Originally costed at £545m for 3 lines.
Few years later, 80% of the budget has been spent and 28% of the infrastructure has been built (some of which is due for repair never having sniffed a tram yet....)
Now a report for the council suggests it will cost £750m simply to scrap the scheme, £700m to leave it as a link from airport to city centre with no other lines, and £770m for the airport-citycentre line with an extra mile or so to the other side of the city centre.
Well done chaps!
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-13890366
The report smacks of the council over-costing scrapping the scheme to save some face for their disasterous vanity project. Even so, £700m to replace what is basically a couple of hundred passengers an hour from airport-city seems great value...
Apparently the Scottish govt (who tried to scrap it 4 yrs ago but were outvoted as a minority asministration) will likely foot £500m of the cost but anything else has to be found by the council (XXX hundred million, with around 150,000 council tax payers makes me glad not to be an Edinburgher).
There's going to be a few very interesting books about the farce surrounding this project in due course.
|
Shocking. The thing has had the hallmarks of a cockup from start to finish. I think it was 2009 when we were in Edinburgh in August - height of the tourist season, the festival and the fringe on, and Princes Street was blocked from end to end.
At the time we were agog that any council could be so incompetent as to fence off the most important area of the city, between the new town and Princes Street gardens, when the city was full of visitors trying to spend money.
Well, you couldn't make this up. They are about to close Princes Street again for 9 months to repair the road surface around the unused tram tracks they laid in 2009 that is now breaking up .
Incompetence doesn't begin to describe it. Poor burghers.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 23 Jun 11 at 22:29
|
I shall be thinking of the poor old Edinburgh people when I am travelling on the brand new tram line which is opening 5 minutes walk away from me on Monday :)
I assume they can sue contractors for mistakes? Or was that the council have simply managed the entire project badly?
Manchester seems to have out sourced all of their tram construction but despite a few months delay because of the complex new signalling system the £1.4bn project is half way complete.
I love trams and I am all for them, but a city should only think about them if they have a very clearer idea of what needs to be done. Liverpool didn't and the government said no for that very reason.
|
It's been going off the rails for some time! The council were sold it on the basis that 95% of the costs were fixed, according to a radio interview this morning. Clearly that wasn't the case, though one of the contractors is paying for the re-excavation of Princes Street, if not for the unknown economic damage that will be caused.
All the contractors are foreign, so the extra money is not even going into the coffers of a Scottish or British company.
|
There was a young man who said dam,
It would seem to me that I am,
Just a creature that moves in predestinate grooves.
Not a car nor a bus but a tram!
|
Very clever, CGN. If you made that up yourself, I'm impressed.
"Predestinate" - very Calvinistic sounding.
|
|
Alas I cannot claim to be the author. On checking the Penguin Book of Light Verse I see it is attributed to M E Hare
|
|
I've never quite seen the point of spending vast amounts of money ripping up roads to install tram tracks. What is the supposed advantage over trolleybuses? OK the latter still need the overhead supply, but at least they don't need such heavy infrastructure costs overall, and still offer the same clean emissions at point of use as a tram.
|
|
They get stuck in traffic jams. Trams don't.
|
|
Many of the UK tram systems run on ex rail lines too, like many of the Manchester lines. My local line for example which will open next week is all off road until it goes to the city, giving it a 30 minute advantage over the bus.
|
>> Many of the UK tram systems run on ex rail lines too, like many of
>> the Manchester lines. My local line for example which will open next week is all
>> off road until it goes to the city, giving it a 30 minute advantage over
>> the bus.
>>
Yeah, I can see some point at least to using trams on old railway lines where you're already getting a fair part of the infrastructure for 'free', but I'd think that on the road it's just a very expensive way of making the same speed of progress as a bus.
They did open an extension to the tram line in Stockholm while I was there, marginally faster than the bus but not much, that system cost ££££££s (OK SEKs) and really didn't achieve anything in easing congestion. The actual trams were second hand from Germany, it was a tad confusing sitting on a tram in Stockholm with all the adverts above the seats in German.
|
In the UK part of the preference for trams is actually political. In the UK unlike most other places the bus services outside London are deregulated it, which means services tend to focus on the very busy routes. Councils have no control on prices either.
With trams authorities can decide the exact routes and fares and provide tram services in poorer less popular services to try and attract investment to those areas. They can pay bus companies do the same but they are not as attractive.
The tram near me will take 15 minutes to St Peters Square, the bus takes 35-40 minutes, so there is a clear advantage of the tram, plus for some reason you don't get the same undesirables which buses often attract.
|
>> plus for some reason you don't get the same undesirables which buses often attract.
How do you know that ;-) They aren't running yet.
|
|
I use the trams all the time to get the city centre, I either drive to Stretford or walk up to the Old Trafford stop.
|
>> In the UK part of the preference for trams is actually political. In the UK
>> unlike most other places the bus services outside London are deregulated it, which means services
>> tend to focus on the very busy routes. Councils have no control on prices either.
Just out of interest Rattle, why do you think Councils should have control of prices? They can't even control their own budgets :-)
Peter
|
>> They get stuck in traffic jams. Trams don't.
>>
The Edinburgh ones Will, most of their tracks are on shared roadspace. The project must have been part of the loony left anti car policy. It will not benefit road or tram traffic. If it is ever completed.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 24 Jun 11 at 16:18
|
I never see the point on road trams. There is one in Manchester (well Salford) called the Eccles line, it is mostly on road and takes as long as the bus.
For the amount Edinburgh has spent they would have been much better off buying state of the art buses and using the rest of the money to subsidise fairs,
The Manchester system has been a great success because it wasn't done from scratch, so far construction has going on (on and off) since 1989 and isn't expected to be complete to 2017 and there are more expansion plans beyond that.
Manchester had two in standard lines which needed its own trains to operate on due to instandard voltage. These were the Bury and Altrincham lines. By the late 80's they had become ancient and not up to scratch.
At the same time there was an urgent need for better transport connections between the two main stations in the city centre. The original idea was a tunnel but it was too expensive, so a tram was decided as the solution. Then they would kill two problems at the same time by converting the old Bury and Altrincham heavy lines to a tram system.
The problem Ediburgh has is they tried to do everything from scratch with no experience of managing such projects and tenders, where as Manchester has had over 20 years experience in this area.
Edinburgh do need to get some system up and running because they have spent far too much to pull out now. Such a system will last well over 100 years too.
I bet we are very glad the Victorians built the lines they did, because we are still using most of them today.
|
|
Signalling can always be used to avoid trams getting into snarl ups. Works beautifully in Belgrade.
|
But then that causes major road traffic jams, so the trams won't do much to ease congestion in that case.
|
|
Other than making people in cars think : "Oh look, those trams don't get stuck in the jams, I'll give them a spin".
|
|
That is a good point, never thought of that. The problem is if it does take traffic of the road, more people will decide to use their cars because there is less traffic but overall trams should take traffic of the roads.
|
Trams sound like a bargain compared to the Scottish Parliament building..........
"Scheduled to open in 2001 it did so in 2004, more than three years late with an estimated final cost of £414 million, many times higher than initial estimates of between £10m and £40m."
|
|
I grew up in Edinburgh. They were just taking up the last of the old tram tracks as I started school. I remember adults saying at the time they had never been all that suitable for Edinburgh. Narrow streets, lots of hills etc. Thing of the past they said.
|
|
If trams ever run in Edinburgh the car drivers will have a steep learning curve. :-)
|
>> Signalling can always be used to avoid trams getting into snarl ups. Works beautifully in
>> Belgrade.
>>
Not so handy when a vehicle breaks down on the tracks or emergency services close a road.
Traffic can always divert, trams can't. I saw this a few times in Sheffield, the tram network in erm tramlock.
Last edited by: gmac on Mon 27 Jun 11 at 19:50
|
Well the new line in Manchester didn't open today. The official response from the director was "we can't get the modern PCs talking to the Commodore 64"
They have great sense of humour the ozzies!
|
the trouble with most authorities is they cant spell
"Light railway"
They think it its spelt "tram"
or at worse "guided bus lane"
|
Actually the Metrolink is often refereed to a light railway. But if it runs on street is a tram. The Metrolink system uses both old railway lines and on street tracks.
The vehicles they use are trams in very sense of the word though.
|
>> Actually the Metrolink is often refereed to a light railway. But if it runs on
>> street is a tram.
exactly, dont run it on the street.
The Metrolink system uses both old railway lines and on street
>> tracks.
>>
>> The vehicles they use are trams in very sense of the word though.
So in what way does a tram differ from a train?
Pantograph? traction unit? sliding doors? seats?
|
Top speed? I hope I'm not on a tram tomorrow when I go to London! :-)
Could it be it is cheaper to make a tram because it doesn't go very fast. And because it does start/stop a lot does not accelerate very quickly?
|
>> Top speed? I hope I'm not on a tram tomorrow when I go to London!
>> :-)
You wont be travelling to London on a light railway. But when you get there you will - the DLR which has the same top speed as a tram.
>> Could it be it is cheaper to make a tram because it doesn't go very
>> fast. And because it does start/stop a lot does not accelerate very quickly?
DLR is a light railway in every sense of the word and has as many stops as a tram.
|
>> But when you get there you will
Might be using the Jubilee Line.
Did a 'research' style piece on the DLR for A levels in 88/89. Remember reading about it in journals like Computing. Maybe I should use it!
I assume my Zone12 ticket is valid?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 28 Jun 11 at 00:00
|
|
If you do use the DLR and use an Oyster, make sure you check out when you leave the stations, last time I was in London I didn't know you had to it, as a result my trip to Canary Wharf cost about £6!
|
Trams are setup for fast acceleration, the Metrolink ones can reach 50 very quickly compared to most commuter trains. They are designed for constant stop starting. The stop speed is 50mph but I can only comment on the Manchester trams. They do 50mph constantly too once they leave the street.
The original Manchester trams actually have a lot in common with trains, in terms of the traction units and boogies, but the newer ones are much more of a pure tram, which results in a lot of shaking at higher speed because the wheels shake (don't know the technical term for it).
Compared to a train, trams are much more uncomfortable at higher speeds, but they do accelerate more quickly.
Manchester use these, and as you can see the old T68 as more in common with a communicator train where as the M5000 is just a typical modern European tram. They have high entrances because they have to run on ex BR lines with platforms.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-68
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M5000
Edinburgh's are built by CAF but I can't find much information about them, but I hope they don't make the mistake Manchester did with the T-68 e.g something so instandard they have to make a lot of parts in house.
|
And yep trams are cheaper to make than trains, I believe Manchesters new M5000's cost just over £2m each, but then cheaper than a train on what sense? They are much smaller than trains.
The only trains which can perhaps compare are the awful Pacers.
£2m does sound like a lot for a tram, especially when a new double decker bus costs £220,000 but then a tram is expected to last 50 years. A bus is lucky to see 22 years in service.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Mon 27 Jun 11 at 23:26
|
>> And yep trams are cheaper to make than trains, I believe Manchesters new M5000's cost
>> just over £2m each, but then cheaper than a train on what sense? They are
>> much smaller than trains.
>
Have you travelled n the DLR rats? in what way does that "train" differ from a "tram" The train sets there cost much less than 2 million each.
Its seems that you too do not understand the concept of a "light railway"
|
It is not a train, or a tram as it doesn't run on street. It runs on a purpose designed light railway, so the DLR is a true light rail system.
Although some anoraks argue its a tram. The reason DLRs are more expensive if I think a standard set has more carriages, and it is driverless.
|
>> but then a tram is expected to last 50 years
How long did the first set of trams last in Manchester before being replaced? IC225 trains were running until fairly recently weren't they?
Q: Would it have been cheaper to lay a road on the old railway lines on this new tram extension in Manchester and run electric trolley buses on it? :-) Discuss.
|
Probably would be cheaper, but they has been a lot of research which suggests people are more likely to use trams than trolleybuses. I believe running costs are also lower as you can get more people on trams per driver.
The original trams didn't last that long, some of them were scrapped at just ten years old. This was at a time when diesel was very cheap, and the diesel bus had just become practical so at the time the bus made more sense. Plus the tram networks were falling apart after the war.
Now though the roads are too crowded, diesel is very expensive and people generally much prefer to travel on rail systems than on buses.
The main downside to trams is if one tram fails, the entire line fails. But then the underground has that that problem for the past 150 years too.
|
Also the IC225, e.g class 91 is very much in service. The older class 43 (IC125s) are still in service too and they date back to 1976. They plan to be in service for another 20 years.
|
>> tram networks were falling apart after the war.
I asked about trams and assumed you knew I was referring to Manchester. How long have the recent Manchester trams lasted? 50 years makes it a few years before they are replaced. I think they have been so that 50 year figure is wrong.
|
The original 1992 (T68) trams are still in service, and they plan to be replaced in 2032. By 2017 all the traction motors and boogies will have been overhauled, and they are fitted an Ethernet type coms system to replace the spaghetti wiring they currently have.
So by 2017 they will be in effect new trams, with only the body's being original.
The have ordered 50 brand new trams, but they are in addition to the older ones.
A lot of the old Blackpool trams have only just been replaced and many of them were made in the 1930's.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Tue 28 Jun 11 at 00:22
|
>> The original 1992 (T68) trams are still in service, and they plan to be replaced in 2032
40 years then?
>> they are fitted an Ethernet type coms system
You mean similar to CANBUS? Not saying CANBUS is like Ethernet mind!
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 28 Jun 11 at 00:32
|
Yep, its not CANBUS but uses networking protocols to communicate with other devices.
Most the furniture on the new tram stops all use TCP/IP, it is quite funny seeing IP addresses on the public information displays.
|
>> it is quite funny
>> seeing IP addresses on the public information displays.
Even funnier when they're tampered with and show things like "Run! Zombies coming!"
|
In San Francisco, they have a really mixed system, buses, underground, light railway, trams and cable cars.
I was surprised to see the trams using very old stock just shipped over from Milan (completely unchanged - still with Italian adverts and route signs) and old stock from Lisbon. They seem to have scoured the world for car sets.
|
>>
>> So in what way does a tram differ from a train?
>>
A light railway is a railway which is built and operated and a Light Railway Order, this means it is limited to 25 mph maximum, it is permissible to have ungated level crossings etc. A concept dreamt up in the 1890s to allow building of railways on the cheap, currently utilised by most preservation lines for example, as it's a lot cheaper .than having to raise a full-on act of parliament to run your railway.
In the UK a tramway is a railway which runs at least partially on the public highway, which in turn means that the motive power has to have its wheels covered over, and some other mechanical stuff I can't recall. I'm not sure what legal powers are required for a tramway.
So the differences are in some ways mechanical but largely legal.
|
|
Not sure if that law still exists now? I thought the only railways limited to 25mph was the heritage ones.
|
>> Not sure if that law still exists now? I thought the only railways limited to
>> 25mph was the heritage ones.
>>
It must exist in some form, because those preserved lines do operate under it.
I suspect the Docklands Light Railways is also legally a light railway although I can't find a categoric answer via Google.
|
|
I think the DLR travels at more than 25 mph on some sections.
|
It does indeed.
Operates at 50mph, the same as the Manchester Metrolink.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Railway
|
>> Well the new line in Manchester didn't open today.
Yeah, spoilt our morning plans. Woke up expecting to hear trams at the bottom of the garden but just silence apart from the birds coughing in the trees.
We, and 2 neighbours were going to get a tram into the city about 10am ( so we could use our bus passes ! ) We were going to travel to The Plaza San Pietro and have coffee and cakes in the art gallery.
SWB spoke to an engineer later who said they were hoping for Thurs/Friday or early next week. So we'll do it then !
Ted
|
Well I was told they have to shut down the Altrincham line, before they can commission the Chorlton line, the next shut down will be next weekend, so next Monday is looking more likely.
Interestingly you can buy tickets for Chorlton though!
|
Buy tickets ???...How old-fashioned !
Ted
|
The latest update on this farce
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-14648510
This looks like its heading for £1bn waste of money.
What is it about our country's Constitution or whatever, that a group of voted-in people can make decisions of this magnitude and not be held accountable?
There is something fundamentally wrong. Yes, no doubt there were, and maybe still are, various independent experts that have been called up but even to consider the initial spend to save a few buses running is ridiculous and these people just should not have these powers!
Instead generations of Edinburgers will need to foot the bill for this. Previous generations were not daft when they ruled that trams were outdated or not suitable.
|
>> not be held accountable
For good or ill I expect the Labour/Liberals who came up with the scheme will get routed by the SNP who have never supported it at the next council elections.
Would be nice if some of their pension pots could be looted to offset the ridiculous waste of money they've voted for.
Note also my theory of over-costing scrapping was spot-on... the initial £750m was revised down to £670m, then £651m very recently.
Since the tram doesn even get to the bus depot it won't even fully replace the airport bus.
Farce to the max.
|
Anyone with the sligtest amount of brains would have said.
Oh look - the railway runs next to the airport and goes right through the middle of town. Lets put a station at the airport, and link it by a automated shuttle to the terminal.
|
>> Anyone with the sligtest amount of brains would have said.
>>
>> Oh look - the railway runs next to the airport and goes right through the
>> middle of town. Lets put a station at the airport, and link it by a
>> automated shuttle to the terminal.
Or do a proper job like the continentals do and divert the railway in tunnel through an airport station.
|
Edinburgh Trams - Manatee
