Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Thursday, 24th July 2008 Change Date

Life & Style - inside your Evening News every Thursday

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

South Sub plan faces the axe



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 27 March 2008
A BID to re-open Edinburgh's south-suburban rail line looks set to be dumped, after it emerged it would cost taxpayers nearly £2 million-a-year to run.


A new city council report into bringing back train services in some city suburbs for the first time in nearly 50 years has effectively ruled the project out, despite widespread public and political support.

The report, by consultants Halcrow, claims the scheme would cost £38m – nearly twice as much as original estimates in 2004 – and any service would require a public subsidy of £1.8m a year.

City leaders today said that even with millions of pounds of private backing already secured, the project looked in doubt.

Opposition and transport groups today said they were disappointed with the findings, but urged the council not to give up on the South Sub.

Plans to re-open the route have been around for years, but last year the then-Scottish Executive said it wanted to see a new business case for the scheme before committing any money to it.

Councillor Phil Wheeler, the city's transport leader, said: "There has been cross-party support for the project, but sadly this report seems to show there isn't the market for the South Sub. We are still committed to improving public transport links in the south of the city, but you can't just use underused railway lines for the sake of it."

A feasibility study published in 2006 recommended a reinstated South Sub passenger service with trains travelling from Waverley to Haymarket, then via stations at Gorgie, Craiglockhart, Morningside, Blackford or Newington, Cameron Toll, Craigmillar and Niddrie or Kinnaird Park. It suggested the line could attract 7100 passengers per day.

The Halcrow report claims that existing expansion plans for services into Waverley and Haymarket, combined with growing passenger numbers, means the South Sub scheme would have difficulty finding space for stops at both city centre stations.

The study considered a number of options along the under-used railway lines in the south of the city. These ranged in cost from between £19.5m and £37.9m.

The Newcraighall to Edinburgh Park option was considered the best choice, but would require an annual public subsidy of £1.8m.

E-Rail – a private company formed to fight for the re-opening of the South Sub – has already secured £8.5m from landowners along the route.

The money had been secured against the fact that properties along the line would be expected to increase in value by ten per cent.

Andrew Robb, general manager of E-Rail, said: "We have received a verbal summary of what is plainly a wide-ranging study. We are looking forward to receiving a copy of the full report as soon as possible so that we may respond fully."

A full report with recommendations for the city's transport committee will be produced next month.

www.reopenthesouthsub.org.uk



The full article contains 491 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 27 March 2008 1:01 PM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Iain fae Elgin,

27/03/2008 12:14:11
OK here go's the obvious.....

A Tram line duplicating existing bus services, or a suburban railway with a lot of stops?

And I'll leave it to the council to work out how many years of subsidy the railway could get for just half the cost of the trams.

2

David Harrington,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 12:14:25
This shows the problems with having a council not fully committed to public transport in any way apart from political posturing. £1.8m a year is a lot less than some routes over in the West receive, but then they have a PTE which is supportive of public transport. As for congestion, the CRAG proposals already dealt with that issue.
3

Going down the pan..,

27/03/2008 12:14:50
A disgrace, the Lib Dems have campaigned for the South sub to be reopened for years! Now in power they sink it!
4

Merouane,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 12:16:13
Is that tram line going to make a year on year profit?
5

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/03/2008 12:16:38
Seems to be a very misleading opening para. What the report apparently says is that running the line to Edinburgh Park would render it so underused that it would need a £1.8m subsidy each year. This isn't surprising - people want to go to Waverley and Haymarket, not Edinburgh Park.

Rather than simply saying "there's no availability at Waverley so we won't run it there", why not say "this could make X profit if it ran to Waverley - how can we make it happen?"

The devil may well be in the detail though - no doubt there is a lot more to the report than this story gives us.
6

Raoul Duke,

27/03/2008 12:16:38
FFS! £1.8M (must take this figure with a pinch of salt however) is hardly that much in comparison to other projects! A backward step for Edinburgh, and would have been far more beneficial to the people of this city than a tram line.
7

Press,

27/03/2008 12:21:55
We're all being forced out of out cars in Edinburgh and being encouraged to use public transport - only the public transport is not being provided. Is all the extra tax on petrol not meant to go to public transport or is it to pay for wars or MPs 2nd home kitchens.
8

PaulB,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 12:28:35
On the face of it £1.8 m a year would seem to be a small price to pay for a better transport option for south Edinburgh. Compare that with the huge sum being invested in trams (which I support). I agree that the south sub needs to go to Waverley, but the station is operating at capacity. Sort that out, and give us a transport system suitable for a capital city. It is time to think big in Edinburgh, instead of endless feasability studies and the usual 'it cannae be done' mantra.
9

Road Raga,

EDINBURGH 27/03/2008 12:29:44
Given that the Govt spends £BILLIONs of OUR taxes in subsidising London's public transport, this is a disgrace.
10

NYC Hibee,

edinburgh 27/03/2008 12:31:32
These routes would seem to serve a lot more people than the trams at a fraction of the cost. An extra link to the airport from Edinburgh Park and it would be complete.
11

eric,

Lothian 27/03/2008 12:40:36
Glasgow is sitting on a Goldmine of Disused tracks & Tunnels,They are looking at the tram/train,As it is cheaper than just tram lines and will reach more people.As it has the Largest urban rail network outside london,The potential is endless,And Subway system to be expanded,Well done Glasgow ,Wish we had Subway.
12

Andrew Kent,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 12:51:12
If it were up to me I would cut my losses, scrap the tram and still have plenty of money for the south suburban which makes a million times more sense. Solving congestion is not about removing valuable space from our roads with unpractical trams but taking traffic off them and utilising a existing rail lines.
13

PaulB,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 12:51:20
Eric - If you love Glasgow so much why not move there? You must have something good to say about Edinburgh?
14

Think Tank,

27/03/2008 12:52:02
#4 The tram system's business plan suggests that scheme will break even in year 2.

#5 Beautiful speech, but I imagine you wouldn't be too chuffed to see the old town being ripped apart to increase Waverley's capacity would you? There simply isn't room for expansion into the station.

#11 Edinburgh looking into having a subway many years ago, but sadly the clay content of our soil makes an almost impossible engineering task for huge swathes of the city.

15

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

27/03/2008 12:52:22
Totally agree with the comment at 7. My conclusion is that the political will exists but the money isnt there , which is quite frightening.

This is a paltry sum in connection with a cities public transport system. Any decent modern city needs a decent modern public transport system.
16

The_Doctor,

27/03/2008 12:53:55
£2M a year? We could run it for about 300 years for the same cost as the Cooncil's tramline then.

Seems like much better value to me.
17

DaveBerry,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 12:56:08
@5: Plenty of people want to go to Edinburgh Park because that's where they work. There's no easy way to get there by public transport except from the city centre, so a train route would make life much easier. The Gyle would be an even better destination, as that would attract shoppers during the day as well.

I'd have thought they could run trains to the Gyle in the West and to Waverley in the East, so serving both destinations.
18

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 13:06:42
#3 You can't really go against an independent report, that's why you commission them.

If it's going to be reopened you need a viable business case to back it up both in terms of cost and feasability (station capacities and so on), regardless of whether you support the idea as a concept.

Otherwise it's a waste of public money.


19

leith keely,

edinburgh 27/03/2008 13:08:26
#12 but it`s not up to you is it?thank goodness, mon the trams!.
20

Iain fae Elgin,

London 27/03/2008 13:16:27
#9...not a disgrace at all.

London is a vital money maker for the whole of the UK, and if it were not so you would soon notice.

So it is very nescessary for our taxes to be spent there.
21

Thomas the Tank,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 13:18:08
#14 - so they claim - but only if the capital cost and interest is stripped out(and ignoring all the other consequential losses and costs of displaced congestion). So TIE are saying they hope the income will just about cover the electric bill and drivers' wages.
Waverley could easily absorb services from the Sub, given the additional infrastructure (like reversing the 'track rationalisation' of the 1970's) No capacity, with Electric units and electronic signalling? Take a look at a timetable from 1910, or so, worked by steam with manual signalling. That's just an excuse for lack of political will - and anyway, TramCars are 'sexy' and 'European'.
22

John south of Soutra,

27/03/2008 13:18:53
Oh no it's not - #20
23

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/03/2008 13:20:41
#14 On the contrary, there is an upgrade plan in existence that will provide the necessary additional capacity at Waverley, but it was rejected by the last Scottish Exec in favour of the recent smaller scale expansion. Perhaps the current Scottish Government will look again at the opportunities of greater expansion at Waverley.

#17 Clearly not enough people want to go from the South to Edinburgh Park, otherwise the plan to run the South Sub to EP wouldn't be such a loss-maker? I'm only going by the info we have had presented to us.
24

Farky,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 13:21:39
Short term thinking again... Typical!
The potential benefits are discarded on the grounds of £'s and nothing else. This mentality is going to have to change as Edinburgh become more and more congested due to the lack of public tranport options.
25

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/03/2008 13:21:47
#22 Of course it is. Do you think that the wealth generated in London stays in London? #20 is bang on the money.
26

GFr,

Dalkeith 27/03/2008 13:28:36
Once again Edinburgh's blinkered attitude to transport cannot see past the ubiquitous bus network which is cumbersome and slow. No great surprise .

Another anti-train measure appears to be the ban on cars parking at the huge Hermiston Gait car park an using the train to get into the centre. WHy? Why? Why?
27

Chris.J,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 13:37:18
As many people have already observed, the £1.8m a year is peanuts compared to the cost of other high profile projects. Hell, its frankly peanuts full stop.

As for the capacity question, alot of the issues could be addressed but for the way that our fragmented rail system punishes and rewards the train operators - ie they will strongly resist anything that further pushes capacity in the Waverley throats because it could increase the risk of charges for running late. Same arguement is - stupidly - preventing Glasgow trains from stopping at Edinburgh Park. There's also some practical stuff that could be done to reopen the Abbeyhill chord and relay track in the Calton tunnels to increase Eastern capacity. And even if they don't do it for this project, it will needed before long anyway!

No, as someone else has already said this is a misrepresentative report - I mean why would you look at a South Sub service that DOESN'T go to Waverley?!? - that's principally what is needed! It lets the rudderless railway industry get away with doing nothing... and that suits them just fine.
28

Linda,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 13:40:48
Its peanuts compared to extravagance that is wasted on Tram line.
29

Hamish Scott,

27/03/2008 13:57:49
The capacity issue at Waverley has already been addessed by campaigners. The North Berwick service passes through Waverley and Haymarket before halting just to the west. One idea is for this service to continue round the South Sub to Newcraighall (it wouldn't be a loop) - no extra capacity at Waverley would be required.
30

Brian Ferrari,

27/03/2008 14:01:40
#28 Exactly

£38m is less than the contingency fund for the trams and certainly a lot less than the recent increases in costs. A rail line would remove traffic from the roads and CO2 from the atmosphere (ok, only a little of the latter, relatively speaking). But shockingly poor judgement from our dear leaders.
31

The Judge,

27/03/2008 14:11:30
A pity but hardly surprising, there's only so much money to go around for public transport, and we can't have a tramLINE, a hovercraft and the south sub.

32

Edinburgh 100,

Musselburgh 27/03/2008 14:18:58
The whole problem revolves around one thing. Lack of forward planning. Edinburgh has grown over the years and Edinburgh Foolicors failed to plan ahead. And to all those who ays that the transport problem could not be predicted "C**P. Its lack of planning and foresight that has caused the issues in Edinburgh and surrounding areas. The hell bent idea of one form of transport ie the Bus (tram now) over all other methods of transport has got Edinburgh were it is today.
33

Euan,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 14:22:57
All this seems to highlight is the fact that far, far too much emphasis is being put onto the tram line with transport issues for the rest of the City very much being given a back seat.

We are 'only' talking about £38 million for the re-opening of the South Sub, not the ridiculous £600 MILLION+ for a tram line that will serve only a very small percentage of Edinburgh's citizens.

It says in the report that 'there isn't the market for the South Sub'. Well with £8.5 million of private money already pledged for the project, this statement would appear to contracdict itself.

#14, 'Think Tank'

'The tram system's business plan suggests that scheme will break even in year 2'

Complete and utter rubbish, living in fantasyland again I see..








34

Think Tank,

27/03/2008 14:46:48
#33 There quite clearly isn't a market for the south sub if the business case highlights that it will lose £2m per year every year.

The tram/bus network (Edinburgh Transport Ltd.) WILL make an operating profit...Lothian Buses has made an operating profit every year for the last so many years...which get put back into new buses and street furniture etc.

The independent South Sub business plan shows that the service will make an operating loss and will require more money ploughed in for repairs, new rolling stock etc. Subsidy transport is occasionally a necessity (e.g. certain Lothian bus routes), but it's largely an indication of a poor business model.

Spending on major infrastructure in the knowledge that you're NEVER even PLANNING to make an operating profit is a little beyond foolhardy.

35

Euan,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 15:02:25
#34

I would say that you are missing the point completely when it comes to what the re-opening of the South Sub is all about.

Whatever happened to the public being offered a SERVICE from their local authorities and the Government?

I think its actually hilarious that you say 'Spending on major infrastructure in the knowledge that you're NEVER even PLANNING to make an operating profit is a little beyond foolhardy'

As if the tram LINE you so love and support will EVER make a profit!!

You're living with your head in the clouds.



36

It's me!,

27/03/2008 15:05:57
How can we agree that it is likely to be a loss making project. We don't know what passenger fare this presumption is based on.
37

Chris.J,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 15:23:08
#34 you know full well that this report is modelled against a plan to avoid taking passengers to where they need to get to - ie the city centre.

£2m is peanuts. Buttons. Irrelevant. Tiny. More than most public sector agencies unthinkingly blow on un-needed "budget protecting" spend at this time of year.

Others have also shown that the service could be formed as an extension to existing services - hence no massive investment in rolling stock and people (although some modest increase may be required).

I'm at a loss to understand why vested interests in Edinburgh are so intent on ensuring that this scheme does not go ahead? Re-opening the south sub is surely one of the easiest, cheapest schemes to solving some of Edinburgh's transport problems. Heck it could even be integrated with the tram via joint ticketing and interchange at Haymarket - with additional walkable interchange at Waverley.

Opposing this is simply - and I'm not deliberately offensive - mind blowingly stupid.
38

GraemeH,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 15:34:56
#34 - The tram is forecast to make a loss until 2016 under forecasts that are more optimistic than those prepared by the revenue consultants. This also excludes all capital costs and, ridiculously, all costs associated with the replacement / renewal of the system. Taking these into account it will never make a profit.
39

BusOff,

West Linton 27/03/2008 16:00:22
Re-opening this rail link will cost peanuts in comparison to what is happening just now with the tramline. The infrastructure is there and has been all these years.
No water mains to be moved
No traffic lights etc to be installed
No workshops etc required
Off the train and straight onto a Lothian/First bus
Yes everything is there in place just awaiting a quick spruce up and we are up and running.
We are supposed to be looking at an Integrated Transport System for the whole of the Greater Edinburgh Region - surely this is one element that should be given the go ahead.

Nil Desperandum
40

Stevie Mac,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 16:46:34
£2m per annum subsidy is around £1 per passenger journey that the line HOPES to attract. That doesn't sound like very good value at all. For every projected daily journey on this service there are 44 journeys on LRT buses.

The only comparison that should be made between thia and the Trams is they are both forms of transport.
41

david watts,

27/03/2008 16:53:32
why arent the council looking at using existing railway lines as well as cycle/walkways to run the trams on. Most of the walkways used to hold two sets of track so why cant the hold a track and walkway.I'll tell you why,because there is no money to be made from backhanders and dodgy dealings.The route that ran into the lochend butterfly from the bottom of leith has now been filled in putting paid to any ideas of having a route from the bottom of leith straight into waverley as has the route along lower granton up to west granton.This council would prefer to have years of distruption to the public and money passing under the counter to ensure contracts rather than doing the better option.
























42

Gorgie_Tony,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 17:31:33
No surprises here - this SNP lot are in total favour of the car driver - who clog up the roads and cause mass pollution. Look at how they stopped the Forth Bridge tolls - which has caused more vehicles to use - causing even more traffic problems. The poor toll collectors were suddenly made unemployed. I can't wait for the next election to get these wasters out.
43

Road Raga,

EDINBURGH 27/03/2008 17:40:22
Regarding London, London's wealth is generated mostly by those mugs like us who live outside. I heavily subsidise London with my taxes (the majority of UK tax is spent in London on the Civil Service, Paliament, Royal family etc, etc), my TV License (most BBC money is spent in London), the list is endless.
Spend some of this money where it is needed, not in the SE of Engerland.
44

Jingsitsme,

EDINBURGH 27/03/2008 17:54:00
Consultants must be in heaven with all the surveys the council does and then disregard.

Think council are forgetting that tram line is not in place yet therefore final cost is not known and given parliament etc no doubt will soar.

Suburben line would keep communters away from town and so easing traffic etc etc. It's not as if they have to drill a tunnel through Arhturs Seat or Edinburgh Castle.

Wonder what is going to be next survey? Perhaps all residents to walk backwards???? That's how stupid and incompetent our council and Parliament are.
45

Darren :-),

Edin city but on ma way to ibrox 27/03/2008 18:04:00
Oh my god! how thick are the MSP's

£1.8m per year to run £180m in 100 years
Tram LINE costing 5 times that just to build, not including to run - come on ffs!
46

Darren :-),

Edin city but on ma way to ibrox 27/03/2008 18:11:49
Also, 7100 ppl to use it per day at £1 per day for a year would rake in £2.6m per annum.

YOu still need to look at the line that is costing nearly a billion quid.... its a poor excuse by the snotty nose party and librarian dems
47

Iain fae Elgin,

27/03/2008 18:30:14
#22. Good reasoned argument, difficult to counter that one.

#44...does this mean you consider yourself a mug for living outside London? Why ever would you think that?

Anyhoo...I think quite a fair proportion of your taxes go on the NHS and the military, both of which are kinda helpful for Scotland; the former for trying to stop us eating too many pies and dying young, and the latter for keeping proably the whole of Moray, at least, in employment.
The civil service is the UK civil service. It does things for you and it has to be based somewhere. And the Parliament is your Parliament (Given your opinions I presume you vote SNP in every general election, so it is your Parliament. If you don't vote, keep quiet.)

Would it be better if the UK government was based further North. Would that make you happier? Where would you suggest moving the MOD, Foreign Office or Home Office to?
We could of course just move everything up here, but given the small minded parochial nature of some of us I don't think that would be for the best, do you?
48

Iain fae Elgin,

London 27/03/2008 18:32:18
Forgot to add my location in the last one.

Oooohh. London. Bad evil man! Whip me through the streets of old Edinburgh toun.
49

malcolm edinburgh,

edinburgh 27/03/2008 19:18:48
i would like to know why edinburgh is so far behind the times with transport issues you have to look at the trams they will be good for the city when all done and up and running you have the bus tracker system still not finished at all they were saying that was down to money as well andf i believe that the snp government dont want to invest in transport in edinburgh think glasgow are their favorates which is not right and not to mention the car driver which does not help the enviroment at all i was looking at the route in the paper and i couldnt see why you couldnt run the line into seafield could be an option and that would link up with the trams at ocean terminal you have line into seafield that is not used that much only by freight sure it could boost business down there too could have train run down there and it would not clog up waverley station then i would like to know what other think surely its an idea to consider
50

Road Raga,

EDINBURGH 27/03/2008 19:30:45
#48 my point is that Edinburgh gets a few crumbs to spend on transport, can't even get £1.8m 'subsidy' to spend on the Sub railway, whilst ole London toon probably gets that spent every 30 minutes on the London Underground (and that is only a slight exageration).
London is a greedy place that sucks the lifeblood out of the rest of the UK to suit it's own interests (like £3,500 from every UK taxpayer to bail out northern rock, to make sure Londons reputation as a finance centre is not put at risk). I could go on but I don't want to be whipped.
51

Hello,

UK 27/03/2008 19:31:39
Just a thought. If there are capacity issues at Haymarket and Waverley station couldn't you couple/uncouple several trains together at Haymarket to form much longer trains. Instead of sending a two coach train from Haymarket to Waverley you might end up with an eight coach train instead. Either that or run the trains between the two stations at closer intervals.
52

Andrew,

27/03/2008 19:32:12
This could only be Edinburgh!! What a waste of a ready-made, under-utilised, waiting-to-be-reborn (etc etc etc etc etc asset!!! WHY ARE WE WAITING?
53

Andrew,

27/03/2008 19:34:17
PS ""You'll have had your suburban trains"" ?!?!?!?!?
54

M8 Traveller,

Tynecastle 27/03/2008 20:03:40
Look more closely at this report. No one has ruled out anything, it's just another scaremongering attempt by this rag and its sister paper the Scotsman that purport to be newspapers. Personally I think that reopening of the south sub is inevitable....... Too many groups and individuals are in favour.
And #43 Like you I can't wait for the next election because the SNP are going to win even bigger....... Have a look at the polls ya bam!
55

rs,

they've made of public transport 27/03/2008 20:11:58
typical, if this was a road ie the m74, then money wouldnt be a problem.

What happened to forward thinking and bringing public transport into the 21st century.

only 7100 passengers a day, how many people live on the south side of edinburgh.

And the biggest surprise, the price has doubled ????!!!How an these so called experts get it so wrong,
Again and Again

Surely like any rail service (ieSCOTRAIL) it would receive a goverment subsidy.

Easier solution, instead of calling them Trains, call them Trams.

if this was in London, money wouldnt be any object.

Of course maybe the Politicians dont want this project ahead, just in case they re-introduce the Trams

The trams arent going t omake money for a few years, which is even more unbelievable, considering all the Capital Money is being paid up front by the Scottish tax Payer

56

rs,

in ma house 27/03/2008 20:13:10
well said No 40

40 BusOff,West Linton 27/03/2008 16:00:22
Re-opening this rail link will cost peanuts in comparison to what is happening just now with the tramline. The infrastructure is there and has been all these years.
No water mains to be moved
No traffic lights etc to be installed
No workshops etc required
Off the train and straight onto a Lothian/First bus
Yes everything is there in place just awaiting a quick spruce up and we are up and running.
We are supposed to be looking at an Integrated Transport System for the whole of the Greater Edinburgh Region - surely this is one element that should be given the go ahead.

Nil Desperandum
57

The Ghost of Sir William Arrol,

The Forthy Bridge 27/03/2008 20:35:48
Nil despair! The Atkins report a few years back was different. It looked at a range of options round the north and south sub and through Waverley. It showed the business case to be viable! Reopen Prince's St Station. That would solve all the capacity options!
58

Road Raga,

EDINBURGH 27/03/2008 20:39:01
There is now't wrong with having buses, trams and trains in Edinburgh. Just as London has plus a huge heavily subsidised (by the UK taxpayer) underground system.
Just imaging if instead of £billions being spent on the Jubilee line extension in London, this was spent on a underground line in Edinburgh, say from Livingston to Leith via Princes Street, ~ Livingston to Haymarket in 14 minutes, Haymarket to Leith 6 minutes, but then no, this is not London (centre of the taxpayer universe)
59

Jingsitsme,

EDINBURGH 27/03/2008 20:57:40
We even have part of the suburbin line in operation at moment even though it just for goods. Trains trundle past the lady road allotments on south side every day carrying coal etc and quite often people trains if main line has a problem.

to think they would reject this idea and build a tram line where there aint even a tram line at the moment!

No wonder they closed Craighouse as all council and parliament need to become inmates and quick as they off their trolleys!
60

Iain fae Elgin,

London 27/03/2008 21:04:09
#51...

London sucks the life blood out of the rest of the UK.

Honestly!

An O-grade student could formulate a more coherent argument than that. There may be many things wrong with the UK and the distribution of tax pounds, but to suggest that London does as you say is quite frankly ridiculous and does your already tenuous stance no favours at all.

I will grant you that the amount of subsidy allocated to T.F.L. is indeed in many cases wasted on incompetencies,but you need to have an honest look at where you are coming from and try to reason with intelligence rather than the usual Scots 'chip on the shoulder' that is sadly all to prevalent these days.
61

Ian down under,

Kawerau 27/03/2008 22:55:48
Edinburgh needs both a comprehensive tramway network, a proper airport rail link and upgraded suburban routes such as the south circle.
Modern technology allows for zero emmission vehicles powered by sustainable electricity generation and tram-trains can even leave the electrified sections using battery power therefore reducing the costs in lighter use areas.
Edinburgh's congestion is BECAUSE of cars and buses and the fact that decent transport was scrapped years ago.
Remember when the Bathgate line was re-opened in the 1980s- the 'consultants' predicted 100,000 passengers a year. They were wrong and the figure is nearly 800,000 now and so successful the service is being doubled and extended to Glasgow.
Waverley's capacity can be increased by putting back 4 tracks to the east and re-aligning Haymarket West Junction with a flyover to avoid conflicting movements.
Also why was the tramway not put UNDER Princes Street and looped to go over the Waverley Market [or whatever it's called now] and improve transfers with the main-line railway.
62

GRC1959,

28/03/2008 07:27:38
I always thought that Waverley would have been much improved, and its capacity for trains increased, by splitting it vertically. The base, starting point is the current track and platform level, which is currently shared by trains, platforms, and ALL the customer facilities and interactions. However, most of the station's public areas have a huge vaulted glass ceiling, which consists of mainly air and glass, and is essentially wasted space, so;

Keep all the trains and platforms at the existing level, and build the passenger level one floor up, but still within the existing roof level (for that can't be exceeded, apparently).

Passengers buy tickets, wait, perambulate at the upper level, and only descend to the platform level when the train is ready for boarding. They don't wait on the platform, so they have a cleaner and healthier waiting environment. The space liberated by moving the coffee shops, ticket hall, staff facilities etc upstairs allows for more platforms downstairs, hence more capacity for trains.

It means that the Victorian ticketing hall, apparently the centrepiece architecturally, has to go, but that's a small price to pay for a better customer experience.
63

Road Raga,

EDINBURGH 28/03/2008 08:46:10
#61 London always comes out with this 'scots chip on the shoulder' rubbish, whilst raking in billions of OUR taxes, then claim it is they that subsidise US !
My view is based on my inside knowledge of transport issues.
For example, it is a fact that there is only one high speed rail line in the UK, and that goes from London to the Channel tunnel. The reason for this is that London has no interest in getting links with the rest of the UK. High speed rail link to Scotland ? No chance. There is only about 30 minute difference between the 1960s Edin - London journey time and today.
Scots chip on the shoulder ? No wonder !
64

malcolm edinburgh,

edinburgh 28/03/2008 10:19:04
why is edinburgh so far behind in all transport the rail link to airport didnt need to cost all the thousands of pounds why they need it underground for start only got to look at gatwick and birmingham int same with buses too why are the old lotrhian burgundy ones still running people cant take luggage on them either and i agree if they didnt want to open seafield area up as lines already there you could use the north berwick service on the loop i dont think enough is been done to get people to use public transport at all like in london they have a rail card covers all south east england only thing i seen up here is an highland railcard what use is that for people down here no use at all you need incentives for people to use transport and yes i think more trains should stop at edinburgh park as well waste of a station otherwise i just think transport up here is way behind england things need to improve mr salmond wake up before it too late
65

gshughes,

Newcastle 28/03/2008 10:28:54
It has been said by many before, but perhaps if enough people say it something may get done. £2m is an absolute drop in the ocean compared to other spending on public transport in Edinburgh. I would have thought it just about covers the cost of all the feasability studies that have been done over the years.
66

McMadman,

Edinburgh 28/03/2008 12:39:24
All good comments, but why not look at incorporating the south sub into the tramway network ? Germany has some examples of tram/trains; look like trams but can run on the heavy rail system too.

So, then you get a significant expansion of the tram system for next to no real costs. Be radical; for a short loop off the tram system Fort Kinnaird and the new Queen Margaret College could be served. That'd help with the user numbers and revenue issues. And - in time - the earlier poster who said go to seafield then on to leith waterfront etc is right - as this would link into the tram route already being constructed and open up all that area of the docks for reconstruction. Just like the docklands light railway did 20 years back in what was then a knackered run down part of london.
67

McMadman,

Edinburgh 28/03/2008 12:40:05
All good comments, but why not look at incorporating the south sub into the tramway network ? Germany has some examples of tram/trains; look like trams but can run on the heavy rail system too.

So, then you get a significant expansion of the tram system for next to no real costs. Be radical; for a short loop off the tram system Fort Kinnaird and the new Queen Margaret College could be served. That'd help with the user numbers and revenue issues. And - in time - the earlier poster who said go to seafield then on to leith waterfront etc is right - as this would link into the tram route already being constructed and open up all that area of the docks for reconstruction. Just like the docklands light railway did 20 years back in what was then a knackered run down part of london.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.