• 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 Tram developments

Status
Not open for further replies.

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,304
Good points. The idea that Murrayfield is "residential" is real barrel scraping. Places like Balgreen and Saughton, do indeed have a fair bit of housing, but with this tram line as is, there are two problems.

Firstly the tram stops are not as conveniently situated for the residents as the existing bus stops, and the tram does not offer a speed advantage sufficient to justify the walk, especially for the elderly or less mobile.

Secondly, and more importantly, anyone going beyond the city centre is faced with the choice of walking to the tram stop and then changing into a bus. This will involve crossing Princes Street or navigating the multiple junction at Haymarket, as the tram stop is outside the station on the westbound side of the road. The loadings on bus services like the 3, 33, 22 and 25 show that there is a fair sized flow from the tram corridor to destinations north, south and east of the city centre.

I know extensions to Leith and the South Side/Royal Infirmary would deal with the latter difficulty, but the first problem will still exist, and is a direct result of the ill-thought-out routeing of the tram west of Haymarket. Given the appalling experience of the current stub line, there is little public support for further tram extensions, and even the tragically inept and developer -fixated council is unlikely to throw more money at them. The Scottish Government will not, and should not, throw more taxpayers money down this sinkhole.

The tram would never be a one-size-fits-all solution to every public transport need on the corridor it serves. No other city demands that its flagship metro system serves every plausible flow equally - remember that significantly more people use TfL's buses every day than use the Tube. If you live somewhat near the tram line as it exists at the moment, then it may be the case still that it is easier to use a bus (using the integrated ticketing scheme) to get into the city centre. However, as the tram network expands, the advantages of the tram grow as well and it becomes worthwhile to walk slightly further to get to a tram stop. For example, when the route is finished to Leith, if you lived in Saughton and wanted to go to the Ocean Terminal then you would prefer to use the tram as it would be more comfortable and reliable. It's no different to how people use the Tube - if you want to get across London, you'll walk a few hundred metres to a Tube station even if theoretically you could get a bus there from a stop closer to where you are.

The tram route as it exists at the moment is a loss-making sinkhole. We know though that completing the route as originally intended would reverse that. The role of government is to act in the long term interests of the country - would you honestly prefer to damn the city and country to a perpetually loss-making scheme rather than allowing the small amount of investment necessary to stem the tide completely? Once the route is done and paying its way, the case to extend it further can be made on commercial grounds as has been the case in Manchester.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Blindtraveler

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2011
Messages
10,544
It would be nice to reach that stage for sure however I feer it woant happen at all or if it does, in time to make a go of itself.

My feer is also that the journey times woant actually be all that different even for a journey between Balgreen and Ocian T for example, but I hope Im wrong here
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,304
It would be nice to reach that stage for sure however I feer it woant happen at all or if it does, in time to make a go of itself.

My feer is also that the journey times woant actually be all that different even for a journey between Balgreen and Ocian T for example, but I hope Im wrong here

Once the route is completed to Ocean Terminal/Newhaven, the need for timetable padding will reduce somewhat because there would be three turnbacks (each platform at Newhaven and the central one at Ocean Terminal) rather than just the one at York Place. With that, the trams should be able to run at the speeds and frequencies the route was designed for and thus the business case was built around. That should then mean the relative advantage of the tram against bus should increase, as the stops are significantly more distantly spaced through the centre and the five double doors per tram would lead to significant improvements in dwell times at busy stops. When the bus will call at more stops, and use only one or two doors to load and unload at each, the journey time difference should be something noticeable along such a relatively long journey. Something to consider though is that as large passenger flows switch to the trams, the number of people needing to get on and off the buses at busy stops should decrease as well, thus reducing dwell times and improving journey times for passengers who need to use the bus. This is only enabled by the existence of the tram, so it doesn't hurt the case for the trams at all if they end up speeding up bus services. Indeed, that would only help the case for the tram.
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,304
Passengers ‘very satisfied with trams’

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/passengers-very-satisfied-with-trams-1-3730773

Edinburgh’s tram line has been given a glowing report by its users in the first few months since its launch, with passengers giving it the best rating of any UK tram service.

The UK’s passenger watchdog has revealed more tram users are “very satisfied” with the service in Edinburgh than for trams in Blackpool, Sheffield, Manchester, Nottingham and Birmingham.

With similarly high levels of customer satisfaction for Lothian Buses, we are clearly on our way to achieving a seamlessly integrated transport offering for the city.”
Lesley Hinds

And in total, 95 per cent of tram users reported that they were satisfied with the service, with light rail experts hailing a “very good report card” that they claimed makes an “overwhelming case” for the extension of the line.

The survey by Passenger Focus’ is the first look at how residents have responded to the service since it launched on May 31 last year.

It gives a revealing inside look at how the tram is being used, and by what kinds of people. Even though elderly residents will remember the last time trams rumbled along the streets of the Capital, it is young people who are embracing the service, with almost a third of users aged between 16 and 25.

Despite the limited reach of the line that was cut to just 14km due to spiralling costs, commuters have also taken to the tram in large numbers, with 45 per cent of users going back and forth to work every day on the service.

And the survey also offers a glimpse into the tram’s finances, following months of speculation about the number of free concessionary fares, which are paid for from council coffers.

According to the study, just 11 per cent of users are travelling for free, which bosses say backs up their claims that ticket sales are within budget expectations. However, the number of lucrative £5 airport fares sold remains a closely guarded secret.

Edinburgh’s trams have been ranked above the UK’s five other light rail systems on a number of key measures, including punctuality and whether the service is value for money.

The survey found 94 per cent of passengers said they were satisfied with the way trams kept to their schedule, ahead of all five other UK tram services in the Passenger Focus survey.

Edinburgh was just two per cent behind Blackpool on total satisfaction with ticket prices, but more passengers in the Capital said they were “very satisfied” than anywhere else in the UK.

Tom Norris, general manager of Edinburgh Trams, credited the hard work of tram staff for delivering top marks for the service.

He said: “This feedback is a great reward for all the staff who have put in so much effort to make the trams an excellent way of getting around the city.

“We always listen to our passengers and try to learn what we can do better, and this first large-scale independent study will help us to do that even more.

“While I’m obviously delighted, we’ll continue to work hard to make every journey as safe, reliable and enjoyable as possible. We’ll look very closely at all aspects of this report as there’s always room to improve.

“We’re still a new service and I’m confident, that with a focus on continuous improvement, that we can be even better.”

City transport convener Lesley Hinds, who chairs public transport umbrella body Transport for Edinburgh, said: “This is an excellent response and demonstrates just what Edinburgh Trams means to the public as a safe and efficient method of transport.

“Providing the best possible service for passengers is central for Transport for Edinburgh, and since launching in May the trams have clearly made a positive impact on customers.

“With similarly high levels of customer satisfaction for Lothian Buses, we are clearly on our way to achieving a seamlessly integrated transport offering for the city.”

In all, 549 passengers were quizzed for the survey in Edinburgh, with a total of 4641 people taking part around the UK through face-to-face interviews or an online questionnaire. Surveys were carried out from September to November last year – a period which tram bosses say was particularly challenging in terms of breakdowns and service interruptions, making the tram’s performance even more positive.

Professor Louis Lesley, technical director of light rail firm Trampower, said the figures should make the decision in June over whether to take the tram to Leith an easy one for councillors.

He said: “Tram users are obviously very satisfied with it. In terms of passenger numbers, I think the year in total is going to end up at four million, or four-and-a-half million. That’s in line with expectations before the service launched.

“The age profile for Edinburgh is pretty consistent with all the UK’s other tramways. Young people, who aren’t primarily car-oriented, wouldn’t consider using the bus, and that’s converted the younger generation to trams.

“Given the number of commuters using the tram, I’m sure it’s reducing the number of cars coming into the city centre. Car parking operators will be annoyed. I’ve been told that at the Ingliston Park and Ride there is often very little space.

“If you look at buses, 28 per cent are on concessionary free passes. You might think concessionary pass holders don’t like trams, but actually, what it means is that about twice as many people are willing to buy a tram fare rather than a bus fare. They’re prepared to pay for the quality of service and comfort you don’t get on buses.

“Overall, it’s a very good report card for the trams. This makes an overwhelming case for extending the network. I think the issue is going to be how much it costs, but in terms of satisfying the transport needs of Edinburgh, it makes an overwhelming case.”

Transport consultant Robert Drysdale said: “These results are encouraging. I think they are great trams. When I travel on them, everyone appears to be enjoying themselves.

However, Mr Drysdale added: “We still don’t know the split between airport and non-airport trips. Now, when you come out of the airport arrivals lounge, the buses are back beside the front door of the terminal, whereas the trams are way, way up out of sight.”

Rugby fans impressed

TRAMS carried 20,000 extra passengers on Super Saturday, the decisive last day of the Six Nations rugby tournament – a massive boost compared to the average weekly figure of 90,000.

Tram boss Tom Norris says the line came into its own ferrying Welsh, Irish and Italian visitors directly from Edinburgh Airport to Murrayfield Stadium, and then into the city centre after this year’s matches.

He said that despite claims of fare-dodging on packed trams, systems for handling huge rugby crowds were “just about right” after tram staff instituted a “gate line” at the tram stop opposite the stadium to ensure everyone had the chance to buy a ticket.

And Mr Norris revealed that the tram officials had to think on their feet after Murrayfield bosses allowed 10,000 Irish fans back into the arena to watch their team collect the Six Nations trophy.

Transport consultant Robert Drysdale praised the matchday operation at Murrayfield, and said the city’s visitors will have been impressed, too. Mr Drysdale said: “I saw the way staff handled the crowds leaving the rugby after the Welsh match, and it was fantastic how well organised it all was, and how impressed the Welsh were at how quickly everyone was moved out of the stadium and into the city centre.”

He added: “What we need now is a bigger network. I really hope this helps to make the case.”

Well then, it appears the citizens of Edinburgh appear to like their shiny new toy after all.
 

Blindtraveler

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2011
Messages
10,544
I think, given the timing of this research, its got a certain ammount of creative lisence. The autum period when it was done sees all the new students and many visiters trying it out for the 1st time and as several on here have said before the shift in commuters is largely brought on by the reduction and removal of longer distance key bus routes, forcing pax to change half way to a tram.

The rugby day and event figures at Murryfield however are udebatable, its a very helpfull tool not so much in terms of comjestion but in terms of shifting large numbers pre and post match. As for the rest of it, I dont know a single local who was survayed on the trams at this time but many who responded to the bus one. Theres also a certain coincidence here that Lothian Buses and TFE are firefighting at present to restore public faith after management problems, service changes that not all are keen on and a hike in some tickets.
 

Chrism20

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2013
Messages
1,397
I think satisfaction amongst those who do use it on a regular basis or live along the line is high. Most of the complaining now is from people who don't use it or don't live on the line and is focused on the cost and length of time it took to build.

Living in Leith I'd be more than happy to see it extended and hopefully start to turn a profit and tbh the more people who can make use of it means the critics have less to say.

Yes it took ages to build and the cost of it is a disgrace but it's here and it ain't going anywhere so I'd rather see it prosper now than be seen as a white elephant. IMO the biggest issue was leaving a council in charge of that to start with, it should have been a government procurement project or at least someone from government who was used to dealing with large projects (of this size and value) should have been sent in to manage it by the government seeing as they funded a huge chunk of it.

I can't say I've noticed any drastic cuts in services on any of the routes running alongside the tram but may have missed it and from a quick look at the forthcoming service changes its more, more and more for most routes. The only major noise I've seen is in Midlothian due to the changes to the number fifteen, although again I may have missed something.

As for fares the rises that there have been over the last five years have been low or non-existent and they remain cracking value when compared to anywhere else in the UK. The next thing they need to do though is introduce an oyster style card which caps at the cost of a day ticket, they have the pre-pay single card at the moment so it shouldn't take too much work to move that one on.
 
Last edited:

oldman

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2013
Messages
1,340
I think satisfaction amongst those who do use it on a regular basis or live along the line is high.

Among those who use it, yes. It's not clear how many people living on the line actually use it. From the low figure for concessions, it might suggest some people are reluctant to walk the distance to the tram stop compared to the nearest bus stop, given that journey distances are quite short.

I can't say I've noticed any drastic cuts in services on any of the routes running alongside the tram

A limited stop bus service from the Ingliston P and R was withdrawn. This would account for several hundred journeys a day.

As for fares the rises that there have been over the last five years have been low or non-existent

In 2010 a single was 1.20 now 1.50, a day ticket was 3.00 about to rise to 4.00, monthly season was 42 about to be 50. Still good value, but not quite static.

The airport bus fare is rising for the second time in two years which I guess is a plan to harmonise up to the tram fare over a few years. This is integrated transport.
 

Blindtraveler

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2011
Messages
10,544
I kind of get the idea that the pre pay thing hasnt gone down too well and may be quietly dropped. My bus service cut refference was to the 12 and X12 which still nearly a year on anoys many. The Midlothian changes to the 15, 37 and 40 have done a lot of dammage and whilst I agree with you entirely about price rises I think there timing is very bad and should have wated till the next round of changes, usually September October time.

Off topic a bit but I wonder if in a few months we'll see Airlink go up for a 2nd time making it a bit more expensive than the tram? This would, for many shift the ballance over something with very little current insentive.
 

Chrism20

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2013
Messages
1,397
A 30p rise in the price of a single ticket in five years - at a time when oil was soaring is not unreasonable. If it weren't owned by the council a single would be at least £2 by now. You only have to go to Falkirk or Stirling or even West Lothian to see how good the fares are. Look at how much a monthly season for a train has increased over the same time and an increase of less than £2 a year on average is amazing in comparison.

I dont think they will drop the prepay card but it needs the capping feature on it. You only have to look to London to see how much the popularity of Oyster soared once that happened.

As for the airlink I'm baffled as to why the tram and bus aren't the same price tbh and yes bringing them in line is inevitablenand does really need to happen.

I agree regarding the timing of the increase. I can't understand why they are changing the services and then a week or so later changing the fares. I'd have thought common sense would have prevailed and they would have been done at the same time.
 

dcsprior

Member
Joined
28 Aug 2012
Messages
862
Location
Edinburgh (Fri-Mon) & London (Tue-Thu)
A limited stop bus service from the Ingliston P and R was withdrawn. This would account for several hundred journeys a day.

Yes, and those of us at the other end of the X48's route also lost out, without even getting any significant benefit from the tram

In 2010 a single was 1.20 now 1.50, a day ticket was 3.00 about to rise to 4.00, monthly season was 42 about to be 50. Still good value, but not quite static.

Is this more than it would've been without the tram? TfL bus fare has also risen from £1.20 to £1.50 over the same period.
 

oldman

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2013
Messages
1,340
Is this more than it would've been without the tram? TfL bus fare has also risen from £1.20 to £1.50 over the same period.

I doubt it. After all, tram passengers are a small proportion of the total. The rapid increase in the airbus fare is, I guess, related to the tram, but that's all. There may be an element of subsidy from the bus to the tram, but again probably not very significant.

I note that an annual ticket for First Leeds can be had for £540 (LB 600 direct debit) and a day ticket for 4.00. Stagecoach Sheffield charge 42.00 per month (46 with tram). The LB single is cheap except for people making short hop journeys.

Oyster is a very expensive system to manage compared to the prepay card for single tickets and would be difficult to justify for a small population using a system with a very simple fares structure. The only beneficiaries are people without season tickets who are unsure whether they are going to make two journeys or more than two in the day. Unless the government wants to pay for something for all operators of course.
 

ninja-lewis

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2012
Messages
97
I doubt it. After all, tram passengers are a small proportion of the total. The rapid increase in the airbus fare is, I guess, related to the tram, but that's all. There may be an element of subsidy from the bus to the tram, but again probably not very significant.
Per the oft-quoted but discredited business plan, CEC's share of the Lothian Bus dividend will be subsidising tram operations for the next 15 years. Without it, the trams/CEC would have a £45m cumulative deficit after capital expenditure (note Lothian Buses is expected to cover its own capital expenditure costs whereas most of the TramCo capital expenditure is to be paid by CEC).

This excludes the £15m a year to repay the loan + interest taken out by CEC to finish the project.
 

Leki

Member
Joined
24 Dec 2014
Messages
31
IIRC, it was still concrete under the tracks, just ashpalt either side. After Princes Street reopened the first time, the tracks sank into the road within weeks

I'm afraid there isn't a shred of truth in that.

All that has ever been a problem with the trackbed is the top (rail depth) layer of surfacing, which only exists to allow the tracks to be overrun and has no structural purpose (in Edinburgh's system, anyway - other systems are different).

This was originally laid in asphalt but it proved too soft to handle the amount of double deckers on Princes St, so relaying in rigid concrete was insisted upon.

(just as all the manhole covers do, because they don't rebuild them properly), so it had to be closed again and redone.

Generally most new manhole chambers sink before the ground has totally settled. It's just noticeable on the tram route because they're a) all new and b) getting a pounding from the aforementioned double deckers.

It's a problem, yes, but the original suggestion was the system was 'badly built' which isn't backed up by a few repaired manhole covers.
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,890
Location
Featherstone, West Yorkshire
I'm afraid there isn't a shred of truth in that.

All that has ever been a problem with the trackbed is the top (rail depth) layer of surfacing, which only exists to allow the tracks to be overrun and has no structural purpose (in Edinburgh's system, anyway - other systems are different).

This was originally laid in asphalt but it proved too soft to handle the amount of double deckers on Princes St, so relaying in rigid concrete was insisted upon.

Fair enough, I was under the impression that it was the lines that had sunk - I used to commute across the junction at the foot of the Mound in my old job, and there was noticable dips where the tram lines were.

Generally most new manhole chambers sink before the ground has totally settled. It's just noticeable on the tram route because they're a) all new and b) getting a pounding from the aforementioned double deckers.

It's a problem, yes, but the original suggestion was the system was 'badly built' which isn't backed up by a few repaired manhole covers.

It's a problem all over the city, but particularly in the city centre -that's not a complaint about the trams, but about the way the council go about repairing problems like that.
The issue is with the way they're built, and subsequently rebuilt. I believe it's to do with the amount of mortar used, though I can't remember the details, but it means that they're not able to withstand the weight of large vehicles. It wouldn't be so bad if it only happened once, but they come and and repair them, and then they start to sink again, sometimes within a couple of weeks.
It's the same story as potholes, they mostly get fixed on the cheap*, so a lot of them reappear within a week or two - the ones around the junction of Princes Street, Leith Street and North Bridge get 'fixed' every few weeks, but start to reappear within 24 hours of being filled.



*Yes, I know they say it's only a temporary repair, but that implies they're going to come and do a permanent repair at some point, which seems to be a remarkably rare occurrence.
 

scotsman

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2010
Messages
3,252
I've got a feeling the Airlink price increases also have something to do with the meteoric rise in traffic from the Airport...
 

Leki

Member
Joined
24 Dec 2014
Messages
31
Fair enough, I was under the impression that it was the lines that had sunk - I used to commute across the junction at the foot of the Mound in my old job, and there was noticable dips where the tram lines were.

You're not along in thinking that, but it would be structurally very very unlikely given the depth of concrete foundations (I think the UK uses double that of other countries). Also, then only buses were running over the rails which puts far less load on the foundations than the trams do.

It's a problem all over the city, but particularly in the city centre -that's not a complaint about the trams, but about the way the council go about repairing problems like that.
The issue is with the way they're built, and subsequently rebuilt.

I completely agree with that, although I think many (most?) of them belong to utility companies and they are responsible for maintenance. Sometimes when I see them being built I wonder how they hold up at all - the hatch basically sits of a rectangle of bricks which seems to be held up only by the (usually) plastic chamber underneath.
 
Last edited:

Blindtraveler

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2011
Messages
10,544
Edinburgh Evening News reporting that a 1 month trial of allowing bikes is to start next month. Well 1 things for sure, space woant be an issue much of the time. A good move, should make the bikers happy and maybe bump up the numbers.
 

overthewater

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2012
Messages
9,088
Both passenger numbers and profits are above what was expected. Yet every time I see the trams, its never full. I'm yet to be convinced this tram was worth the money.

Has anything else been said about the loan from the St James Shopping centre redevelopment to extend the trams down to Leith and newhaven?
 

Blindtraveler

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2011
Messages
10,544
Said development is running 6 months late

and alls gone rather quiet on its possible tram funding. I am far convinced on the figurfs iether and on the trams 'st Birthday, I for 1 woant be cellibrating.
 

thealexweb

Member
Joined
5 Jan 2014
Messages
1,106
Both passenger numbers and profits are above what was expected. Yet every time I see the trams, its never full. I'm yet to be convinced this tram was worth the money.

Has anything else been said about the loan from the St James Shopping centre redevelopment to extend the trams down to Leith and newhaven?

Passenger numbers and revenue may be doing 'better than expected' but in no way is Edinburgh Trams profitable or even breaking even.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
4.92m people carried in first year, 130,000 above budgeted. Concessionary bus pass journeys was 10.9% below expected.

Tram budget was over 15 years £51m in dividends paid to council, £85m in maintenance and refurbishment costs, £3m loan to cover expected early year passenger ramp up, an expected operating profit of £5m over the 15 years.

First year revenues were 3% higher than budgeted resulting in a loss of £1.3m, it is on track to break even in its third year with the council making a profit on its investment by 2029.
 
Last edited:

TheEscapist_

Member
Joined
18 Nov 2011
Messages
150
I'm sick of people saying they are never full. It's not as if all the buses are 100% full all the time. Try the weekends they're always busy! Peak hours in either direction are full. They are well used. I got one home last night, was 2310 from St Andrews Sq and was about 70% full by Haymarket. I would say they are really well used. But have there times when they're not so busy.
 

MCR247

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2008
Messages
10,290
To be fair, they are very long trams (longest in the UK?) and so I don't think how full they are is a fair measure of success. For example Nottinghams are ~10m shorter (~30 less seats) and so if 'fullness' was used to measure the success of the new extensions when they open, it wouldn't be fair.
 

overthewater

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2012
Messages
9,088
First year revenues were 3% higher than budgeted resulting in a loss of £1.3m, it is on track to break even in its third year with the council making a profit on its investment by 2029.

Another 15 years before its paid for its self? There is no chance of it extending down to Leith before that point then.
 

Deerfold

Veteran Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
13,684
Location
Yorkshire
Both passenger numbers and profits are above what was expected. Yet every time I see the trams, its never full. I'm yet to be convinced this tram was worth the money.

Has anything else been said about the loan from the St James Shopping centre redevelopment to extend the trams down to Leith and newhaven?

Presumably if all the trams were regularly full so shortly after opening there would be complaints about the shortsightedness in choosing such small vehicles to run the service?
 

overthewater

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2012
Messages
9,088
Presumably if all the trams were regularly full so shortly after opening there would be complaints about the shortsightedness in choosing such small vehicles to run the service?

Only one of you can only be right:

To be fair, they are very long trams (longest in the UK?) and so I don't think how full they are is a fair measure of success. For example Nottinghams are ~10m shorter (~30 less seats) and so if 'fullness' was used to measure the success of the new extensions when they open, it wouldn't be fair.

Which one is it?

Beside the fact, even if the trams were full would it result in the scheme being fully paid of sooner? I doubt it.
 

overthewater

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2012
Messages
9,088
15 years sounds to me like a very good packback period for a significant infrastructure investment...

The line is not even the full length, it badly needs to go down to Newhaven but I just can see this ever happening.
 

Deerfold

Veteran Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
13,684
Location
Yorkshire
Only one of you can only be right:



Which one is it?

I don't see why only one of us can be right. They're not opposing views.

Beside the fact, even if the trams were full would it result in the scheme being fully paid of sooner? I doubt it.

If this meant more fares were being paid, then presumably this would be an option, yes. Why would it not?
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,304
To be fair, they are very long trams (longest in the UK?) and so I don't think how full they are is a fair measure of success. For example Nottinghams are ~10m shorter (~30 less seats) and so if 'fullness' was used to measure the success of the new extensions when they open, it wouldn't be fair.

Yes, at 42.8m long the Edinburgh Tram vehicle is the longest single unit tram in use in the UK and is one of the longer designs used anywhere in the world. A double unit M5000 is longer at around 57m long so in terms of absolute capacity, Manchester wins out.

Another 15 years before its paid for its self? There is no chance of it extending down to Leith before that point then.

Or, if it is extended to Leith, it could pay itself back even faster, and then result in even more revenue for the council afterwards. The scheme as built wouldn't be able to make a profit for a few years due to the relatively low starting figure for passenger numbers. When extended to Leith, the area of Scotland (and of the UK outside London) with the highest population density, that starting figure is going to increase massively without a massive extra increase in operating costs. Passenger numbers and ticket revenues will then grow to the point where the cost of the interest payments on the loan is covered, at which point the scheme becomes self-funding and any extra extensions can be approved and funded on a commercial basis. Manchester's system has been so successful at being extended because the core network already makes a profit, so there is a strong business case for loaning money to build extensions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top