CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Trams to Granton
(232 posts)-
Posted 1 month ago #
-
Although I don't believe they will actually reduce the tram to single track running just to preserve cycle access, even in these diagrams the proposal for the Telford Rd bridge is to reduce NEPN path width to 2m - but it will be effectively a lot narrower as it's 2m between a wall and a railing.
IIRC the guidance is that a vertical upstand reduces the effective width by 50cm, creating something that feels like riding your cargo bike / kids' trailer / pushing your buggy through a doorway. That's more like it IMO
Posted 1 month ago # -
The odd thing about the Telford design is that the path is so narrow because the plan is for double track here.
So there must be some detailed ‘tram operation’ calculations somewhere (perhaps in consultation docs?)
Are they really going to argue that single tracking this section here would make it ‘impossible’ to run a reliable/fast enough tram service?
Will they have traffic lights here for pedestrians and bike riders??
Posted 1 month ago # -
Another idea for alternative route (don’t think it’s been mentioned here before)
“
The tram route should pass over a new bridge at Belford Rd. With the new bridge going over the top of Belford bridge and a tram stop at the Modern Art Gallery (could have tram tracks in the grass)
“
https://bsky.app/profile/blackfordsaferoutes.co.uk/post/3lqcx7hq2sc2w
Posted 1 month ago # -
5) On-road running on Telford Road and Ferry Road.
6) On-road running as far as Granton Road, then a descent off Granton Road to the NEPN eastbound.
7) Sacrifice some of the NEPN, from Granton Road to Craighall Road.
8) Sacrifice the Victoria Path access to Victoria Park, running a loop up to join Craighall Road northbound.
9) On-road running on Craighall Road to Pier Place and Lindsay Road to join the existing route.There are a fair few issues with this approach though. Ferry Road is busy as hell at rush hour and a lot of it is traffic going to or coming from the west, so on-road running from Crewe Toll to Granton Road will be like molasses twice a day even after accounting for mode switching. That'd be compounded by the Granton Road/Ferry Road junction where Ferry Road narrows to two lanes with about a 15m property-to-property width available - there's no way you're getting that much east-west private traffic, two bus routes, *and* a functional tramline through there, and the number of modal filters and one way loops you'd have to put in to put a bus/tram/cycle gate at that point would require more political capital than ECC have even in my fantasy imagination where they're willing to expend it on AT and transit. A turn down onto the path at Granton Road would also require some pretty heavy engineering in tight confines.
I think if you were going to go to the trouble of doing all the things that would make a turn at Granton possible you'd be as well just carrying on down Ferry Road and linking in to the existing line via North Junction Street. Or possibly you could run over Crewe Toll and compulsory purchase the lawn at the back of the Baptist church, replacing the little bridge there that mostly seems to be used for parking with a link down to West Granton Access and follow the planned route from there.
EDIT Oh and the issue with the Belford option is what happens with Queensferry Road? At least unlike Ferry Road you'd have the option of putting in bus/tram priority without having to completely gate it, but unless you're willing to push all private east/west traffic down Orchard Brae and then back up Craigleith Road it would come at the cost of almost a kilometre of - hopefully one day upgraded - light segregation bike lanes that don't really have an alternative alignment due to all the elevation changes around it.
Posted 1 month ago # -
“don't really have an alternative alignment due to all the elevation changes around it”
Which of course is a significant problem for RC users if it’s shut for x years!
Re ‘smaller cities have better tram networks’ they probably didn’t start with ‘we’ll have the poshest trams - with leather seats’
I don’t want to ‘lose’ the Roseburn Corridor for all sorts of reasons. I’m slightly happy to go along with the ‘for the greatest good’ argument.
But I really don’t go along with ideas like ‘needed to get more houses built in North Ed’, ‘only way to get people out of their cars’ etc.
Also seems unlikely that the reasons/projections of 20 years ago are still valid for determining transport priorities in the ‘greater Edinburgh’ area (or spending priorities generally).
Of course it’s ‘easier’ go along with an ‘old plan’ that keeps consultants and consultations going…
Making political arguments for local fund raising (eg congestion charging) is ‘too difficult’.
In some places arguments were made and accepted enough for local taxes to be raised specifically for new tram lines.
Don’t think UK/Scotland has the mechanisms to make that straightforward.
Posted 1 month ago # -
“
Trams and controversy have had a habit of sticking closely together in Edinburgh.
As the city launches a consultation on plans to build a second tram line, starting to create a city-wide network, don’t expect that to change any time soon.
The consultation invites public opinion on the city council’s plans to construct a route from Granton to the BioQuarter, at Little France, with potential connections to Midlothian and East Lothian. That includes considerations of the impact on existing traffic and cycle infrastructure, as well as two different route options for the northern section of the route. The results of the consultation will inform the next phase of project planning, where approximately £44 million is expected to be spent on detailed designs.
While the tram from the Edinburgh Airport to Newhaven has grown hugely in popularity, the massive, expensive debacle of the first tram’s construction is still fresh enough in collective memory that the council has its work cut out to get public will behind a nearly £3 billion project. More than that, the proposed route through the north of the city has caused massive controversy, leading thousands of residents to get behind a campaign to stop the tram being built along the Roseburn Path.
“
https://www.edinburghinquirer.co.uk/p/battery-powered-trams-cycling-squeezed?
Posted 1 month ago # -
“
One man said he had been commuting by bike through town for the past two years and using the Roseburn Path. But he said: “If I get pushed back onto the roads I'll go back to my car.”
“
Posted 1 week ago # -
Oh how it frustrates
Trams are a guided, and easily regulated transport system In many places where space is tight, rails can be interlaced, and the signalling controls which direction of travel
Rather than the concept double track over Dean Bridge an interlaced track would work
Battery pack systems already working with UK proving in Birmingham, Liverpool &c, over greater distances and on gradients
I looked at the Jacobs report but also in the light of work done by Ted Ruddock & Roland Paxton (former head of highways with Lothian Region) both also worked with the Panel for Historical Engineering Works, and internally surveyed Dean Bridge. They've also devised conceiled strengthening for other historic structures, a most relevant one being Telford's cast iron kit arch at Craigellachie, and concealed pre-loaded trusses threaded though the voids looks possible, with an interlaced single track, which should enable the bridge to remain available for pedestrians, cyclists and managed motor traffic rock ourcrops for anchor points either side?
Axle loads for trams = 9T same as road vehicles using bridge in 2 directionsEuropean standards for street tram track construction much less disruptive especially green track for central median, which could deliver for Queensferry road?
Finally the delivery of the double track rail'tunnel' under Princes Street (as surveyed & planned for Caledonian Railway 100 years ago would resolve the traffic conflicts and deliver regulation & capacity for core section through centre of Edinburgh
The technique to build this was used for construction of Oxford Circus Station but also more recently for rebuilding a highway pavement whilst the road remained open on a deck raised over the section being worked on, which was then moved along in stages
More laterPosted 1 week ago # -
The issue with Dean Bridge seems less about preserving the appearance and more that all the additional weight of strengthening will require reinforcement of the existing foundations, the necessary extent of which can't even be determined until they start digging but which will certainly have a high cost even at minimum considering the difficult engineering conditions.
And no matter what solution you use for Quensferry Road it's not going to leave enough room for cycle tracks, the stretch from Orchard Brae to the bridge is only 13-14m kerb-to-kerb.
Posted 6 days ago # -
No need to go over Dean bridge for an on-road route
The route along Palmerston Place would have the added bonus of being able to loop round Eglington Crescent and Coates Gardens to create a connection to Haymarket station
Posted 6 days ago # -
Argh. No idea how to get the staticimage url from Flickr anymore. Anyway, the picture is a map showing an entirely new bridge going over the top of Belford bridge, with a tram stop in the gallery of modern art.
ADMIN EDIT
sorted now, think URLwas to Flickr page not actual image
Posted 6 days ago # -
@Tulyar battery-powered units are already spec'ed for Option G2: City Centre to Granton via Orchard Brae:
'3.46 The design proposes battery-powered trams along this section to avoid the use of OLE, thereby preserving important views and reducing visual impact'
They are also proposed (probably as a partial response to the opposition and objections to the route - they weren't in the initial proposals) for Option G1a City Centre to Granton via Roseburn (Roseburn Path):
'3.19 The design proposes that battery-powered trams would operate along this section to avoid the use of overhead line equipment (OLE), thereby preserving important views and
reducing visual impact.'Option G1b doesn't mention them but given the commonality with G1a, there appears no reason why they wouldn't be required there also.
The main problem is the council has very much set its face against the Dean Bridge route, probably IMO for very weak reasons (prior Scottish parliamentary consent for a Roseburn route in the 20-y-o Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Act, although neither the Line 1 or Line 2 acts ever conceived a route south of North Bridge), and I doubt they will play fair.
@Yodhrin
'the stretch from Orchard Brae to the bridge is only 13-14m kerb-to-kerb'
Nicolson St (also part of the route) is 15m building to building.
Anyway, none of this is happening unless the magic money tree grows several more branches, although Big Consulting will be rubbing their hands together at the prospect of a £46m business case with little prospect of having to prove it out...
Posted 6 days ago # -
“The main problem is the council has very much set its face against the Dean Bridge route”
Well, I think there’s an element of ‘who knows’ and ‘the truth needs to be pinned down.’
My (previous) understanding was that there had been a change of heart, maybe, by (some) officials.
Whether this was due to ‘political pressure’ or changes of CEC personnel (or changes of view) i don’t know.
There is no reason I should know BUT plenty reasons why everyone should!
“probably IMO for very weak reasons (prior Scottish parliamentary consent for a Roseburn route in the 20-y-o Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Act,”
Yes! Pathetic really.
“Anyway, none of this is happening unless the magic money tree grows several more branches”
Seems so
“although Big Consulting will be rubbing their hands together at the prospect of a £46m business case with little prospect of having to prove it out...”
Yep
Posted 5 days ago # -
@Murun Buchstansang Nicolson St has multiple immediately-parallel routes none of which requires dipping down into and back up out of a river valley with scant few crossings.
At the end of the day there's a solution to any problem. The question is whether it's worth finding all these (expensive)solutions to all these problems rather than just running the thing that goes on rails along the route literally designed and built for that purpose. I've still yet to see any convincing argument why the council *shouldn't* be "set against" the on-road option.
Posted 5 days ago # -
“I've still yet to see any convincing argument why the council *shouldn't* be "set against" the on-road option.“
You imply that you don’t think there is/could be one.
You may be right.
Though I would add that any way of finding ‘solutions’ would need to take on, and overcome, decades of political and transport ‘mindsets’.
The problems are more than technical and financial.
There seems to be an inability by (most) politicians/officials to actually assess what the objectives are meant to be as well as the mechanisms to achieve them.
Trams are better than streams of cars. More ‘attractive’ than buses.
Buses might be more attractive if not stuck in ‘traffic’.
‘Edinburgh’ seems incapable of taking firm/effective measures to discourage car use (apart from in the most basic/piecemeal ways).
The idea of “road pricing” seems ‘impossible’ (though it would help if SG gave a strong lead rather than leaving LAs to fight the battles).
Road pricing might reduce traffic enough to improve bus services and lead to calls for ‘better public transport’ (including a much better selection of tram routes than is currently ’planned’.)
RP would also raise money for some of these things!
Meanwhile
Is getting a tram to Granton more of a priority than the ERI or Midlothian?
Is using permission from 20 years ago really more important than reassessing current/future travel expectations?
Is using a previous transport route the best thing just because it’s there, ‘easy’, cheap(?)
I make no apology for saying that the priority should be complete reassessment of ‘value for money’ - beyond the conventional measures - particularly revaluing health benefits and impacts on individuals and the NHS.
In addition take ‘active travel’ seriously - start with pavements and road crossings and continuous cycle paths/lanes/routes/networks.
Also resurface most of the NEPN, widening where possible (without significant reengineering) would (probably) be cheaper/quicker than a new round of consultants’ reports.
Posted 5 days ago # -
The issues with going down the Roseburn path, as I see it are:
1. We will never solve the biodiversity- and climate crises if we keep building on top of nature. I put this intentionally at 1 because these are most pressing issues of our time and it’s imperative that we protect liveability for our children’s future.
2. It’s an old freight line that doesn’t go past places people want to go - it passes a handful of low-density bungalows and a car-based retail park and that’s about it. Trams are not trains - trams are road vehicles that are for medium to short distance journeys, not long distance ones where you just want to “get past places as quickly as possible”. Why not have an on-road tram route that goes to the Modern Art Gallery, through the heart of Craigleith retail (with place-making), through the centre of the Western General, then on to the medium density housing of Granton? (Otherwise, it’ll just be an express route to the airport for affluent climate-harming fliers)
3. There's no guarantee it’ll be single-tracked after approval of the route, and even if it is, active travel will be badly compromised with pinch points and “dropping down to road crossings” once the bridge widenings have been removed for cost reduction. Even if they do single track, there will always be the threat of double tracking, for ever more. And if it gets double tracked, you can throw cyclists and their families under the literal and proverbial bus. The council already have an abysmal record for cycling integration with tram.
4. There’s no guarantee going down the Roseburn will be cheaper, once they discover all the unstable bankings and buried toxic waste
5. It won’t remove any cars from the roads, it’ll create new tram journeys through induced demand. Car traffic is like a gas that expands to fill the available volume - the space on the roads freed up by drivers switching to tram, will be quickly filled by new driving journeys. The only way to reduce driving is through congestion charging, workplace parking charges, and removing on-street parking. By taking an on-road route, at least the tram will reduce some of the space available to cars
Posted 5 days ago # -
“
Round-the-world record-breaking Edinburgh cyclist Mark Beaumont has backed the ‘Save Roseburn Path’ campaign. The path is one of two widely-criticised options in the council’s controversial tramline extension consultation.
⮑ Beaumont said:“It’s something I care deeply about in my neighbourhood. We are so so lucky to have parts of our city which are traffic-free. Listen to the wildlife, it’s this amazing green corridor. The City of Edinburgh Council has a consultation about whether they should put a tram down here or route it down a nearby road. This is a space we should protect, that the community loves and we should think long and hard before we send a tram down here when there’s perfectly good options nearby. I’d like to save the Roseburn path for the greenspace and wildlife and biodiversity.
“
https://edinburghminute.substack.com/p/edinburgh-minute-13-october-2025
Posted 3 days ago # -
Are tram and railway cuttings not traditionally wildlife corridors? They're not exactly roadkill central like the A697.
Use portions of the former railway route for expediency - I can't remember where I read it but it was to the effect that Lothian Regional Council allowed the route to be converted for walking and cycling specifically to preserve the wayleave for future rail use.
But as neddie rightly points out, putting trams down it would probably not reduce car journeys; it would probably result in mode shift from cycling to tram, or bus to tram, and cycle route shift from path to road.
The comparator is the former railway route between Roslin and Loanhead, and onwards to Shawfair. I and hundreds of others use that route all the time, and I would be hugely conflicted if it became a tram route because much as I like trams, I have already paid for a bicycle. Moreover, unlike the Roseburn path and points beyond, the original formation of the Edinburgh, Loanhead and Roslin Branch was single track, with passing loops only at the stations, and without very substantial work there would be next to no option to incorporate walking and cycling safely alongside a rail route.
Posted 3 days ago # -
“Are tram and railway cuttings not traditionally wildlife corridors?“
Interesting Q
No/yes/no
‘Originally’ (pre railways) it was all just ‘landscape’.
Then various earthworks and interventions that would have removed/disrupted ‘wildlife’.
Then ‘nature’ would takeover again and make use of ‘corridors’.
Plants would spread and, in some areas, new routes/havens for mammals were ‘provided’.
Of course, particularly in steam days, vegetation would disappear - either by fires or deliberate management.
Same with trees, perhaps, with less care/legal protection for birds in the past.
The Roseburn Corridor is more complicated.
For 60 years there was been minimal attention to the vegetation - particularly trees. There was a time when Sustrans proposed a significant reduction in number/size of trees to reduce the ‘leaves on path’ ‘problem’.
IF a tramline is built, tree removal will be significantly greater than anything Sustrans envisaged.
The future stability of the denuded embankments is, currently, unknown.
Solid (concrete) ‘protection’ may appear as a ‘solution’.
The works will remove/displace vast amounts of ‘wildlife’ plus soil, microbes etc, etc.
The badger tunnels are greenwashing.
What would return? Who knows?
How soon? The process would start straight away - naturally and with ‘landscaping’.
Significant trees/shrubs - 10 years?
Tall trees - 60?
The plan isn’t returning a railway to where it ‘always was’. It’s a tram. Primary benefits are lots of people in relative comfort. Speed less important (see Princes St/Leith Walk).
Everything involves comprise/balance.
If ‘losing’ the current version of Roseburn Corridor means mass transit AND massive reduction in car use (say 50%), I’ll compromise.
Posted 3 days ago # -
“Use portions of the former railway route for expediency - I can't remember where I read it but it was to the effect that Lothian Regional Council allowed the route to be converted for walking and cycling specifically to preserve the wayleave for future rail use”
Don’t suppose LRC originated the idea.
It’s always been the basis that Sudtrans was allowed to buy rail routes - and why trains were reintroduced between Bathgate and Airdrie without much ‘fuss’.
Posted 3 days ago # -
“former railway route between Roslin and Loanhead“
I’m sure that’s on some people’s ‘fantasy tram/light rail’ projections.
There may be other rural/suburban/new settlement plans that would genuinely benefit from ‘rail connection’ - perhaps Winchburgh…
Experience from Shawfair should cause pause.
Would Granton benefit from rails? Maybe, it’s not far from the Newhaven terminus. (Can’t remember if that spur has got Parliamentary Approval).
Or, Ferry Road, Inverleith Row, Dundas Street??
Well it’s all fantasy.
Posted 3 days ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
