Edinburgh Tram developments

[N1]

Bizarrely the street route is more expensive too. Obviously the proposed old railway route is mostly single track which may explain this.

Also with Roseburn path they are proposing not to install OLE, and run on battery. In the reports this appears to be to try and retain more existing trees adjacent to Roseburn path. But also helps on cost along with single track section.

When Roseburn path was first proposed, I was on the fence about it, as it is a very useful walking and cycling route. However, I actually think the proposed alignments in the consultation work well, have retained adjacent footpath and cycleway, tried to preserve the existing tree canopy and overall kept a good balance. Even with single track section, likely to be much quicker journey times than the on street route

 

[The exile]

Hopefully the bridge can withstand the weight of trams with batteries, I doubt that wiring will be approved.

Are there no convenient street lighting poles?

 

[AlastairFraser]

Are there no convenient street lighting poles?

There's a few, but they are intermittent on either side and I'm not sure they'd support even tram OHLE.

 

[lachlan]

Is there a significant difference in journey time via the Roseburn path vs Dean Bridge?

 

[N1]

There's a few, but they are intermittent on either side and I'm not sure they'd support even tram OHLE.

Don't see any reason there would be an issue UNESCO wise on the bridge. Pretty much all of Edinburgh, New and Old town is a UNESCO world heritage site. Added loads of trams in Florence in the last decade as well.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Don't see any reason there would be an issue UNESCO wise on the bridge. Pretty much all of Edinburgh, New and Old town is a UNESCO world heritage site. Added loads of trams in Florence in the last decade as well.

Exactly

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

Also with Roseburn path they are proposing not to install OLE, and run on battery. In the reports this appears to be to try and retain more existing trees adjacent to Roseburn path. But also helps on cost along with single track section.

When Roseburn path was first proposed, I was on the fence about it, as it is a very useful walking and cycling route. However, I actually think the proposed alignments in the consultation work well, have retained adjacent footpath and cycleway, tried to preserve the existing tree canopy and overall kept a good balance. Even with single track section, likely to be much quicker journey times than the on street route

I assume a second reason for battery on that route would be to avoid replacing many of the old railway bridges which wouldn’t be able to fit OLE? Some of the bridges ought to be replaceable out of convenience as they are simply walkways over walkways at the moment.

 

[The exile]

There's a few, but they are intermittent on either side and I'm not sure they'd support even tram OHLE.

What I meant was that if street lighting poles are acceptable then slightly strengthened replacements doubling as tram poles should be as well. Many of the 1st generation systems used dual poles (including, presumably, across the Dean Bridge) so it should be possible now.

 

[AlastairFraser]

What I meant was that if street lighting poles are acceptable then slightly strengthened replacements doubling as tram poles should be as well. Many of the 1st generation systems used dual poles (including, presumably, across the Dean Bridge) so it should be possible now.

Tbh I don't see the point of using OHLE for the section over the bridge, given battery capabilities would be useful for other potential extensions as well.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

What I meant was that if street lighting poles are acceptable then slightly strengthened replacements doubling as tram poles should be as well. Many of the 1st generation systems used dual poles (including, presumably, across the Dean Bridge) so it should be possible now.

The original system never ran over Dean Bridge.

In fact, none of the street route proposed here at the north end has ever had trams. An extension from Comely Bank to Crewe Toll was started, but never finished and thus never opened. This was a route (24) that came from George Street and ran through Stockbridge.

 

[Gaelan]

Is there a significant difference in journey time via the Roseburn path vs Dean Bridge?

The report says 7 minutes faster down the Roseburn Path in the morning peak, 2 minutes faster off-peak.

 

[The exile]

The original system never ran over Dean Bridge.

In fact, none of the street route proposed here at the north end has ever had trams. An extension from Comely Bank to Crewe Toll was started, but never finished and thus never opened. This was a route (24) that came from George Street and ran through Stockbridge.

Shame on me - as a former resident (albeit not of that part of the City) I should have known that - even if the demise of the trams predated my arrival by 12 and a bit years.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

Shame on me - as a former resident (albeit not of that part of the City) I should have known that - even if the demise of the trams predated my arrival by 12 and a bit years.

I forgot at first and was actually surprised to learn it was never used! Though something at the back of my mind knew that Crewe Road South never had trams, just the abandoned unfinished extension. Therefore it would be rather pointless to have trams abruptly stop at Flora’s - even if it was part of a loop with the Stockbridge route. Route 24 at least served a fairly developed area while any Dean Bridge route would likely have just functioned as a shortcut than actual traffic. I can’t see in those days why many would’ve got on or off in the Dean Bridge area. Alas it never happened anyway.

For whatever reason they never did it. Not even as part of a Queensferry Road route. It’s therefore particularly interesting that in this proposal, any street running on this northern section (if it happens) is totally new.

 

[The exile]

I forgot at first and was actually surprised to learn it was never used! Though something at the back of my mind knew that Crewe Road South never had trams, just the abandoned unfinished extension. Therefore it would be rather pointless to have trams abruptly stop at Flora’s - even if it was part of a loop with the Stockbridge route. Route 24 at least served a fairly developed area while any Dean Bridge route would likely have just functioned as a shortcut than actual traffic. I can’t see in those days why many would’ve got on or off in the Dean Bridge area. Alas it never happened anyway.

For whatever reason they never did it. Not even as part of a Queensferry Road route. It’s therefore particularly interesting that in this proposal, any street running on this northern section (if it happens) is totally new.

I suppose it was hardly prime "mass public transport" territory - and in the days of expansionism the built up area didn't stretch out very far. Any extension towards Crewe Toll and beyond would have been through, and heading towards, much more fruitful territory (I would imagine that the development of Pilton, Muirhouse etc was already in the back of the City Fathers' minds in the 1930s).

 

[NotATrainspott]

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=14.6&lat=55.95279&lon=-3.22485&layers=6&b=ESRIWorld&o=100

There wasn't a great deal of development north/west of the Water of Leith until after WW1. Queensferry Road tapered out pretty quickly after Buckingham and Learmonth Terraces, so there was no real population to serve. And, the people who did live there were the posh folk who wouldn't ever be seen dead on a tram!

The suburban sprawl after WW1 made life very difficult for the tram networks, given that density dropped dramatically yet the distances they had to cover went up quite a lot. It used to be that dense tenement sprawl along a main road meant you only had to add a few hundred metres of track at a time, so the finances added up for expansion. The suburbs developed in part because of the dawn of internal combustion and pneumatic tyres, such that tram networks started to seem a bit old fashioned. If you wanted electric transport then you'd use a trolleybus instead.

The staff at the Western General will walk the few hundred metres to the Roseburn Path to get their tram home. It isn't worth redirecting the tram onto Telford Road, or onto the Dean Bridge route, just for their sake. And, the idea that it'll help the patients at the hospital is also not really that sensible. If you're going to be so hard done by with a few hundred metres of walking here, there's pretty much nothing the tram network can do for you. You'll always prefer to have a bus that stops very frequently and goes around the houses, even when it means longer journey times overall. That's because you're probably retired and/or too sick to work anyway, and you don't value your time at all (nor are you probably paying for your fare either!). The perfect route network for these people is one which would be financially ruinous and generally useless for the rest of society who do actually have things to be getting on with in their day. Slow buses that can't compete with private cars, walking or cycling aren't going to attract the passengers needed for them to be economically viable. The tram needs that more than any bus service, or it just won't ever be built.

I think single track or gauntlet track sections on the Roseburn Path to avoid needing to rebuild bridges is a good idea. Making more of it single track just for the sake of saving some trees? No. Trees don't last forever and it'll be a bit stupid if the tram is built in a compromised way, and then we have to go along and cut back the trees anyway due to their age and possibly future storm damage.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I think single track or gauntlet track sections on the Roseburn Path to avoid needing to rebuild bridges is a good idea.

But it will restrain future capacity, when capacity on the Dean Bridge route can theoretically be increased if necessary, by introducing traffic restrictions on the sections closer to inner Edinburgh.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

But it will restrain future capacity, when capacity on the Dean Bridge route can theoretically be increased if necessary, by introducing traffic restrictions on the sections closer to inner Edinburgh.

You’re already probably going to have to have certain restrictions if it’s built. I can’t see how it’s expanded upon after that. The popular bus stops at the start of Queensferry Street by Ryan’s Bar are also probably gone as there’s no space for trams to fit without coming to a stand behind a bus. However, putting in a tram stop there would be as equally as difficult a challenge as you won’t be able to restrict the entire Northern route street running corridor to tram only at all. Buses will have to be maintained along with all vehicles on Crewe Road South due to potential emergency access needed to the Hospital. Dean Bridge much the same as this is one of the few ways out of town in this area. Dean Village and Stockbridge are not suitable to take on this traffic while there are already traffic restrictions to and from Haymarket.

Unlike Leith Walk there’s no space to make Crewe Road South have segregated tram lanes. It would be shared entirely with the road which cars, vans and all sorts will have to be continued to allow to use. It’s not unheard for traffic coming onto Crewe Toll to tail back a considerable distance as well, but from experience it doesn’t happen a lot. With the roundabout gone these queues would almost certainly happen more, but the lengths would vary. As you won’t be able to restrict this traffic, the trams inevitably will get stuck and thus the schedule is in the bin. Restricting inner traffic will have no benefit if the tram gets caught in outer traffic anyway.

It’s not about restraining future capacity. Very few people actually win if the street running is chosen. The amount of disruption to build it that it will cause if chosen would be disastrous. I’ve already highlighted the issues around the Western General and the junction at Crewe Toll on what is ultimately a slower route for everybody. It’s quicker, cheaper, easier and far less disruptive to build it on the old railway. The Trams can get up to a decent speed unlike busy street running where the tram barely feels any faster than a bus. Croydon has had parts of its network as single track since it was built and it works fine from what I have seen of it, but by no means is it perfect. Ideally it would be dualled throughout, but given how popular the route is with cyclists and others it would never happen. The old railway does however open up options for further expansion on the other former railway lines, such as out to Davidson’s Mains, or down to Silverknowes via the same corridor. Lastly there is the Ferry Road path which could be an option in the long term.

Both routes are very flawed, but the old railway is the best of two otherwise flawed options.

 

[AlastairFraser]

You’re already probably going to have to have certain restrictions if it’s built. I can’t see how it’s expanded upon after that. The popular bus stops at the start of Queensferry Street by Ryan’s Bar are also probably gone as there’s no space for trams to fit without coming to a stand behind a bus. However, putting in a tram stop there would be as equally as difficult a challenge as you won’t be able to restrict the entire Northern route street running corridor to tram only at all. Buses will have to be maintained along with all vehicles on Crewe Road South due to potential emergency access needed to the Hospital. Dean Bridge much the same as this is one of the few ways out of town in this area. Dean Village and Stockbridge are not suitable to take on this traffic while there are already traffic restrictions to and from Haymarket.

Unlike Leith Walk there’s no space to make Crewe Road South have segregated tram lanes. It would be shared entirely with the road which cars, vans and all sorts will have to be continued to allow to use. It’s not unheard for traffic coming onto Crewe Toll to tail back a considerable distance as well, but from experience it doesn’t happen a lot. With the roundabout gone these queues would almost certainly happen more, but the lengths would vary. As you won’t be able to restrict this traffic, the trams inevitably will get stuck and thus the schedule is in the bin. Restricting inner traffic will have no benefit if the tram gets caught in outer traffic anyway.

It’s not about restraining future capacity. Very few people actually win if the street running is chosen. The amount of disruption to build it that it will cause if chosen would be disastrous. I’ve already highlighted the issues around the Western General and the junction at Crewe Toll on what is ultimately a slower route for everybody. It’s quicker, cheaper, easier and far less disruptive to build it on the old railway. The Trams can get up to a decent speed unlike busy street running where the tram barely feels any faster than a bus. Croydon has had parts of its network as single track since it was built and it works fine from what I have seen of it, but by no means is it perfect. Ideally it would be dualled throughout, but given how popular the route is with cyclists and others it would never happen. The old railway does however open up options for further expansion on the other former railway lines, such as out to Davidson’s Mains, or down to Silverknowes via the same corridor. Lastly there is the Ferry Road path which could be an option in the long term.

Both routes are very flawed, but the old railway is the best of two otherwise flawed options.

I agree the Crewe Road/Orchard Brae route isn't exactly ideal, but the Roseburn Path route won't actually be built for years on end, and with all the legal challenges, it could suffer such a major cost blowout that it never gets built.
I think something more radical will have to be done with traffic access south of Comely Bank in general for non-residents, but we will have to wait and see.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

I agree the Crewe Road/Orchard Brae route isn't exactly ideal, but the Roseburn Path route won't actually be built for years on end, and with all the legal challenges, it could suffer such a major cost blowout that it never gets built.

Which then raises my original point again. If there are so many flaws/possible objections with both options, then why build it at all?

You’re right there will almost certainly be legal challenges with the Railway route. The street route I’m not sure how exactly legal issues would work in practice, but a simple enough conclusion with the issues I raised above certainly leaves me worried. I doubt I am alone in this conclusion.

The southern route doesn’t have so much of this problem as there’s space to fit it in most places, most of that route has space for 4 lanes (2 road, 2 tram). The northern route as I say is the complete opposite.

It may well be that the northern route while it sounds great on paper to those in favour of it, in practice it just can’t work. I guess this is what I’ve been trying to say all along. There’s way too many issues to overcome in my opinion, some of which you can’t avoid and have to live with. Are those benefits we talk about really there? Or is the solution given the complexities not best just to improve what we have. Eg more connectivity through buses, opportunity to grow the cycle network etc.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Which then raises my original point again. If there are so many flaws/possible objections with both options, then why build it at all?

Because we need serious modal shift to get enough cars out of Edinburgh city centre
Part of that should be targeted at over tourism including the fragmented tour bus industry, but ordinary locals need a decent option too.
Sadly there's no local railway that could be viably reopened to serve the expansive north western suburbs like the South Sub could be, and Lothian Buses are great, but they have reached the limit of their usefulness in a lot of areas (when I visit family in Edinburgh, it's getting to the point where even the outer suburban orbital routes are in a mess with congestion. Anything passing through city centre is even worse, especially the New Town).

Some parts of the city are walkable/doable with a bike, but, as I'm sure you'll appreciate, it's too hilly to encourage enough modal shift in the most congested areas.
Sure, Granton itself is flat as a pancake, but, as you mentioned, Crewe Toll is where the congestion gets really bad.

 

[daodao]

Modern light rail is more beneficial and less costly/disruptive to construct when it maximises use of reserved track alignments, including disused railway lines, and minimises street running sections, using them only when there is no alternative. Therefore, it seems preferable to use the former Caledonian Railway suburban line trackbed (now the Roseburn path) for the section from Granton to the city centre. Journey times will be quicker and less affected by road traffic disruption, and projected usage is higher. Light rail is notoriously expensive to build in the UK and national/local government has a duty to minimise expenditure.

 

[The exile]

Which then raises my original point again. If there are so many flaws/possible objections with both options, then why build it at all

If we only built plans that had no flaws and which no one objected to we would build nothing at all. After all, it’s a pretty stupid place to build a city- all those hills and virtually impermeable rock! (Not to be taken too seriously!)

 

[Acfb]

There’s a considerable increase in disruption with the street route though. Dean Bridge is the main route for all of the Forth Crossing Coaches. This traffic realistically cannot be diverted via Dean Village or Stockbridge, so I question where this would end up going.

Bizarrely the street route is more expensive too. Obviously the proposed old railway route is mostly single track which may explain this.

I’m quite surprised the council have even consulted on Dean Bridge without any evidence to suggest it can or cannot handle trams. Worth pointing out I don’t believe the original trams used it either despite it being an obvious route. Technology has advanced but the weight of trams has done so with it. Whether or not UNESCO would have issues I don’t know as it’s well within the world heritage site as is the structure part of it too.

One big problem will be how access to the hospital can be maintained for those less mobile during construction. All buses likely diverting via East Fettes Avenue means a solution would be needed to this. Emergency access should be slightly easier to maintain but not without its problems either. If the main route from the city to and from the Western General is closed then again there may be concerns about emergency access.

Crewe Toll also functions as part of the cities unofficial ring road and is almost a part of the trunk road network. The roundabout has been flawed for years which could be solved but I question how trams can fit into this already busy junction.

The old railway route means traffic disruption is avoided almost entirely. West Granton Access would be closed which isn’t a disaster. Ferry Road would have to be closed for a short time whilst a bridge is put in.


For me it’s very difficult to see how the street option can work in a practical scenario. Unlike Leith there’s a lot less alternative space/routes that can be used while you have the added curveball of a hospital being in place. You don’t have this issue at the Royal Infirmary end as there are ideal parallel roads.

I don't have strong views one way or the other but the Roseburn Path is heavily used by cyclists so I don't know if they'd need to built yet another new cycle route to compensate. Also not sure about how all the construction access would work particularly around St George's.

 

[SamCam]

I don't have strong views one way or the other but the Roseburn Path is heavily used by cyclists so I don't know if they'd need to built yet another new cycle route to compensate. Also not sure about how all the construction access would work particularly around St George's.

With the single track section the finished cycle path should be plenty wide enough - though an alternative route during construction would be necessary.

The other concern, speaking of new cycle routes, is how they intend to retain connectivity to the recently opened cycle path from Roseburn/Russell Road to Dundee Street. There needs to be some sort of underpass or crossing to link this to Balbirnie Place.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

If we only built plans that had no flaws and which no one objected to we would build nothing at all. After all, it’s a pretty stupid place to build a city- all those hills and virtually impermeable rock! (Not to be taken too seriously!)

It would be amazing wouldn’t it? For me it’s not the fact there’s flaws, it’s how many flaws there are. The only benefit I would say is if they do the railway route, it strengthens the financial argument to finish the loop off. For a long time there had been a suggestion of reclaiming land here but I actually can’t see why you would need to. Sure it would be a tight squeeze to have two tram lines, two road lanes, a path with cycle path and parking all the way along. Removing the parking is not realistic. It was a bit short sighted from the council to reuse the land that had been intended for the tram line as a cycle path in my opinion. There’s effectively two walking routes on that side now (one doubles up as the cycle path) which is a bit silly.

With the single track section the finished cycle path should be plenty wide enough - though an alternative route during construction would be necessary.

The other concern, speaking of new cycle routes, is how they intend to retain connectivity to the recently opened cycle path from Roseburn/Russell Road to Dundee Street. There needs to be some sort of underpass or crossing to link this to Balbirnie Place.

There’s not a bridge over the railway is there?

If we’re looking at a map north-south, then the ideal place would be to have the tram line on the right hand side with the path maintained on the left hand side. This also allows for the future proofed Murrayfield end curve to be added in at Roseburn. If you look on Satellite you’ll see where it is.

Could the red bridge that currently sits over Ferry Road be repurposed for this? It makes sense to have Ferry Road have a combined Tram/Path bridge. Crazy idea but maybe it could save money?

 

[dcsprior]

it's not just about speed though, it's about overall capacity, and encouraging more public transport use.

To be fair, speed is a fairly significant part of encouraging public transport use!

I hope they build this, because it's better than nothing, but I must say that it feels rather unambitious having a tram which mainly runs on-street as our main metro system.

 

[SamCam]

If we’re looking at a map north-south, then the ideal place would be to have the tram line on the right hand side with the path maintained on the left hand side. This also allows for the future proofed Murrayfield end curve to be added in at Roseburn. If you look on Satellite you’ll see where it is.

Could the red bridge that currently sits over Ferry Road be repurposed for this? It makes sense to have Ferry Road have a combined Tram/Path bridge. Crazy idea but maybe it could save money?

The recently opened cycle path goes under the main railway alongside Russell Road, then climbs up via switchbacks to go over the Slateford line, so no expensive new overbridge needed for the railway.

As I understand it the plan is for the cycle path to run along the east side of the tram line, as that is the side with links to the city centre and Haymarket, but the southernmost section of the new tram line will have a narrower path, with cyclists encouraged to drop down onto Balbirnie Place or West Coates - to allow the tram to return to double track, and for a delta junction as you describe. This therefore cuts off Russell Road, but an at-grade crossing of the tram line is probably the solution. I only mentioned an underpass because the existing tram line and Roseburn Path are both elevated compared to Russell Road and Balbirnie Place.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Modern light rail is more beneficial and less costly/disruptive to construct when it maximises use of reserved track alignments, including disused railway lines, and minimises street running sections, using them only when there is no alternative. Therefore, it seems preferable to use the former Caledonian Railway suburban line trackbed (now the Roseburn path) for the section from Granton to the city centre. Journey times will be quicker and less affected by road traffic disruption, and projected usage is higher. Light rail is notoriously expensive to build in the UK and national/local government has a duty to minimise expenditure.

Prepare for years of legal battles that lead to inflationary increases in the project budget.

 

[daodao]

Prepare for years of legal battles that lead to inflationary increases in the project budget.

Why? The former Caledonian branch line is not privately owned property and this route will be simpler and cheaper to build, as well as providing a quicker reserved track line to the city centre.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Why? The former Caledonian branch line is not privately owned property and this route will be simpler and cheaper to build, as well as providing a quicker reserved track line to the city centre.

A well funded campaign supported by people from some of the richest parts of Edinburgh with the financial ability to take it up to the very highest levels of the Scottish legal system? (https://www.savetheroseburnpath.com/)