CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh

Tram latest

(2163 posts)


  1. chdot

    “perhaps makes sense in this context“


    Posted 7 months ago #
  2. chdot

    Or maybe it’s a bit like CCE -

    Uses old software, not kept up to date by WP.

    Was working on previous ISP until they ‘updated’ their OS.

    Has been rescued by someone who understood the issues and is willing to host/look after it.

    Maybe (as suggested upthread) LB software was custom or at least customised, person who did it no longer around or not ‘cheap’ enough for LB(?)

    Or ISP can’t/won’t do whatever is required - IS THIS REALLY THAT DIFFICULT??

    Or LB wanted something new and whizzy(?)

    Such speculation is largely pointless BUT where things are is very unfortunate -

    Much reduced function, significant disadvantage to travelling public, big disincentive to ‘modal shift’, incompetent lack of openness - Cllrs only seem to have noticed when people started to complain on Twitter, than the tiny print on new display panels saying ‘this is only timetable info.

    STILL (as far as I know) no public info on what the problem is OR when it will be fixed.

    Posted 7 months ago #
  3. Arellcat

    I haven't used any buses for months, other than the occasional Borders Buses. Is the LB app broken too? I use the My Bus Edinburgh app which seems to be working, except I don't know if it's just showing timetabled due-by times or the actual times.

    The BB app is specific and generally helpful. It's showing me the live positions of the X62s for instance.

    Posted 7 months ago #
  4. ejstubbs

    @Arellcat: The Transport for Edinburgh app still works much as it ever did i.e. usually acceptably accurate and useful, occasionally annoyingly not so. The same goes for the older Edinburgh Bus Tracker app, which I understood to have been developed more or less independently of LB by some party which had access to the API of the LB tracking system in some way. (I believe there are other independently developed bus tracker apps out there which have impressively broad coverage of bus services across the UK, or large parts of it. I assume they work off public domain data sources in a similar way to Real Time Trains and other railway tracking apps and web sites.)

    AFAIK the bus stop displays are the work of the council: I believe it's them, or the people they have paid to roll out the new displays, who are to blame for the mess with LB bus times. At least they have now largely stopped using location names from the council's own database for the bus destinations, rather than the names which most regular LB users are familiar with, like Hyvots Bank and Hunters Tryst (which latter was shown as New Swanston for a while IIRC). Given that the TfE app, and other apps developed by people with little or no direct connection with LB and other bus companies, continue to work pretty well, I can only wonder at the level of incompetence in those responsible for the new bus stop displays.

    Posted 7 months ago #
  5. chdot

    In SA’s NY message -

    Also in the spring we will consult on a new tramline which will link Granton to the Bioquarter and beyond. This line perhaps should have been Edinburgh’s first – it will have stops at the Western General, Edinburgh University, Cameron Toll and the Royal Infirmary. If this route comes to pass it will double the capacity Edinburgh Trams operate at.

    I am absolutely passionate about public transport, and I am always proud of how both Lothian Trams and Lothian Buses define our city. Edinburgh Trams is exceeding all expectations, with the staff delivering a service which carried over 1 million passengers in August 2023. This complements the 2 million or so passengers carried by Lothian Buses every week. We can be proud of all that the staff in these companies do. The need to ensure the continued growth of public transport in Edinburgh, however, means that these companies must integrate their services more. That’s why in 2024 I hope we will see these companies merge… perhaps into an entity formally known as Lothian Regional Transport! Does that sound familiar?

    He also links to this -

    Have to admit I’ve failed to notice this before (17:19, 8 SEP 2023 UPDATED 10:59, 11 SEP 2023 - perhaps I only saw the original report before it was altered/added to) -

    Transport chiefs in Edinburgh are mulling over a new 'hybrid' option for the city's next tram line incorporating two previously considered routes – which would see tracks laid across the historic Dean Bridge.

    The route would include using part of the old railway path between Granton and Roseburn, intended to be line '1b' in the first project before that section was scrapped, but would diverge toward Orchard Brae so it could serve the Western General Hospital.

    Under this proposal the line would cross over the Dean Bridge to link back to the city centre, which would require single track running and traffic restrictions.

    The middle bit doesn’t make sense in the context of Dean Bridge. It seems there’s a plan to run the tram from the current line at Haymarket/Roseburn (as originally planned) as far as Craigleith and then on to the WGH.

    So there are a minimum of THREE possible routes!

    However last year another option preferred by council officials emerged, through Orchard Brae and Crewe Toll, which would avoid the loss of the Roseburn Path and "may connect better for people," transport convener Scott Arthur said then.

    He said this week: "The two routes on the table are going down what is the Roseburn cycle path or essentially going down Orchard Brae."

    He added: "A kind of hybrid option between the two has been raised.

    "The kind of things we looked at were making sure we have a good connection to Craigleith Retail Park and also the key thing was having a good connection to the hospital.


    So (maybe) the WGH is now the main priority with the shopping centre also being a priority.

    Strikes me as ‘trying too hard at the same time as not trying hard enough’!

    There are two reasons for wanting to use the (whole) Roseburn Corridor -

    1) it has Parliamentary approval. Any deviation will presumably be time-consuming and expensive?

    2) it provides speedy transit to the Waterfront Development.

    We seem to be in HS2 territory here. It would be nice if there was a tram between the WGH and RIE.

    Maybe the Waterfront is less of a priority? Maybe the WGH is less of priority than a line from Princes Street to Little France, the Bioquarter and onwards??

    Because of all the history here, it’s hard to see money being made available for any more tram lines in Edinburgh.

    Whichever way things move (including another consultation!) I’m opposed to ‘losing’ a key part of the NEPN. Obviously there are people who agree with me, but there are others who believe that more people will benefit from a good quality PT route.

    Interesting times.

    Posted 6 months ago #
  6. chdot

    The tram operations team can now make direct contact with the council’s parking enforcement contractor to ask them to deal with instances of incorrect parking on the tram tracks. Parking attendants make regular patrols to deter such parking. And they can also travel on buses and trams to monitor the route and deal with incidents as they occur.

    But the council is also now looking at whether some parking bays should be removed. A report to the transport and environment committee said other councils in the UK with tram systems did not have the same problems because their tracks were further removed from moving traffic and there were no parking bays directly adjacent to the tracks.

    It continued: “In Edinburgh, parking places were introduced following consultation with local residents and businesses. Officers are currently considering whether it may be possible to remove parking bays from some of the more problematic locations and whether additional physical barriers could be of benefit in some locations.”

    Posted 6 months ago #
  7. chdot


    #Edinburgh #cyclists, check out this blog for insights into the concerning issues around the #tram network. Share this post and demand change. We want safer cycling along the tram tracks. #SaferEdinburgh

    [edit: or for non-Twitter users]

    Posted 6 months ago #
  8. chdot

    Following the discovery of the bay window cracks, residents say they raised a collective claim against Edinburgh Trams in early December. They believe the damage is linked to engineering works carried out as part of the extension to the tram line, which opened last year.

    The Newhaven stop is opposite the building. Flat owners in the block have previously raised claims over internal hairline cracks they believe were also linked to the tram works. One resident said they received compensation on the back of this, although they said tram bosses did not accept liability.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  9. Arellcat

    I don't think it's anything to do with the tram works. You can see on Google Streetview that cracks existed in the stonework as far back as 2008, and in all probability, well before that.

    Might the vibrations from the tram works have exacerbated the cracks? Maybe. But I doubt it. Streetview shows the mortar falling out of the existing cracks even by 2017, well before any trams. If anything, the building works in the 1940s to reclaim the Chancelot Mill area is more likely. You could even pin the blame on the original tram works between 1894 and 1906 - the tenement was built well before.

    It's most likely in my opinion to be subsidence from groundwater. Other tenements in Edinburgh, notably Morningside where the Jordan Burn flows under where the little Sainsbury's is, were taken down because of this.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  10. chdot

    Of course the Anchorfield Burn is culverted/piped close to that tenement.

    Perhaps the tramworks discovered/disturbed it?

    Posted 5 months ago #
  11. urchaidh

    Two flats currently for sale in that block. Wonder if the home report mentioned anything about settlement - these reports are really not really worth the paper their printed on.

    Edit: Looks like I may be wrong on that - it's the other end of the block - The Haven is still open and the flats above not affected. Still be tough to sell though, harsh.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  12. chdot

    Snagging etc list

    From December

    Some things probably done, some still not -

    Posted 5 months ago #
  13. chdot

    Latest latest

    Hi there, the team have responded and can advise that they are working with the contractor to finalise the programme. To note, some of the works on manhole covers are being undertaken by the utility company that owns them. Thanks. Joanne.

    1:36 PM · Feb 7, 2024

    Posted 5 months ago #
  14. chdot

    Following calls for an investigation into the cause of the damage the council faced claims of "secrecy" over whether tram works caused structural damage.

    But an independent investigation by structural engineers has found the damage is related to the original design of the building and issues with the weight bearing bay windows, dating back to the 1800s. A full report on the damage and causes will be shared with all residents, the council said.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  15. chdot

    About the tram

    Not about the tram

    Saturday afternoon at the 23-year-old Ocean Terminal shopping & leisure complex in Leith, now just 15 minutes away by tram from the booming St James Quarter in the city centre. Grim.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  16. chdot

    Supertram's operators have said they hope to resume services by February 23, but in the meantime, no services are running on the 30-year-old tram route between Sheffield city centre and Halfway, or between Sheffield Station and Herdings Park.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  17. Tulyar

    two details per @chdot

    Sheffield Supertram has embedded rail system (in pavements) from first generation, which has many flaws, and resulted in famous Roe vs Sheffield Supertram case. The track needs a major rebuild with a better rail embedding system, but in a phased way

    I worked with HMRI to revise 1870 tramways Act for modern construction systems, but Edinburgh phase 1 failed to deliver, with a whole piece on this I need to write up. Manchester & Nottingham both built much better tracks on streets - especially Manchester where they provided for testing & remedial work on ground load bearing strength (California Bearing Ratio) & cohesion (Vane test) before laying track slab

    The entire length from Haymarket to St Andrew Street South has been built on crap alluvial deposits over fractured shale which is soaking wet with ground water (BGS reference files of core logs). As a result almost every load transfer joint poured in top slab every 4-5 metres has cracked and in places the concrete has popped out, with various patching up jobs. in the carriageway pavement many chamber covers and frames require continual repair as the tarmac cracks and falls out, plus one secti0on of Princes Street has sunk by around 15 cm

    The answer is to build the planned rail line (from c.150 years ago) UNDER Princes Street (which I'll have to get some help writing up & doing some more work on for work plan and likely costings. It could be delivered in same way that Oxford Circus station was built 60 years ago by building a deck over the work site that carried the road traffic as the hole was dug below

    Now about the Ocean Terminal

    The highest revenues per till for an old Safeway in Glasgow were at a place with only 70 parking spaces, but it was the route that almost everyone passed through going to/from bus or Subway for work, or going home

    Ocean Terminal needs to be on the route, with cafes to sit in whilst waiting for a tram &c, and Edinburgh need to get a tram train (on loan from Caerdydd and TfW?) to offer a much faster journey from Leith to Bioquarter, over Scotrail tracks (& Meadowhall loop) to a station at Shawfair & trams going via Sherifhall P&R to the RIE. Trams can climb steeper & go round tighter curves than trains, and they have much lower axle loads
    The track also needs less attention for the lower speeds and loads....

    Again I have a lot to write down but really need some resources to deliver this

    Interesting also to read commentary of building movement at North end of Rainbow (Lindsay Road) bridge, must look at this in greater detail - there are a lot of utilities heading along railway boundary at North End of bridge and whet looks like a messy, & moving slope of the cutting side immediately beside that building, plus the level change where Lindsay road used to have a junction with current 4-lane carriageway (perhaps 0.5m height difference? supported above the tram track level by a modular retaining wall (about 1.5m vertical?)

    As @arellcat notes there was indication of movement before the tram works, and a case perhaps for a requirement to get a 5-yearly survey of all tenements by an independent qualified surveyor which is also lodged with the Council or an accessible & public register? I have similar problems in Glasgow, with building movement after other owners have done work, which is of a poor standard Open to PM

    Posted 5 months ago #
  18. chdot

    “plus one secti0on of Princes Street has sunk by around 15 cm”

    Near The Mound by any chance?

    TIE/CEC were so desperate to get the tram running that parts of Princes Street were laid in monsoon conditions!

    Posted 5 months ago #
  19. Tulyar

    @arellcat - What was happening in 2010?,-3.1874471,3a,75y,184.37h,91.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUmXYZkQhsbJ-C3XFEuErDQ!2e0!5s20100401T000000!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&entry=ttu

    Carriageway lane excavated & trench appears to head back into area where utilities come off the end of Lindsay Road Bridge - not much decent detail of what was happening in the banking of the railway cutting & along that boundary strip

    Posted 5 months ago #
  20. chdot

    Nothing about how many used to travel by bus or have used tram instead of cars (and why).

    Nothing about whether new/extra journeys.

    Nothing on revenue.

    Posted 4 months ago #
  21. Dave

    Indeed. Is the tram even displacing journeys previously made by bike? Does this actually move the city further away from net zero?

    (I had a quick look for full lifecycle CO2 per passenger/km for the trams but didn't find it)

    Posted 4 months ago #
  22. toomanybikes

    Sunk cost fallacy aside, doubling ridership for 25% more outlay is a very decent return (200 mil on top of ~800m).

    I'm sure some bike journeys are replaced by the tram, I'm sure some are added by the new cycle lanes. Now we've got the carrot, we need the stick to get car journeys down. New car restrictions in the city centre will help a lot, just need to get on with them.

    Posted 4 months ago #
  23. chdot

    A report to the transport and environment committee says it is still too early to assess the numbers likely to be using the trams in the wake of Covid and changed working and travel patterns. It notes that the pre-pandemic projections were for a total 15.7 million journeys - 8.7m on the existing system and 7m on the extension. The report continues: “The patronage on the completed line for the period from the opening of the line to Newhaven in June to December was 6.6 million.

    Tram patronage is higher than projected in the final business case for journeys to the airport. However, the city zone is lower than was projected, which reflects the impact of Covid-19 on commuter working practices.

    Posted 2 months ago #
  24. chdot

    In a meeting with Anchorfield residents last night they took Labour to task for misleading statements. But there was also a bombshell moment when it emerged tram had paid money to residents following cracks appearing in building. This info was withheld from SNP Cllrs.

    Posted 2 months ago #
  25. chdot

    The Edinburgh Trams have made a net loss of more than £44 million since opening ten years ago, figures have revealed, mainly due to borrowing costs associated with building the original line

    As someone said on Twitter ‘do roads make a profit?’

    Someone else - ‘Lothian Buses’ would lose a lot if they had to pay for tje roads’

    Posted 2 months ago #
  26. Dave

    I guess to play devil's advocate and glossing over some detail, if there are say 10,000 vehicles per day on the A70 of which say 100 are buses, could Lothian pay for 1% of the cost of the road?

    Posted 2 months ago #
  27. chdot

    Edinburgh's new tram project has been dealt a blow just months after its launch, after the Scottish Government said it could 'not afford' to fund the development of a business case.

    Edinburgh Council's Lib Dems have raised concerns it leaves a "gaping £44 million black hole" in plans to build a north-south line - and are calling for a public consultation agreed by councillors to be paused.

    (Based on the letter that’s been on FB/here for 2 weeks!)

    Posted 1 month ago #
  28. chdot

    Due to a broken down tram, we have no service between Foot of the walk and Newhaven. ticket are accepted on @on_lothianbuses. we are sorry for the disruption to your journey. #edintravel

    Posted 1 month ago #
  29. chdot

  30. chdot

    But being organised by the Spokes anti-car campaigners, another option was not up for discussion; the most obvious, given the Scottish Government will not put up the £44m Edinburgh Council needs for the cost of pre-construction work and producing a business case.

    Posted 1 month ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.

Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin