015
Messages
838
I'm pretty confident it will be before trams ever run on the south sub.

That's any time between now and the heat death of the universe though.

There is an actual block of funding available for wiring the sub, it just hasn't ever been applied for or spent. It's not really needed until the remodelling of the eastern throat of Waverley is agreed, so it's just been bottom of the pile for a while. Better to spend the money on other things in the meantime.
 

Top