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

[CEN60]

What happens when the south sub is electrified for mainline railfreight?

What Freight would that be - I was told by NR during previous work to Electrify the Sub that there is little or no Electric Freight that currently goes through Waverley - so why do you need to electrify the sub?

 

[InOban]

What Freight would that be - I was told by NR during previous work to Electrify the Sub that there is little or no Electric Freight that currently goes through Waverley - so why do you need to electrify the sub?

Chicken and egg. The South Sub is the only non-electrified section between the ECML and the Central Scotland freight depots so freight from Teesside or any other Eastern port has to use diesel. Unless a 99 could cope. The new feeder at Currie was partly to provide enough power to let freight climb up from Craiglockart.

 

[Solweytracker]

Chicken and egg. The South Sub is the only non-electrified section between the ECML and the Central Scotland freight depots so freight from Teesside or any other Eastern port has to use diesel. Unless a 99 could cope. The new feeder at Currie was partly to provide enough power to let freight climb up from Craiglockart.

As I mentioned in another thread, there is only the 1 regular daily freight traversing the ECML from south of Newcastle to beyond Edinburgh at present. Its hard therefore to see that there is a large untapped demand just waiting to justify electrification of the Sub. The existing diesels are cheaper to financially operate than the new generation electrics and should be already leading to increased volumes if rail had been commercially competitive. Financially incentivising freight transfer to rail seems to be also required.

 

[waverley47]

As I mentioned in another thread, there is only the 1 regular daily freight traversing the ECML from south of Newcastle to beyond Edinburgh at present. Its hard therefore to see that there is a large untapped demand just waiting to justify electrification of the Sub. The existing diesels are cheaper to financially operate than the new generation electrics and should be already leading to increased volumes if rail had been commercially competitive. Financially incentivising freight transfer to rail seems to be also required.

The sub needs to be wired for ecs workings. It's a bit of a weak link in that Millerhill and Craigentinny depots, and the ECML, are o lying linked to the rest of the wider electrified network through the Calton tunnel approaches.

If and when the eastern end of Waverley is remodeled, the wiring of the sub needs to be done first to allow electric stock to access the network. As I understand, there's parallel ongoing works to provide a signalled route through Millerhill yard for this purposes.As I said up thread, there is a pot of money for wiring the sub, it's just never been deemed necessary and therefore never been spent. All the supporting infrastructure is in place, with the new feeder at Currie online.

Even if the sub didn't need wired, NRScot would laugh Edinburgh Council out of the first meeting if the latter proposed wiring at 750v DC. It's 25kv AC or nothing.

 

[Falcon1200]

File this one under 'hoary old chestnut' I think.....

Indeed. Hopefully at some stage those proposing and supporting this scheme will stop to consider why the Sub lost its passenger service in the first place.

 

[TheEastCoaster]

Was looking for a forum like this, glad i found it.

Differences aside, I (might be the only minority In thinking this) believe them using the old suburban line as a commercial tram line is a brilliant idea, obviously it's all talks and proposals but clearly there is some interest if it's getting this much attention, plus the line closed to customers 63 years ago, I don't see any reason why not to give it a shot now? Times have changed and I'm sure there will be lots of folk looking to have an easier alternative to commute.

Despite their controversial history.. the trams are very popular, it's rare to find a quiet one with the exception of very early and late journey, especially when they finally got extended down to Newhaven, now granted.. cutting the buses might also have had something to do with the trams popularity, heck even in the last service change with the 22 now running via Chesser, the tram stop in Balgreen is busier than ever, and it's clear that with this new integration that they want more people to use the trams, and they are no doubt wanting to strike while the iron is hot, hence the hype for new lines!

Now when or if this will definitely happen is another question, as far as I'm aware for Line 2 they still haven't decided if they want to run it via Roseburn or Deans Bridge, but I digress.

The idea of creating new links for Gorgie - Morningside and Portobello is a great idea which would save lots of time compared to getting a bus, the other thing that will probably come from them operating this line (reducing buses)

But in the grand scheme of things despite doubt, I don't see a drawback to them doing this, maybe I'm too positive.. but the real question is are they going to connect it to the tram line on the west? (Murrayfield-Haymarket) As the map the council released suggested or..

 

[Falcon1200]

plus the line closed to customers 63 years ago, I don't see any reason why not to give it a shot now? Times have changed

Whether the line is re-opened for trains, or tram-trains, does it go where enough people to justify the cost actually want to go? The line runs east-west whereas, surely, the major traffic flow is north/south, ie to and from Edinburgh city centre, and is this not, partly at least, why the line lost its passenger service?

 

[perstreperous]

@Falcon1200 Exactly. Surely trams down North Bridge > South Bridge > Nicolson Street > Minto Street to Cameron Toll (first) and Lothian Road > Bruntsfield Place (second) would be more appropriate?

(Looking at where the now freight-only railway line is, it is to the South of the densely populated areas and there is no way it could be relocated ... I used to live in Marchmont and am wondering exactly what I would use any new or reopened station for, as I was usually travelling N-S rather than W-E as were most people in the area).

 

[The exile]

Whether the line is re-opened for trains, or tram-trains, does it go where enough people to justify the cost actually want to go? The line runs east-west whereas, surely, the major traffic flow is north/south, ie to and from Edinburgh city centre, and is this not, partly at least, why the line lost its passenger service?

This would be exactly my concern. There is a place for radial routes, but unless they lead directly to some very significant destination, they make little sense until there is a critical number of “hub and spoke” routes for them to link. Routes which give the “larger centre” a wide berth are always going to struggle.

 

[Farigiraf]

This would be exactly my concern. There is a place for radial routes, but unless they lead directly to some very significant destination, they make little sense until there is a critical number of “hub and spoke” routes for them to link. Routes which give the “larger centre” a wide berth are always going to struggle.

Indeed - trams on the South Sub makes sense as a future orbital route, but there are numerous radial lines that should be higher on the priority list. I'd say build the lines from the city centre to Granton and Portobello first, plus one or two to the southern suburbs which currently only have buses, then if the south suburban is reopened for trams there would be a few interchanges along the route and cross-city journeys avoiding the city centre would become possible from many places, which reduces the strain on radial routes.

 

[The exile]

Indeed - trams on the South Sub makes sense as a future orbital route, but there are numerous radial lines that should be higher on the priority list. I'd say build the lines from the city centre to Granton and Portobello first, plus one or two to the southern suburbs which currently only have buses, then if the south suburban is reopened for trams there would be a few interchanges along the route and cross-city journeys avoiding the city centre would become possible from many places, which reduces the strain on radial routes.

Going south to the Royal Infirmary /Sick kids complex (as planned) with a protected route onwards to Shawfair station should be an early priority. Linking to /creating a transport interchange at the outer ends of routes helps boost traffic where it would otherwise be lower.

 

[Taunton]

When I was in Edinburgh in the 1970s there was a fixation even then to "do something" with the South Suburban, regardless of any professional analysis of demand. It was to be converted to a road instead of the outer bypass, converted to a monorail (!), host nonstop expresses from its stations to Glasgow, and myriad other approaches. It formed regular copy for the letters column of the Evening News newspaper.

Not only does it not serve many logical traffic flows, but as a 'circle' from Waverley it is particularly flat, more sausage-shape. It's 13 miles right around, so about 6.5 miles either way from say Newington, but about 2 miles directly up the main road, not only on one of the "always one in sight" very frequent buses, but I reckon I could have (once upon a time - maybe not today) run between these two points in less time than a tram-train might take.

 

[endecotp]

It's 13 miles right around, so about 6.5 miles either way from say Newington, but about 2 miles directly up the main road, not only on one of the "always one in sight" very frequent buses, but I reckon I could have (once upon a time - maybe not today) run between these two points in less time than a tram-train might take.

Right - the fact that going from Newington to the city centre along the south sub is being considered is really an inditement of how slow the buses on the direct route are. Question, how much quicker will trams via South Bridge be than buses on that route?

 

[waverley47]

Differences aside, I (might be the only minority In thinking this) believe them using the old suburban line as a commercial tram line is a brilliant idea,

There's your problem. Spending two billion quid to give something a shot isn't really worth it.

I wrote a big write up somewhere, it's probably linked in this thread, of how much it would actually cost to build it. Basically, economically it's a basket case.

If the alignment were there but the line were disused, it would actually be easier. The expensive part of this project comes from trying to somehow tie it in at both ends to make something useful. Unless you could persuade NR to give up the line, it's not going to happen; even if you could, you'd still be spending a billion quid just to figure out a way of joining the existing trams at Murrayfield.

The cost, the journey time, and the lack of capacity on the central tram section through Shandwick Place eats into any pretence you could do this as a commercial endeavour.

 

[TheEastCoaster]

Right - the fact that going from Newington to the city centre along the south sub is being considered is really an inditement of how slow the buses on the direct route are. Question, how much quicker will trams via South Bridge be than buses on that route?

The exact same question as how quicker a service 25 is compared to a tram running from Foot of the Walk to West End, depending on traffic the tram could be a little faster, but generally not by much more,.so I do agree the South Sub could be the faster solution.

 

[waverley47]

Right - the fact that going from Newington to the city centre along the south sub is being considered is really an inditement of how slow the buses on the direct route are. Question, how much quicker will trams via South Bridge be than buses on that route?

This is difficult to say. Honestly, probably marginally quicker, a few minutes at most.

The difference comes with capacity. Buses suffer from a phenomenon called "induced throughput limits" where basically, after a certain point, the gains you get from running more of the same thing decrease, and eventually reverse.

At a certain point, the diminishing returns you get from running more and more services per hour reach zero, and each extra service starts to be a net negative. Buses slow eachother down at bus stops, at traffic lights, and getting caught up with other traffic. The thirty plus buses per hour down the bridges have reached the point that at peak times, they're only slowing eachother down, and the net capacity actually decreases from each additional bus.

Trams solve this because they have a much higher peak load; they can soak up a much larger number of passengers, and although some people will have to stand who would otherwise have had a seat on a bus, the overall capacity gets larger. Trams can also load and unload a lot faster, multiple doors along their length means they aren't waiting as long as each stop, and as the distance between stops is usually slightly longer, this also improves capacity.

What this means is that converting the highest demand trunk flows down the bridges to trams, and shuffling some of the bus routes around, you might break the odd direct route, but overall capacity is much larger. Now, the trams are still going to get caught up in traffic, as you can't really remove local vehicles from the bridges, even though I'd advocate for it strongly, so journey times will be about the same, but they'll be about the same consistently, rather than luck of the draw over whether or not you're stuck in a convoy of buses all waiting for the same bus stop.

The main trunk flows being targeted are those from the centre, the airport and Leith to the university, the hospital and further out. It's likely that some of the bus routes along the bridges will be shuffled, curtailed, or reduced in frequency, as happened with Leith. However, as also happened with Leith, net capacity on the largest flow (Leith to Princes St) will increase.

 

[318266]

The cost, the journey time, and the lack of capacity on the central tram section through Shandwick Place eats into any pretence you could do this as a commercial endeavour.

As much as I take this proposal for what it is (the overhyped result of someone trying to find something to make a project out of for their degree), could this particular problem not be solved in the long term by effectively creating a near-circle line (in the sense of Newhaven - Portobello - magic viaduct that would totally not spiral in cost - Brunstane - Sub - Murrayfield - Roseburn - Granton)? It could equally be made a full circle should they ever bother building the infill section between Granton and Newhaven in the future, although if that would actually be much of a benefit is largely up to question.

 

[TheEastCoaster]

As much as I take this proposal for what it is (the overhyped result of someone trying to find something to make a project out of for their degree), could this particular problem not be solved in the long term by effectively creating a near-circle line (in the sense of Newhaven - Portobello - magic viaduct that would totally not spiral in cost - Brunstane - Sub - Murrayfield - Roseburn - Granton)? It could equally be made a full circle should they ever bother building the infill section between Granton and Newhaven in the future, although if that would actually be much of a benefit is largely up to question.

I watched a video which covered this exact subject the other day, making a circle line would make sense in the long run, two birds one stone etc.. plus by connecting the sub to the original line at Murrayfield (I can't even begin to fathom how that would look to be honest as I pass that section of the tram route every day) it wouldn't make transfers easier for the likes of Haymarket or the Airport.

Most discussions on the line have the route start/finish at Gorgie and Portobello, so having a circle would add more links and give it more use and connectivity to the rest of the up and coming network, but then again even if it does go ahead (it probably won't be for another 10-20 years)

Plus a question I think most people don't think about, Tram Trains make sense for the sub line as they could work on the regular line also, but where would they keep the trams? I assume Edinburgh Trams would have to get a new depot, and when Line 2 gets finished it's same to assume it will use the same trams as the original line, but will it cut the frequency of the original line?

So many questions, so little answers!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Mar 2026 ==

Took the Councils Concept Tram Map and retooled it on Photoshop presenting this concept network map for the trams (including the North-South route), it's a little rough and tweaked a few things like adding a few stops and renaming a few, but felt this seemed like a good beta for what could potentially come.

(This is hypathetical, for abit of fun, obviously it's not perfect, but what is? )

Edinburgh Trams Network Map

The three main lines in the network include..

• Cross City Line (Newhaven - Airport) via Haymarket and City Centre. [The Original Line]
• Granton Line (Granton - RIE) Via Newington, City Centre and Roseburn. [The New Line with connections at Cameron Toll and Haymarket/City Centre for other lines]
• Surburban Line (Newhaven - Airport) via Gorgie, Morningside and Portobello [The Old Sururban Line which connects at Murrayfield and McDonald Road to offer more local connections for the Airport and Newhaven]

(Note, i am aware of the line between Portobello and Seafield, and i did consider doing this for a direct link to Port of Leith, but felt it would of been better to include Abbeyhill and Piershill (which was missing in the original concept)

 

[waverley47]

I watched a video which covered this exact subject the other day, making a circle line would make sense in the long run, two birds one stone etc.. plus by connecting the sub to the original line at Murrayfield (I can't even begin to fathom how that would look to be honest as I pass that section of the tram route every day) it wouldn't make transfers easier for the likes of Haymarket or the Airport.

Most discussions on the line have the route start/finish at Gorgie and Portobello, so having a circle would add more links and give it more use and connectivity to the rest of the up and coming network, but then again even if it does go ahead (it probably won't be for another 10-20 years)

Plus a question I think most people don't think about, Tram Trains make sense for the sub line as they could work on the regular line also, but where would they keep the trams? I assume Edinburgh Trams would have to get a new depot, and when Line 2 gets finished it's same to assume it will use the same trams as the original line, but will it cut the frequency of the original line?

So many questions, so little answers!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Mar 2026 ==

Took the Councils Concept Tram Map and retooled it on Photoshop presenting this concept network map for the trams (including the North-South route), it's a little rough and tweaked a few things like adding a few stops and renaming a few, but felt this seemed like a good beta for what could potentially come.

(This is hypathetical, for abit of fun, obviously it's not perfect, but what is? )



The three main lines in the network include..

• Cross City Line (Newhaven - Airport) via Haymarket and City Centre. [The Original Line]
• Granton Line (Granton - RIE) Via Newington, City Centre and Roseburn. [The New Line with connections at Cameron Toll and Haymarket/City Centre for other lines]
• Surburban Line (Newhaven - Airport) via Gorgie, Morningside and Portobello [The Old Sururban Line which connects at Murrayfield and McDonald Road to offer more local connections for the Airport and Newhaven]

View attachment 199703

(Note, i am aware of the line between Portobello and Seafield, and i did consider doing this for a direct link to Port of Leith, but felt it would of been better to include Abbeyhill and Piershill (which was missing in the original concept)

Trams work best on high capacity, high turnover, high demand, destination to destination flows.

In Edinburgh that's linking places to Princes Street.

Why spend all that money to give trams to places that aren't Princes Street? You'd be duplicating parts of other bus routes; none of the outer bits of the 12, 38 or 49 are particularly busy, and that's the base demand you'd be looking to invest to move onto the trams.

 

[TheEastCoaster]

none of the outer bits of the 12, 38 or 49 are particularly busy

I'm not disregarding your theory, but the 38 is definitly one of the busiest rural buses out there, and thats on a single decker, kings building is definitly a factor into that along with the royal.

 

[Falcon1200]

Why spend all that money to give trams to places that aren't Princes Street?

Indeed! The Blue Line on the map avoids Waverley and Haymarket stations, Princes Street, and the city centre in general! So who would actually need it?

 

[The exile]

Indeed! The Blue Line on the map avoids Waverley and Haymarket stations, Princes Street, and the city centre in general! So who would actually need it?

Since it shows triangles at both ends it doesn’t necessarily avoid the centre. However, there are a lot more routes that should take priority - it’s not as if the Sub is going to be bullt on if it’s not converted now!

 

[Falcon1200]

Since it shows triangles at both ends

The map in Post #48 doesn't! Which does not mean they are not possible of course.

 

[The exile]

The map in Post #48 doesn't! Which does not mean they are not possible of course.

I was referring to the map in post #1, which, AFAIK is “official” - unlike that in #48, which is @ TheEastCoaster’s own creation.

 

[Falcon1200]

I was referring to the map in post #1, which, AFAIK is “official” - unlike that in #48, which is @ TheEastCoaster’s own creation.

That clarifies things, thanks.

 

[InOban]

The capital-intensive nature of tram projects require large numbers of passengers, which can only be achieved by connecting major sources of business (I'll call them traffic points) so that each service turns over its passengers several times, collecting several fares.The original route was designed around this -it connects many of the most important Points - Airport, Gyle, Haymarket, East end of Princes Street, Picardy Place, and Victoria Quay are perhaps the main ones.
You then have to consider what Points are not served. These seem to me to be the Western General Hospital the University, both the main campus and King's Buildings, the Royal Infirmary and possibly Fort Kinnaird. That is why the official plans for the next phase serve these. My only criticism of the plans is that they have ruled out using the Mound even though the old trams were able to cope with the hill.

 

[TheEastCoaster]

Much-anticipated South Sub 'tram-train' study to go forward after funding boost

The survey will assess the possibility of reopening the line to passengers using “tram-trains”, which are sturdier and faster than normal trams.

www.heraldscotland.com

Figured it was worth sharing this on here, Scottish Government is officially funding the South Sub study.