• 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.

LLivery

Established Member
Joined
13 Jul 2014
Messages
1,707
Location
Southeastern land
While I understand the desire for segregation, do we actually have to have it? Of course, pedestrians need a path, but why can't bikes use the tram lane? Trams would have to be a little slower, but if they can share on the road, why not off road? You could probably even design the path inside the track to be slightly shallower to stop conflict with the running rails (laughs in Dutch)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

JamboCommuter

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2016
Messages
40
There are proposals to build 3,500 new homes in the Granton area, on previous brownfield sites.

I'd imagine the council will be looking for a substantial contribution towards the cost of the line from the home builders.

I believe this happened with the building of the Newhaven extension.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
While I understand the desire for segregation, do we actually have to have it? Of course, pedestrians need a path, but why can't bikes use the tram lane? Trams would have to be a little slower, but if they can share on the road, why not off road? You could probably even design the path inside the track to be slightly shallower to stop conflict with the running rails (laughs in Dutch)

Allowing bikes to use the tram lane would adversely affect the reliability of the tram service, as the number of bikes on any given day would be variable, and you cannot guarantee that a bike would move out of the way of the tram if required.

To say nothing of the safety implications. How long would it be before there is a serious or fatal accident involving a tram and a cyclist?
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,887
I don't think it'd be good to set the precedent that active travel should block the reopening of disused railway alignments.

While the Roseburn path might be a good cycle lane, there's actually an argument against relying on these and similar off-street routes as active travel corridors. It's all well and good on a summery Sunday afternoon taking the dog for a walk while allowing small kids to pootle along on their bikes alongside. However, for active travel to really work, people have to be willing to do it at all times of day, and in all conditions. The Roseburn path might be busy enough for it not to be too much of a problem but there are plenty of people who rather wouldn't cycle or walk alone, in the dark, and pretty far from any place of safety. The same isn't true on well-lit and busy roads with shops and people living directly on them. To that end, adding the tram might actually help, as there'd be more infrastructure like the relative safety of a CCTV-equipped tram stop and more people around.

My understanding is that the width under the bridges is a major problem now. Unless the bridges are rebuilt at great expense, it'll be difficult to fit a proper cycle and walking path in alongside a two-track tramway. I think a reasonable compromise then might be short sections of gauntlet track to maximise the path width. I don't imagine the Granton line will go up beyond 8tph so it shouldn't act as a major capacity bottleneck.
Couldn't they interleave the tracks at these locations, to reduce the width required? Nottingham tram does this on part of the street running.
 

FlybeDash8Q400

Established Member
Joined
26 Jun 2018
Messages
3,007
Location
Edinburgh
Apologies - I meant to say the junction you can see in the video is east/north where a Granton - Haymarket service would need a west/north junction.
Yes that’s correct. Right enough they only installed one side of it, which @NotATrainspott points to it being to do with the bridge built for the original line. In any case I doubt it would be used much as demand from the new line towards the west of the city probably isn’t high enough to justify it, and really would be just for depot moves. It’s not a game changer, but could have its uses.

Given the councils pro cycling, walking, wheeling agenda. I’d be shocked if they were to suggest taking the path away. It simply doesn’t align with their current trend of thinking. It’s not impossible, but you have to say that it’s unlikely. Didn’t the Crewe Road South proposal have a lot to do with this as well? I seriously hope it doesn’t happen…
 
Last edited:

Falcon1200

Established Member
Joined
14 Jun 2021
Messages
6,504
Location
Neilston, East Renfrewshire
Here's an example of the bridge problem. The footpath would be reduced down to a minimum of 1975mm between the stone bridge abutment and the fence separating the tramway. That 1975mm is unacceptable now because it would make it a major bottleneck and indeed a safety hazard for cyclists passing each other and pedestrians.

Why, as I suggested earlier, could the foot/cycle path not simply rise to cross the road on the level, avoiding the complication and risk of gauntletted track while also providing another access point to the path?
 

Sussexscot

Member
Joined
15 Jun 2022
Messages
29
Location
Sussex
Having worked nearby in the same office as those involved in the track design for the original project, I sympathised with them when the design remit kept changing. I am certain that the ORR will veto any idea of trams and cyclists sharing the same area, particularly under road bridges, unless it is on the public highway shared with all other traffic. Gauntletting or single lining the tracks under each road bridge would be a timetabling nightmare and would definitely lead to an unreliable service. The only sensible way is to widen the formation and have a double track tram line with a fenced off pedestrian/cyclist path adjacent. It would be possible to single track the tram line across the viaduct over the Water of Leith and still have a reliable timetable but it would be a bottleneck when timekeeping is stressed.

I concur with the comments regarding the bridge over Russell Road. Building the full bridge has safeguarded the chord to Granton because it would be exceedingly disruptive and expensive to "add on" the bit for the chord later.

I do not see the link between Granton and Newhaven ever being buit due to the problems with the sea wall. Howver, the is a potential "Plan B", namely the old Caledonian line through Pilton. This could diverge at Crewe Toll station and head over Crewe Road North and follow the old railway to what is now the Lindsay Road/Melrose Drive junction. There is opportunity for several tram stops along that alignment.

There is another opportunity for the western terminus for the service to Dalkeith, namley Silverknowes. If the trams were to follow the old Barnton line from its junction at Craigleith, after passing under Ferry Road, the trams would bear right whereas the old railway beared left towards Davidsons Mains. Yes, there would need to be a lot of lateral thinking required regarding the siting of the terminal tram stop. Just a thought!
 

takno

Verified Rep - Traksy
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,574
Why, as I suggested earlier, could the foot/cycle path not simply rise to cross the road on the level, avoiding the complication and risk of gauntletted track while also providing another access point to the path?
Because then the cyclists and pedestrians would have to climb a slope in order to pointlessly cross a road on the level, adding a degree of delay and inconvenience, making the safe active travel route slightly less safe, and reducing accessibility for people who struggle with the slopes. If it's such a good idea for some of the traffic to do that then why not the trams?
 

FlybeDash8Q400

Established Member
Joined
26 Jun 2018
Messages
3,007
Location
Edinburgh
I am certain that the ORR will veto any idea of trams and cyclists sharing the same area, particularly under road bridges, unless it is on the public highway shared with all other traffic.
I disagree. There is already an open shared section between Balgreen and Saughton (at the golf course) where the speed limit I think is 70kmph - I’m sure this is the maximum the trams run at, or at the least very close to it. The bridge over the railway (40kmph limit) is also partly open. So the ORR would probably have difficulty in justifying it without contradicting themselves.

I should be clear I don’t think any parts of the non street running should be open and instead be fenced off, but that’s where we’re at just now.

I still think the single line (fenced or unfenced) is the most probable outcome if the route is chosen. It’s cheaper and in my view should work absolutely fine. It ultimately means very little (if any) infrastructure would need to be replaced. I think the majority of the public are against Crewe Road South, but that of course doesn’t mean it won’t happen. In fact, it probably counts for nothing.
 

Falcon1200

Established Member
Joined
14 Jun 2021
Messages
6,504
Location
Neilston, East Renfrewshire
If it's such a good idea for some of the traffic to do that then why not the trams?

Maybe not quite so easy for trams? Plus gauntletted sections introduce a whole new level of complication, risk and delay to tram operations.

reducing accessibility for people who struggle with the slopes

Whereas if there were no slopes to and from the road there would be no accessibility, for anyone at all, at that point.
 

takno

Verified Rep - Traksy
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,574
Maybe not quite so easy for trams? Plus gauntletted sections introduce a whole new level of complication, risk and delay to tram operations.



Whereas if there were no slopes to and from the road there would be no accessibility, for anyone at all, at that point.
The places where this happens on the water of Leith path and other paths irritate me to the point of largely not bothering to use those paths, and I'm fit, fully able, and on foot. Frankly it's the interface with the traffic that's the main thing I'm looking to avoid, but other people will struggle with the slopes.

Sure it provides an interface with a few more roads, but if that's useful it can be done quite a lot more cheaply without diverting the main path. If those roads are so important maybe there should be a tram stop added as well, which will handily ensure that the trams are going slowly enough to have no concerns about safety at all.

Diverting the path causes a significant loss of amenity, while gauntletting the track is a simple, safe and well used approach to dealing with constrained spaces.
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,304
Maybe not quite so easy for trams? Plus gauntletted sections introduce a whole new level of complication, risk and delay to tram operations.



Whereas if there were no slopes to and from the road there would be no accessibility, for anyone at all, at that point.

I don't think short sections of gauntlet track through tight obstacles on an otherwise two-track tramway is really going to cause much delay on an 8tph service. It would be quite different if the plan were a single track tramway with passing loops at stations.

In the list of problematic over- and under-bridges there are a few that need to be rebuilt anyway. These can be done to the full width needed. The more bridges that get rebuilt, the less impactful any remaining sections of gauntlet track would be on overall capacity.
 

LLivery

Established Member
Joined
13 Jul 2014
Messages
1,707
Location
Southeastern land
Allowing bikes to use the tram lane would adversely affect the reliability of the tram service, as the number of bikes on any given day would be variable, and you cannot guarantee that a bike would move out of the way of the tram if required.

To say nothing of the safety implications. How long would it be before there is a serious or fatal accident involving a tram and a cyclist?
I don't wish to sound callous, but fatal accidents are a risk with trams on roads, especially where they take up the entire road with road traffic still present - think Lebanon Road, Croydon (and Croydon trams are kind of speedy compared to other networks), but we accept the risk. I have no idea how busy this cycleway is, but for me, the performance risk is a bigger reason not to, than safety.

Having worked nearby in the same office as those involved in the track design for the original project, I sympathised with them when the design remit kept changing. I am certain that the ORR will veto any idea of trams and cyclists sharing the same area, particularly under road bridges, unless it is on the public highway shared with all other traffic. Gauntletting or single lining the tracks under each road bridge would be a timetabling nightmare and would definitely lead to an unreliable service. The only sensible way is to widen the formation and have a double track tram line with a fenced off pedestrian/cyclist path adjacent.

Why under road bridges in particular? Visibility? Can understand that considering Ruddington Lane in Notts.
 

03_179

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2008
Messages
3,861
Location
At my desk
I hav the Quail maps for Scotland and obviously they don't have the new extension for the tram line.
Could someone be kind enough to supply me with the miles and chains of the line please (inc. the stations on it)?
 

Sunil_P

On Moderation
Joined
31 Oct 2022
Messages
522
Location
Ilford
Oh well, I need to make another trip to Edinburgh!

I'm toying with the idea of doing Kings Cross to Edinburgh, St Andrews Sq. to Newhaven, Newhaven to St Andrews Sq., Edinburgh to Kings Cross as a day-trip. Or maybe I'm crazy :lol:
 

waverley47

Member
Joined
17 Apr 2015
Messages
838
Oh well, I need to make another trip to Edinburgh!

I'm toying with the idea of doing Kings Cross to Edinburgh, St Andrews Sq. to Newhaven, Newhaven to St Andrews Sq., Edinburgh to Kings Cross as a day-trip. Or maybe I'm crazy :lol:

If only the ferry from Leith to Kirkcaldy got off the ground, and you could have gone even further!


In all seriousness, I've been wandering down to the centre of Edinburgh for the last week or so, and loadings seem very healthy.

During the day, it's busy pretty much constantly, with at least 30-40 people on most trams. During rush hour, it's packed out both ways up and down the walk, and at least as far as the Gyle.

Numbers seem to be shifting and settling slowly as people move across to the trams, and the new contactless readers are installed everywhere, so I guess we're just waiting on the software.

All in all, it seems pretty successful now that it's finished, and I look forward to new routes (even if the building works will doubtlessly inconvenience me)
 

FlybeDash8Q400

Established Member
Joined
26 Jun 2018
Messages
3,007
Location
Edinburgh
Oh well, I need to make another trip to Edinburgh!

I'm toying with the idea of doing Kings Cross to Edinburgh, St Andrews Sq. to Newhaven, Newhaven to St Andrews Sq., Edinburgh to Kings Cross as a day-trip. Or maybe I'm crazy :lol:
For myself something like that is easy to do. 1S07 (0800) up, have some lunch, do the tram down and back, then get something like 1E23 (1630) back.

The new extension of the tram route will take you under an hour to do.
 

03_179

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2008
Messages
3,861
Location
At my desk
Oh well, I need to make another trip to Edinburgh!

I'm toying with the idea of doing Kings Cross to Edinburgh, St Andrews Sq. to Newhaven, Newhaven to St Andrews Sq., Edinburgh to Kings Cross as a day-trip. Or maybe I'm crazy :lol:
Nah ... especially as I am considering Croydon - London - Edinburgh - Tweedbank (or North Berwick) - London - Croydon in a day
 

SteveP29

Member
Joined
23 Apr 2011
Messages
1,181
Location
Edinburgh/ Chester le Street
08/01859/PA | Alterations to bridge and erection of (OLE) poles and lighting for the Edinburgh Tram Network | Land Adjacent (1) To Telford Road Edinburgh

View attachment 136930

Here's an example of the bridge problem. The footpath would be reduced down to a minimum of 1975mm between the stone bridge abutment and the fence separating the tramway. That 1975mm is unacceptable now because it would make it a major bottleneck and indeed a safety hazard for cyclists passing each other and pedestrians.

With gauntlet track, it would be possible to at least double the width of the path. It wouldn't need to be any narrower than any other sections of the path along the route.

There's currently the same kind of bottlenecks at the bridges over the canal at the likes of Yeaman Place, Harrison Road and Ashley Terrace

I hate reading those documents. They so casually discuss turning our excellent bus network into a messy patchwork of feeder routes into trams, completely failing to analyse the connection times, or how utterly unpleasant it is to wait in the wind and rain at a "transit centre". It's like the authors have never regularly commuted by public transport at all.

You mean like the recent Lothian Buses re-routing, creation and cancellation of routes (which by the way, has left me, as a resident of Granton Harbour with no direct bus route to the south east of the city beyond the Balmoral hotel, meaning it' now 2 buses in each direction for me every day to work)
 

overthewater

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2012
Messages
9,088
I thought the plans to extend to Newbridge were killed of 10 years ago.. It going to a real challenge trying to get that line over the City Bypass. Newbridge had a better bus service until Covid, 7 lothian country, 8 First and route No63.


Edinburgh trams: Plans for extension to Newbridge set to be abandoned in favour of route along A71 corridor​

Report says stronger business case for going beyond Hermiston while improved bus service would work better for Newbridge

Plans for an extension of Edinburgh tramline beyond the airport to Newbridge are set to be shelved in favour of an alternative route along the A71 corridor which could serve Heriot-Watt University.

A report to the city’s transport and environment committee says that although a line to Newbridge would bring benefits, these could be better achieved by improved bus services. And it says a tramline along the A71 corridor beyond Hermiston is likely to have a stronger business case than the Newbridge route. It also makes clear there would not be enough capacity to operate both new lines.
With the extension of the tramline from the city centre to Newhaven now open, the council’s next priority is a line running from Granton in the north to the BioQuarter and Royal Infirmary in the the south-east and on towards Dalkeith. A consultation is expected to be launched later this year on details of that plan, including whether the route from Granton should use the Roseburn cycle path, as previously proposed, or Orchard Brae.

But the council also wants to explore other possible line developments. A line to Newbridge was included in the original four-phase tram plans for the Capital, which involved firstly a line from Newhaven to the airport, then one from Haymarket to Granton, then linking Granton and Newhaven to complete the loop, and fourthly going from the airport to Newbridge.

In the original plan, after the stop at Ingliston park and ride, rather than follow the line to the airport, trams for Newbridge would have carried on to a new station called Ingliston West, then Ratho Station, Newbridge South and Newbridge North. Land for the route is still safeguarded for that purpose in the City Plan. The route envisaged in the legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament was via Station Road, to Harvest Road under the M9 motorway, along Cliftonhall Road to Newbridge Industrial Estate Road and ending at a point west of the Newbridge roundabout.

The report to Thursday’s transport committee says: “The proposed City Plan confirms West Edinburgh as a location for major development. Improving sustainable transport accessibility through active travel and public transit provision, in lockstep with new development, will be critical to realising the potential for West Edinburgh.” It says that Newbridge emerged well in terms of “deliverability” in a study of various corridors for potential tram development and that a new park and ride site was identified which could help encourage people to switch from car to tram. But the report continues: “However, the study also noted that Bus Rapid Transit options could potentially be more suitable for this corridor, implemented quicker and provide a more direct routing to Newbridge.”

And the report notes the study also looked at overall capacity constraints on the tram network. “It was determined that only one tram extension in the west of the city could be supported – either an extension to Newbridge or an extension to west of Hermiston, but not both. [The study] indicated that an extension to west of Hermiston would likely have a stronger business case when compared to the Newbridge option, although further work would need to be undertaken to confirm this.”

Transport and environment convener Scott Arthur said the Granton line was the current priority but it was not expected to be ready until 2035. He described the timetable as “frustrating” and said the ideal situation would have been if the team working on the Newhaven extension had been able to switch straight over to the next project. But he said people still remembered the delays and cost increases surrounding the original tram scheme. “I think, through the line to Newhaven, we had to prove we could do it. I hope the successful opening of that line shows we've moved on.”
 

och aye

Member
Joined
21 Jan 2012
Messages
1,009
Going to Heriot-Watt would make a lot more sense than to Newbridge if it has to be one or the other.
 

route101

Veteran Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
12,245
How does contactless work on the trams? Do the ticket inspectors scan your bankcard?
 
Joined
29 Nov 2018
Messages
779
How does contactless work on the trams? Do the ticket inspectors scan your bankcard?
You should buy a paper tickets using contactless cards/devices before boarding if you want to stick with normal fares. Passengers riding without valid tickets or passes risk a £10 'fine', payable to the conductor.
However I'm not sure if you can pay this £10 on the tram using contactless. I suspect you'd rather not want to use that option anyway!
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,304
How does contactless work on the trams? Do the ticket inspectors scan your bankcard?

This will be enabled in a couple of months. Until then, you have to buy a paper ticket at the tram stop using the ticket machine, which accepts card payments and contactless. When the full contactless system is enabled, you will have to tap your card against the validators on the platform.

https://www.expertreviews.co.uk/tec...es-how-apple-pay-works-with-ticket-inspectors

UPDATE: TfL has finally responded to our initial query and has said that Apple Pay and bPay fare dodgers can be handled by the system. According to TfL, if a ticket inspector asks for your payment information, you have to tap your Apple Pay device to the inspector's reader. Later on when all of the inspector's information is uploaded, TfL can check if you tapped in with your Apple Pay device; if you didn't, you'll receive a penalty fare charged via Apple Pay. This is the same mechanism used for contactless cards and also applies to Barclays bPay.

I presume the system works the same way as contactless on TfL. This would avoid the need for the ticket inspector to have a good internet connection in order to check tickets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top