http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: "Calls for Edinburgh’s South Suburban rail line to reopen" en Tue, 21 Apr 2026 11:52:02 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429&page=2#post-383909 Mon, 20 Apr 2026 09:25:51 +0000 chdot 383909@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>“</p> <p>Might Tram-Trains finally revitalise Edinburgh’s South Suburban line? </p> <p>SNP manifesto pledge shows there could be light rail at end of the tunnel </p> <p>“</p> <p><a href="https://www.edinburghinquirer.co.uk/p/tram-trains-move-a-step-closer-for?" rel="nofollow">https://www.edinburghinquirer.co.uk/p/tram-trains-move-a-step-closer-for?</a></p> <p>I think there must have been mentions in other threads of South Sub and Tram Trains, but the 10 year gap on this thread shows how Edinburgh works… </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429&page=2#post-198765 Tue, 15 Sep 2015 00:07:17 +0000 kaputnik 198765@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I think it may have had something to do with a general discussion of the towpath and access to/from it? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198762 Mon, 14 Sep 2015 23:51:19 +0000 Arellcat 198762@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Either I'm having extreme deja-vu or there's been a discussion (on here?) before about the exhibition. I recognise the black and white picture. We had to identify the canal and the railway alignments and everything. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198760 Mon, 14 Sep 2015 23:36:02 +0000 kaputnik 198760@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>International Exhibition of Electrical Engineering, General Inventions and Industry" of 1890, </em></p> <p>There's a colour scan <a href="http://www.lookandlearn.com/history-images/M332401/International-Exhibition-Edinburgh-1890-opened-on-Thursday-1st-May-by-HRH-the-Duke-of-Edinburgh-KG?img=74&amp;search=Order&amp;bool=phrase">here</a> and a black and white scan <a href="http://www.old-print.com/mas_assets/full/E1791884224.jpg">here</a> of the exhibition buildings. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198757 Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:07:07 +0000 Greenroofer 198757@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Arellcat - I love that book. It's full of the most amazing detail (like the colours of the panelling at Morningside Station, and when it was repainted, or the date they replaced the footbridge at Craiglockhart). Some might say that it could have been edited down to half its size without losing anything of importance, but too me it feels like a labour of love.</p> <p>It's very expensive, though! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198756 Mon, 14 Sep 2015 21:49:02 +0000 Arellcat 198756@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="https://flic.kr/p/duHSE9"><img src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8210/8201313108_4b6bf26d1a.jpg"></a><br /> <a href="https://flic.kr/p/duHSE9">The sub</a></p> <p>On page 63 is shown the final passenger train timetable, for 19 June to 8 September 1962. For example you could catch the 7.59am from Morningside and be at Waverley (via Duddingston) for 8.24am. Then, after work, you could catch the 5.23pm and be back at Morningside by 5.48pm. A 3-month 2nd class season ticket for that journey would've cost 65/-, or about £40 today.</p> <p>Vaguely on-topic: on pages 163-165 there is a bit about the "International Exhibition of Electrical Engineering, General Inventions and Industry" of 1890, in the area of Meggetland (thus, between the Union Canal and the railway at Slateford station). Fascinating! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198755 Mon, 14 Sep 2015 21:02:00 +0000 kaputnik 198755@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Here's a 1958 timetable that includes the "Sub";</p> <p><a href="https://flic.kr/p/76m8HJ"><img src="https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2556/3998651296_7e1a25faee.jpg"></a><a href="https://flic.kr/p/76m8HJ">British Railways - page from the Edinburgh suburban services timetable - June 1958</a> by <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/36844288@N00/">Mikey</a>, on Flickr</p> <p>And a route diagram summarising the available services;</p> <p><a href="https://flic.kr/p/76h5zx"><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3419/3997860281_c1f86bd670.jpg"></a><a href="https://flic.kr/p/76h5zx">British Railways - diagrams of Edinburgh Suburban services, 1958</a> by <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/36844288@N00/">Mikey</a>, on Flickr </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198743 Mon, 14 Sep 2015 17:03:52 +0000 DaveC 198743@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>A spur to the Infirmary would be better coming from Millerhill Road as its around the same height as the Infirmary and could go up Millerhill Road befor peeling off west to the Infirmary without having to do much cutting or embanking. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198739 Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:51:44 +0000 cb 198739@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"You mean the tram/train thing?"</p> <p>Just a train thing I was thinking.<br /> Either from Peffermill, clockwise around the Craigmillar Castle hill (if not too steep), or perhaps skirting the west side of Fort Kinnaird.<br /> Or a direct tunnel right below the castle! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198735 Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:35:58 +0000 chdot 198735@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"a spur to the RIE would be reasonably easy?"</p> <p>You mean the tram/train thing?</p> <p>Yes - or just interchange at Cameron Toll with Tramline 3??</p> <p>Well, other cities would have (done by now). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198734 Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:31:05 +0000 kaputnik 198734@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>Obviously serves the RIE which the south sub wouldn't, but a glance at the map suggests a spur to the RIE would be reasonably easy?</em></p> <p>It could run via Edmonstone, passengers transported in waggons. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198731 Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:22:33 +0000 cb 198731@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"38 bus route (which doesn't have many passengers)"</p> <p>At peak times they can be pretty full (not helped by being single deckers).</p> <p>Obviously serves the RIE which the south sub wouldn't, but a glance at the map suggests a spur to the RIE would be reasonably easy? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198730 Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:19:36 +0000 kaputnik 198730@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>Who to 'blame'?</em></p> <p>Beeching effectively. And the British Railways of the time who provided a service so poor on the line that it inevitably lost ridership and therefore self-fulfilled the justification to close it. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198728 Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:14:48 +0000 chdot 198728@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"This inability to easily go around the outer parts of the city must be a big contributor to why people don't use buses."</p> <p>Well yes, except that a lot of people in Edinburgh DO use buses. </p> <p>The fact that the Edinburgh road network <em>is</em> essential radial, means the Sub should be *extra* valuable. </p> <p>Of course it would need joined-up-ticketing...</p> <p>(SS would have been WAY cheaper than the tram!!!)</p> <p>Who to 'blame'? - Network Rail? ScotRail? Transport Scotland? CEC? Whoever privatised the rail industry?? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198724 Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:01:10 +0000 kaputnik 198724@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Surely one of the benefits that the Sub would bring, given it's nature of going around the outer suburban area, is that it gets around Lothian Buses "all routes go via Princes Street" service structure, which means most people have to change buses if they want to go anywhere but Princes Street. This inability to easily go around the outer parts of the city must be a big contributor to why people don't use buses. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198722 Mon, 14 Sep 2015 15:50:39 +0000 chdot 198722@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="http://www.kirkintilloch-herald.co.uk/news/local-headlines/capital-s-south-suburban-rail-line-could-re-open-in-three-years-1-625989" rel="nofollow">http://www.kirkintilloch-herald.co.uk/news/local-headlines/capital-s-south-suburban-rail-line-could-re-open-in-three-years-1-625989</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/28282/edinburgh_south_suburban_railway_study_into_reintroducing_passenger_services" rel="nofollow">http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/28282/edinburgh_south_suburban_railway_study_into_reintroducing_passenger_services</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198721 Mon, 14 Sep 2015 15:39:47 +0000 chdot 198721@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"The rail service would compete with a high frequency bus service from many of the origins served by the ESSL (there are up to 4-6 buses per hour on most routes)"</p> <p>This is the same old, old thinking. </p> <p>Basically means there are buses to the city centre from some of the proposed stations.</p> <p>There was a time when the boss of LRT (now LB), the redoubtable Charlie Evans, said at a public meeting 'if the South Sub reopens I'll flood Morningside with buses'. </p> <p>Not really in the spirit of 'public transport', but clearly shows the problems associated with the ownership of transport operators!</p> <p>There was a report saying it wasn't worth doing because it would only take passengers off the 38 bus route (which doesn't have many passengers). </p> <p>So getting away from the idea that 'everyone' wants to go to Princes Street but concluding people wanting to go east-west *all* currently use a less than wonderful bus service.</p> <p>Of course the lack of doubling of the Borders Line will now be seen as another reason not to increase capacity!!</p> <p>Once there was a plan to PAY for reopening the line with increased land values along the way. But there seems to be no planning mechanism to make that work. </p> <p>'Tram contributions' had to be part of the parliamentary bill (I think), but that doesn't seem to have worked too well. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198719 Mon, 14 Sep 2015 15:16:00 +0000 chdot 198719@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>That's quite an odd report.</p> <p>2006 so out of date (mentions EARL)</p> <p>BUT -</p> <p>"</p> <p>crowding also emerging on a few peak hour Borders Rail services from Newcraighall / Tweedbank</p> <p>"</p> <p>Is that bizarre prescience or random updating?? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198715 Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:34:30 +0000 kaputnik 198715@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>There's a table here (7.1) - <a href="http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/report/j8123b-07.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/report/j8123b-07.htm</a> - which lists a number of the potential why-not reasons for re-opening the "Sub".</p> <p><em>ED-I09 — the proposals for rail services on the Edinburgh South Suburban line would require new stations and current freight-only route to be upgraded. This is already a busy route for Anglo-Scottish freight so the capital costs should not be underestimated. The assessment of operational feasibility report prepared for the City of Edinburgh Council identified a number of constraints affecting key parts of the network, including Haymarket and Waverley stations. There would also be journey time implications if existing services were re-routed via the ESSL. Although some of the options have a positive Net Present Value, the patronage and revenue forecasts do not take account of the other transport schemes that could abstract some patronage, most notably the proposed Edinburgh Line 3 tram scheme. The rail service would compete with a high frequency bus service from many of the origins served by the ESSL (there are up to 4-6 buses per hour on most routes). Since the estimated capital costs range from £15m to £31m, the scheme’s benefits are relatively small compared to its capital costs.</em> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198705 Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:06:12 +0000 chdot 198705@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Even 60 is only 3 or 4 most hours, signals should cope with many more. </p> <p>Reopening the line so that people could get from Morningside to Waverley faster than the 23 bus couldn't really be justified. </p> <p>But, there are so many other reasons -</p> <p>Direct train from Tweedbank to Dunblane or Glasgow via Bathgate?</p> <p>Change at Newcraighall (if coming on Borders Line) for Waverley.</p> <p>Plenty of people change at Partick where lines meet.</p> <p>Station has about 400 trains per day. </p> <p><a href="http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/PTK/2015/09/09/0000-2359?stp=WVS&amp;show=all&amp;order=wtt" rel="nofollow">http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/PTK/2015/09/09/0000-2359?stp=WVS&amp;show=all&amp;order=wtt</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198692 Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:13:58 +0000 cb 198692@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/opinion/miles-briggs-reopen-edinburgh-suburban-rail-line-1-3886013">http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/opinion/miles-briggs-reopen-edinburgh-suburban-rail-line-1-3886013</a></p> <p>Talks of 60 trains per day currently which is refuted by someone in the comments who links to an example day...</p> <p><a href="http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/NIDRIWJ/2015/09/11/0000-2359?stp=WVS&amp;show=all&amp;order=wtt">http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/NIDRIWJ/2015/09/11/0000-2359?stp=WVS&amp;show=all&amp;order=wtt</a></p> <p>...suggesting closer to 20-25 trains per day.<br /> Apparently train movements marked 'Q' are just reserved slots but most never run. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198662 Mon, 14 Sep 2015 11:17:51 +0000 chdot 198662@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Locomotive rather than passenger carrier -</p> <p>"</p> <p>Due to much of this line running on public highways, the Board of Trade required all locomotives to be fitted with cowcatchers, steel side aprons, a governor, and warning bell. All unusual for a British steam engine!</p> <p>"</p> <p><a href="http://www.lner.info/locos/Y/y6.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.lner.info/locos/Y/y6.php</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198655 Mon, 14 Sep 2015 11:06:19 +0000 kaputnik 198655@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Let us not also forget the first (?) train-tram <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_the_Tram_Engine" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_the_Tram_Engine</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198648 Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:44:25 +0000 chdot 198648@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>From first link</p> <p>"</p> <p>DC: The wheel design work was complicated by the very different rail head shapes of the two systems; the Sheffield Supertram network has a very flat rail head profile, while the worn Network Rail sections typically have a much smaller effective rail head shape. This necessitated compromise in the wheel and tread design, with significant simulation work being carried out to optimise the new wheel profile shape.<br /> This allowed wheel-rail contact stress and wear rates to be minimised on both systems, while also maintaining safety against derailment.</p> <p>" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198645 Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:33:08 +0000 crowriver 198645@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It has worked elsewhere:</p> <p><a href="http://www.railway-technology.com/features/featuretram-train-project-sheffield-irr-network-rail-4149853/" rel="nofollow">http://www.railway-technology.com/features/featuretram-train-project-sheffield-irr-network-rail-4149853/</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/sheffield-to-rotherham-tram-train-delayed" rel="nofollow">http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/sheffield-to-rotherham-tram-train-delayed</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198618 Sun, 13 Sep 2015 22:46:19 +0000 kaputnik 198618@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>When's a tram-train not a tram-train?</p> <p>When it's a train-tram.</p> <p>Splitting hairs perhaps, but one is a train designed to run on tram rails and the other is a tram designed to run on train rails. The point is, tram and train rails have a completely different railhead profile requiring different wheel profiles. There's quite a bit of engineering behind making he two compatible. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198591 Sun, 13 Sep 2015 18:37:08 +0000 chdot 198591@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>There is hope... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198587 Sun, 13 Sep 2015 17:18:54 +0000 Morningsider 198587@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>chdot - surprisingly, tram trains are due to make their UK debut in 2017:</p> <p><a href="http://www.sypte.co.uk/tramtrain/" rel="nofollow">http://www.sypte.co.uk/tramtrain/</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198571 Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:17:32 +0000 chdot 198571@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The tram/train idea is an old one. Like cycle infrastructure 'it works in Europe' but it so far from UK practice (and probably legal framework) that it's unlikely to ever happen. </p> <p>Capacity is always the other 'can't be done argument'. Certainly there are technical constraints, but -</p> <p>1) There is less freight traffic on the Sub with the significant reduction of coal traffic, (though clearly these trains were avoiding Haymarket and Waverley). </p> <p>2) the EGIP upgrade *presumably* includes signalling improvements that could add capacity (Waverley got extra platforms in the big upgrade). </p> <p>3) 'opening' the sub needn't just be about a Morningside - Waverley loop. People living in Midlothian/Borders would probably welcome direct trains to (for instance) Curriehill (for HW) or Ed Park without crawling through Princes Street Gardens. </p> <p>Of course that's not the primary 'point' of re-opening the Sub, which is to open some of the previous stations, and add new ones - Cameron Toll would make sense as would Bingham. Morningside Road is 'obvious', but Network Rail is just about to remove the remaining platform!</p> <p>Not really enough imagination when it comes to more rail - which is why the Borders Line is mostly single track - as is much of the route to Inverness (must spend money on the A9). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15429#post-198570 Sun, 13 Sep 2015 10:36:56 +0000 The Boy 198570@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Won't the tram-train decision have needed to be made back when the tramline was first designed/built? Or is the interchangeability something that can be easily designed into the new stock?</p> <p>And is integration with the existing tram line even desirable? Iirc there is a maximum frequency of 6 minutes due to the mixing with traffic at key junctions, so presumably scope for adding traffic to the line is limited? </p>