FULL details of how the city centre's roads will fit around the new £498 
million tram line are revealed today. In what will be one of the biggest 
shake-ups of Edinburgh's traffic in decades, several key routes in the city 
will be closed or re-routed to make way for the trams.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1671082007


-- 
Never, ever, argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and 
beat you with experience

Bryan wrote:
> FULL details of how the city centre's roads will fit around the new £498 
> million tram line are revealed today. In what will be one of the biggest 
> shake-ups of Edinburgh's traffic in decades, several key routes in the city 
> will be closed or re-routed to make way for the trams.
> 
> http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1671082007
> 
> 

so, it looks like the Edinburgh Airport train station will be in the 
expected position - north of the road, adjacent to the tram depot. A 
tunnel underneath the Gogar roundabout is interesting.

Has a detailed map been released yet?

"Bryan"  wrote in message 
news:p35Si.95154$Iq7.43541@newsfet10.ams...
> FULL details of how the city centre's roads will fit around the new 
> £498 million tram line are revealed today. In what will be one of 
> the biggest shake-ups of Edinburgh's traffic in decades, several key 
> routes in the city will be closed or re-routed to make way for the 
> trams.
>
> http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1671082007
>
>
> -- 
> Never, ever, argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their 
> level and beat you with experience
>
Well that's just buggered up everyone's Sat Nav units that's for sure.

Bryan wrote:
> FULL details of how the city centre's roads will fit around the new £498 
> million tram line are revealed today. In what will be one of the biggest 
> shake-ups of Edinburgh's traffic in decades, several key routes in the city 
> will be closed or re-routed to make way for the trams.
> 
> http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1671082007
> 
> 

Does anyone want these things? Waste of money, will screw up the roads, 
doesnt serve large chunks of edinburgh. Politicians' pet project phucks 
up city.

"Terrance"  wrote in message 
news:DbmdnWUJd4VVEIHanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...

> Does anyone want these things? Waste of money, will screw up the roads, 
> doesnt serve large chunks of edinburgh. Politicians' pet project phucks up 
> city.

Screwing up the roads and doesn't serve large chunks of Edinburgh .... that 
sound like the motor car to me ;-)

Terrance  wrote in
news:DbmdnWUJd4VVEIHanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com: 

> Bryan wrote:
>> FULL details of how the city centre's roads will fit around the new
>> £498 million tram line are revealed today. In what will be one of the
>> biggest shake-ups of Edinburgh's traffic in decades, several key
>> routes in the city will be closed or re-routed to make way for the
>> trams. 
>> 
>> http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1671082007
>> 
>> 
> 
> Does anyone want these things? Waste of money, will screw up the
> roads, doesnt serve large chunks of edinburgh. Politicians' pet
> project phucks up city.
> 

I think it will be of benefit to passengers in general.  But yes, not so 
good for motorists.  But it has to be that way.  Edinburgh has pretty much 
reached capacity for cars.  We need other options if we wish to increase 
passenger miles.

When the Greenways went in, motorists complained about Leith Walk being 
more congested.  But the end result was more people per hour, mainly onn 
buses.  I think trams are the next logical step and I'd like to think it's 
just the start of a major network.

When the Tyne&Wear Metro went in it was hopelessly over budget.  But would 
they do without it now?

"Callum Johnstone"  wrote in
news:PO4Ti.405537$xp6.133670@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk: 

> 
> "Terrance"  wrote in message 
> news:DbmdnWUJd4VVEIHanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
> 
>> Does anyone want these things? Waste of money, will screw up the
>> roads, doesnt serve large chunks of edinburgh. Politicians' pet
>> project phucks up city.
> 
> Screwing up the roads and doesn't serve large chunks of Edinburgh ....
> that sound like the motor car to me ;-) 
> 
> 
> 

Yes, presumably only roads not seving vast chunks of Edinburgh are screwed 
up anyway!

Mister Niceguy  wrote:

> I think it will be of benefit to passengers in general.  But yes, not so
> good for motorists.  But it has to be that way.  Edinburgh has pretty much
> reached capacity for cars.  We need other options if we wish to increase
> passenger miles.
> When the Greenways went in, motorists complained about Leith Walk being
> more congested.  But the end result was more people per hour, mainly onn
> buses.  I think trams are the next logical step and I'd like to think it's
> just the start of a major network.
> When the Tyne&Wear Metro went in it was hopelessly over budget.  But would
> they do without it now?

Yesterday I got on a tram when all the buses were full.
Do not underestimate the ability of these larger capacity vehicles
to carry away masses of people that the buses cannot cope with

Mister Niceguy wrote:
> Terrance  wrote in
> news:DbmdnWUJd4VVEIHanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com: 
> 
>> Bryan wrote:
>>> FULL details of how the city centre's roads will fit around the new
>>> £498 million tram line are revealed today. In what will be one of the
>>> biggest shake-ups of Edinburgh's traffic in decades, several key
>>> routes in the city will be closed or re-routed to make way for the
>>> trams. 
>>>
>>> http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1671082007
>>>
>>>
>> Does anyone want these things? Waste of money, will screw up the
>> roads, doesnt serve large chunks of edinburgh. Politicians' pet
>> project phucks up city.
>>
> 
> I think it will be of benefit to passengers in general.  But yes, not so 
> good for motorists.  But it has to be that way.  Edinburgh has pretty much 
> reached capacity for cars.  We need other options if we wish to increase 
> passenger miles.
> 
> When the Greenways went in, motorists complained about Leith Walk being 
> more congested.  But the end result was more people per hour, mainly onn 
> buses.  I think trams are the next logical step and I'd like to think it's 
> just the start of a major network.
> 
> When the Tyne&Wear Metro went in it was hopelessly over budget.  But would 
> they do without it now?

I would prefer a metro to trams

Terrance  wrote in
news:QMidnaSx1_ofboHaRVnyjwA@bt.com: 

> Mister Niceguy wrote:
>> Terrance  wrote in
>> news:DbmdnWUJd4VVEIHanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com: 
>> 
>>> Bryan wrote:
>>>> FULL details of how the city centre's roads will fit around the new
>>>> £498 million tram line are revealed today. In what will be one of
>>>> the biggest shake-ups of Edinburgh's traffic in decades, several
>>>> key routes in the city will be closed or re-routed to make way for
>>>> the trams. 
>>>>
>>>> http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1671082007
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Does anyone want these things? Waste of money, will screw up the
>>> roads, doesnt serve large chunks of edinburgh. Politicians' pet
>>> project phucks up city.
>>>
>> 
>> I think it will be of benefit to passengers in general.  But yes, not
>> so good for motorists.  But it has to be that way.  Edinburgh has
>> pretty much reached capacity for cars.  We need other options if we
>> wish to increase passenger miles.
>> 
>> When the Greenways went in, motorists complained about Leith Walk
>> being more congested.  But the end result was more people per hour,
>> mainly onn buses.  I think trams are the next logical step and I'd
>> like to think it's just the start of a major network.
>> 
>> When the Tyne&Wear Metro went in it was hopelessly over budget.  But
>> would they do without it now?
> 
> I would prefer a metro to trams
> 

So would I.  But Alex only reluctantly let us have trams.  No way would 
we be allowed to spend perhaps 5 times as much on a metro.

"be_positive"  wrote in message 
news:1193079636.536811.130870@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Mister Niceguy  wrote:
>
>> I think it will be of benefit to passengers in general.  But yes, not so
>> good for motorists.  But it has to be that way.  Edinburgh has pretty 
>> much
>> reached capacity for cars.  We need other options if we wish to increase
>> passenger miles.
>> When the Greenways went in, motorists complained about Leith Walk being
>> more congested.  But the end result was more people per hour, mainly onn
>> buses.  I think trams are the next logical step and I'd like to think 
>> it's
>> just the start of a major network.
>> When the Tyne&Wear Metro went in it was hopelessly over budget.  But 
>> would
>> they do without it now?
>
> Yesterday I got on a tram when all the buses were full.
> Do not underestimate the ability of these larger capacity vehicles
> to carry away masses of people that the buses cannot cope with

Exactly right. I believe an Edinburgh tram will carry 250 people at a go. 
Factor in also the fact they will stop less frequently than buses (which 
stop far too frequently!), and their acceleration and speed, and I think 
we're looking at the start of a very promising metro system for the city of 
Edinburgh.

"Mister Niceguy"  wrote in message 
news:Xns99D1E7AD3CF0Eniceguyonzetnet@194.247.47.119...
> Terrance  wrote in
> news:QMidnaSx1_ofboHaRVnyjwA@bt.com:
>
>> Mister Niceguy wrote:
>>> Terrance  wrote in
>>> news:DbmdnWUJd4VVEIHanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com:
>>>
>>>> Bryan wrote:
>>>>> FULL details of how the city centre's roads will fit around the new
>>>>> £498 million tram line are revealed today. In what will be one of
>>>>> the biggest shake-ups of Edinburgh's traffic in decades, several
>>>>> key routes in the city will be closed or re-routed to make way for
>>>>> the trams.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1671082007
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Does anyone want these things? Waste of money, will screw up the
>>>> roads, doesnt serve large chunks of edinburgh. Politicians' pet
>>>> project phucks up city.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think it will be of benefit to passengers in general.  But yes, not
>>> so good for motorists.  But it has to be that way.  Edinburgh has
>>> pretty much reached capacity for cars.  We need other options if we
>>> wish to increase passenger miles.
>>>
>>> When the Greenways went in, motorists complained about Leith Walk
>>> being more congested.  But the end result was more people per hour,
>>> mainly onn buses.  I think trams are the next logical step and I'd
>>> like to think it's just the start of a major network.
>>>
>>> When the Tyne&Wear Metro went in it was hopelessly over budget.  But
>>> would they do without it now?
>>
>> I would prefer a metro to trams
>>
>
> So would I.  But Alex only reluctantly let us have trams.  No way would
> we be allowed to spend perhaps 5 times as much on a metro.

No. Only if we were hosting a one-off major sporting event could that 
possibly be justified ;-)

Not Crossposted, your replies will only appear in this newsgroup    On
Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:00:36 -0700, in alt.airports.uk.edinburgh
be_positive  wrote:


>> When the Tyne&Wear Metro went in it was hopelessly over budget.  But would
>> they do without it now?

>Yesterday I got on a tram when all the buses were full.
>Do not underestimate the ability of these larger capacity vehicles
>to carry away masses of people that the buses cannot cope with

Which is exactly why they are being utilised in Edinburgh.

The number 22 buses currently run in pairs to cope.





-- 

Sign the Edinburgh-Florida petition!
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Edinburgh-Florida

> The number 22 buses currently run in pairs to cope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
This isn't helped by the fact that the 22 is one of the few 
single-decker routes in Edinburgh. There must be a bridge or something 
that they have to pass under.

"CanalBuilder"  wrote in message 
news:IRhTi.255600$BW4.68661@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> This isn't helped by the fact that the 22 is one of the few single-decker 
> routes in Edinburgh. There must be a bridge or something that they have to 
> pass under.
Can't think of any bridges that pose a problem between Ocean Terminal and 
the Gyle Centre. Double deckers run the whole length of the route, including 
the guided bus way!

-- 
!Speedy Gonzales!

Remove the SPAMTRAP to reply

"charles"  wrote in message 
news:4f365d64dfcharles@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
> In article ,
>   Terrance  wrote:
>>
>
>> Sure but how about re-opening the old railway lines?
>
> But they are using some of the old lines.  The Roseburn to Granton section
> uses an old line and I suspect a large chunk of the airport route will do
> as well.
>
> Is the old "south circle route" still clear?
>
> -- 
> From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"


 It's still in constant use for freight trains (and passenger trains which 
are not carrying passengers). Also used for passenger trains which do have 
passengers on board when the Waverley Station is closed for engineering 
work.
Cost to re-open the South Suburban line (which serves a large swathe of the 
population of Edinburgh and takes them to a variety of destinations) - £18m.
Cost to build the one tram route which serves a small part of the population 
of Edinburgh and a large area of industrial wasteland which has not yet 
received planning permission for homes to be built on (and which most 
Edinburgh residents will not be able to afford if they are built) - £600m.
Guess which one of these projects most boosts the ego of your local 
politician and therefor got the go-ahead...
-- 
Neil McD.

"Neil McD."  wrote in message 
news:mOOdnZjMyYUYr4PanZ2dnUVZ8qijnZ2d@bt.com...
> "charles"  wrote in message 
> news:4f365d64dfcharles@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
>> In article ,
>>   Terrance  wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> Sure but how about re-opening the old railway lines?
>>
>> But they are using some of the old lines.  The Roseburn to Granton 
>> section
>> uses an old line and I suspect a large chunk of the airport route will do
>> as well.
>>
>> Is the old "south circle route" still clear?
>>
>> -- 
>> From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"
>
>
> It's still in constant use for freight trains (and passenger trains which 
> are not carrying passengers). Also used for passenger trains which do have 
> passengers on board when the Waverley Station is closed for engineering 
> work.
> Cost to re-open the South Suburban line (which serves a large swathe of 
> the population of Edinburgh and takes them to a variety of destinations) - 
> £18m.
> Cost to build the one tram route which serves a small part of the 
> population of Edinburgh and a large area of industrial wasteland which has 
> not yet received planning permission for homes to be built on (and which 
> most Edinburgh residents will not be able to afford if they are built) - 
> £600m.
> Guess which one of these projects most boosts the ego of your local 
> politician and therefor got the go-ahead...

I don't feel remotely guilty about lending my support to both schemes. The 
north of the city (where the bulk of population development is likely to 
occur over the next decade) isn't likely to see passenger heavy rail 
reinstated any time soon, so tram is still a good compromise. And yes - the 
reality is that it costs.

As a resident of south Edinburgh, though, I cannot comprehend why it's 
taking so long to get the south sub back up and running, especially when as 
you say it comes with such a reasonable price tag.

In article <JvnTi.35583$c_1.13664@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
   !Speedy Gonzales!  wrote:
> "CanalBuilder"  wrote in message 
> news:IRhTi.255600$BW4.68661@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > This isn't helped by the fact that the 22 is one of the few
> > single-decker routes in Edinburgh. There must be a bridge or something
> > that they have to pass under.
> Can't think of any bridges that pose a problem between Ocean Terminal and
> the Gyle Centre. Double deckers run the whole length of the route,
> including the guided bus way!

Originally single decker buses were used when the routes did run entirely
on main roads.  It was probably a weight limit 'thing'.  They also got used
where the passenger demand was low.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

!Speedy Gonzales! wrote:
> "CanalBuilder"  wrote in message 
> news:IRhTi.255600$BW4.68661@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> This isn't helped by the fact that the 22 is one of the few single-decker 
>> routes in Edinburgh. There must be a bridge or something that they have to 
>> pass under.
> Can't think of any bridges that pose a problem between Ocean Terminal and 
> the Gyle Centre. Double deckers run the whole length of the route, including 
> the guided bus way!
> 

I know there are some bridges on the Western Approach Road. It may be 
one of them that causes the problems. There is another bus route that 
goes along WAR and that uses single deckers too.

Mister Niceguy wrote:
> Terrance  wrote in
> news:QMidnaSx1_ofboHaRVnyjwA@bt.com: 
> 
>> Mister Niceguy wrote:
>>> Terrance  wrote in
>>> news:DbmdnWUJd4VVEIHanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com: 
>>>
>>>> Bryan wrote:
>>>>> FULL details of how the city centre's roads will fit around the new
>>>>> £498 million tram line are revealed today. In what will be one of
>>>>> the biggest shake-ups of Edinburgh's traffic in decades, several
>>>>> key routes in the city will be closed or re-routed to make way for
>>>>> the trams. 
>>>>>
>>>>> http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1671082007
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Does anyone want these things? Waste of money, will screw up the
>>>> roads, doesnt serve large chunks of edinburgh. Politicians' pet
>>>> project phucks up city.
>>>>
>>> I think it will be of benefit to passengers in general.  But yes, not
>>> so good for motorists.  But it has to be that way.  Edinburgh has
>>> pretty much reached capacity for cars.  We need other options if we
>>> wish to increase passenger miles.
>>>
>>> When the Greenways went in, motorists complained about Leith Walk
>>> being more congested.  But the end result was more people per hour,
>>> mainly onn buses.  I think trams are the next logical step and I'd
>>> like to think it's just the start of a major network.
>>>
>>> When the Tyne&Wear Metro went in it was hopelessly over budget.  But
>>> would they do without it now?
>> I would prefer a metro to trams
>>
> 
> So would I.  But Alex only reluctantly let us have trams.  No way would 
> we be allowed to spend perhaps 5 times as much on a metro.

Sure but how about re-opening the old railway lines?

In article ,
   Terrance  wrote:
>

> Sure but how about re-opening the old railway lines?

But they are using some of the old lines.  The Roseburn to Granton section
uses an old line and I suspect a large chunk of the airport route will do
as well. 

Is the old "south circle route" still clear?

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

"Callum Johnstone"  wrote in 
news:NHgTi.422775$xp6.311293@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk:

> 
> "Mister Niceguy"  wrote in message 
> news:Xns99D1E7AD3CF0Eniceguyonzetnet@194.247.47.119...
>> Terrance  wrote in
>> news:QMidnaSx1_ofboHaRVnyjwA@bt.com:
>>
>>> Mister Niceguy wrote:
>>>> Terrance  wrote in
>>>> news:DbmdnWUJd4VVEIHanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Bryan wrote:
>>>>>> FULL details of how the city centre's roads will fit around the 
new
>>>>>> £498 million tram line are revealed today. In what will be one of
>>>>>> the biggest shake-ups of Edinburgh's traffic in decades, several
>>>>>> key routes in the city will be closed or re-routed to make way 
for
>>>>>> the trams.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1671082007
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone want these things? Waste of money, will screw up the
>>>>> roads, doesnt serve large chunks of edinburgh. Politicians' pet
>>>>> project phucks up city.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think it will be of benefit to passengers in general.  But yes, 
not
>>>> so good for motorists.  But it has to be that way.  Edinburgh has
>>>> pretty much reached capacity for cars.  We need other options if we
>>>> wish to increase passenger miles.
>>>>
>>>> When the Greenways went in, motorists complained about Leith Walk
>>>> being more congested.  But the end result was more people per hour,
>>>> mainly onn buses.  I think trams are the next logical step and I'd
>>>> like to think it's just the start of a major network.
>>>>
>>>> When the Tyne&Wear Metro went in it was hopelessly over budget.  
But
>>>> would they do without it now?
>>>
>>> I would prefer a metro to trams
>>>
>>
>> So would I.  But Alex only reluctantly let us have trams.  No way 
would
>> we be allowed to spend perhaps 5 times as much on a metro.
> 
> No. Only if we were hosting a one-off major sporting event could that 
> possibly be justified ;-) 

Ha.  Impressing guests is valued higher than providing for ratepayer.  
:-(

Terrance  wrote in 
news:xsmdne0WutwJiIPaRVnyvwA@bt.com:

> Mister Niceguy wrote:
>> Terrance  wrote in
>> news:QMidnaSx1_ofboHaRVnyjwA@bt.com: 
>> 
>>> Mister Niceguy wrote:
>>>> Terrance  wrote in
>>>> news:DbmdnWUJd4VVEIHanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com: 
>>>>
>>>>> Bryan wrote:
>>>>>> FULL details of how the city centre's roads will fit around the 
new
>>>>>> £498 million tram line are revealed today. In what will be one of
>>>>>> the biggest shake-ups of Edinburgh's traffic in decades, several
>>>>>> key routes in the city will be closed or re-routed to make way 
for
>>>>>> the trams. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1671082007
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone want these things? Waste of money, will screw up the
>>>>> roads, doesnt serve large chunks of edinburgh. Politicians' pet
>>>>> project phucks up city.
>>>>>
>>>> I think it will be of benefit to passengers in general.  But yes, 
not
>>>> so good for motorists.  But it has to be that way.  Edinburgh has
>>>> pretty much reached capacity for cars.  We need other options if we
>>>> wish to increase passenger miles.
>>>>
>>>> When the Greenways went in, motorists complained about Leith Walk
>>>> being more congested.  But the end result was more people per hour,
>>>> mainly onn buses.  I think trams are the next logical step and I'd
>>>> like to think it's just the start of a major network.
>>>>
>>>> When the Tyne&Wear Metro went in it was hopelessly over budget.  
But
>>>> would they do without it now?
>>> I would prefer a metro to trams
>>>
>> 
>> So would I.  But Alex only reluctantly let us have trams.  No way 
would 
>> we be allowed to spend perhaps 5 times as much on a metro.
> 
> Sure but how about re-opening the old railway lines?
> 

Cue Callum....

charles  wrote in
news:4f365d64dfcharles@charleshope.demon.co.uk: 

> In article ,
>    Terrance  wrote:
>>
> 
>> Sure but how about re-opening the old railway lines?
> 
> But they are using some of the old lines.  The Roseburn to Granton
> section uses an old line and I suspect a large chunk of the airport
> route will do as well. 
> 
> Is the old "south circle route" still clear?
> 

Yup.  And is still used when (as now) track is up west of Waverley.  Also 
used for freight.

"Terrance"  wrote in message 
news:xsmdne0WutwJiIPaRVnyvwA@bt.com...
> Mister Niceguy wrote:
>> Terrance  wrote in
>> news:QMidnaSx1_ofboHaRVnyjwA@bt.com:
>>> Mister Niceguy wrote:
>>>> Terrance  wrote in
>>>> news:DbmdnWUJd4VVEIHanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com:
>>>>> Bryan wrote:
>>>>>> FULL details of how the city centre's roads will fit around the new
>>>>>> £498 million tram line are revealed today. In what will be one of
>>>>>> the biggest shake-ups of Edinburgh's traffic in decades, several
>>>>>> key routes in the city will be closed or re-routed to make way for
>>>>>> the trams.
>>>>>> http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1671082007
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone want these things? Waste of money, will screw up the
>>>>> roads, doesnt serve large chunks of edinburgh. Politicians' pet
>>>>> project phucks up city.
>>>>>
>>>> I think it will be of benefit to passengers in general.  But yes, not
>>>> so good for motorists.  But it has to be that way.  Edinburgh has
>>>> pretty much reached capacity for cars.  We need other options if we
>>>> wish to increase passenger miles.
>>>>
>>>> When the Greenways went in, motorists complained about Leith Walk
>>>> being more congested.  But the end result was more people per hour,
>>>> mainly onn buses.  I think trams are the next logical step and I'd
>>>> like to think it's just the start of a major network.
>>>>
>>>> When the Tyne&Wear Metro went in it was hopelessly over budget.  But
>>>> would they do without it now?
>>> I would prefer a metro to trams
>>>
>>
>> So would I.  But Alex only reluctantly let us have trams.  No way would 
>> we be allowed to spend perhaps 5 times as much on a metro.
>
> Sure but how about re-opening the old railway lines?

Yes please!

The Borders line to Galashiels and the Bathgate-Airdrie lines are going to 
be re-opened which is a good start, but I'd like to see serious progress on 
the south sub. It wouldn't cost much to reintroduce passenger services, and 
the benefits would be considerable.

"Mister Niceguy"  wrote in message 
news:Xns99D2B256CD44Dniceguyonzetnet@194.247.47.119...
> Terrance  wrote in
> news:xsmdne0WutwJiIPaRVnyvwA@bt.com:
>
>> Mister Niceguy wrote:
>>> Terrance  wrote in
>>> news:QMidnaSx1_ofboHaRVnyjwA@bt.com:
>>>
>>>> Mister Niceguy wrote:
>>>>> Terrance  wrote in
>>>>> news:DbmdnWUJd4VVEIHanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bryan wrote:
>>>>>>> FULL details of how the city centre's roads will fit around the
> new
>>>>>>> £498 million tram line are revealed today. In what will be one of
>>>>>>> the biggest shake-ups of Edinburgh's traffic in decades, several
>>>>>>> key routes in the city will be closed or re-routed to make way
> for
>>>>>>> the trams.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1671082007
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does anyone want these things? Waste of money, will screw up the
>>>>>> roads, doesnt serve large chunks of edinburgh. Politicians' pet
>>>>>> project phucks up city.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think it will be of benefit to passengers in general.  But yes,
> not
>>>>> so good for motorists.  But it has to be that way.  Edinburgh has
>>>>> pretty much reached capacity for cars.  We need other options if we
>>>>> wish to increase passenger miles.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the Greenways went in, motorists complained about Leith Walk
>>>>> being more congested.  But the end result was more people per hour,
>>>>> mainly onn buses.  I think trams are the next logical step and I'd
>>>>> like to think it's just the start of a major network.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the Tyne&Wear Metro went in it was hopelessly over budget.
> But
>>>>> would they do without it now?
>>>> I would prefer a metro to trams
>>>>
>>>
>>> So would I.  But Alex only reluctantly let us have trams.  No way
> would
>>> we be allowed to spend perhaps 5 times as much on a metro.
>>
>> Sure but how about re-opening the old railway lines?
>>
>
> Cue Callum....

I hope I didn't disappoint ;-)

"Callum Johnstone"  wrote in message 
news:5mqTi.426145$xp6.335934@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Terrance"  wrote in message 
> news:xsmdne0WutwJiIPaRVnyvwA@bt.com...
>> Mister Niceguy wrote:
>>> Terrance  wrote in
>>> news:QMidnaSx1_ofboHaRVnyjwA@bt.com:
>>>> Mister Niceguy wrote:
>>>>> Terrance  wrote in
>>>>> news:DbmdnWUJd4VVEIHanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com:
>>>>>> Bryan wrote:
>>>>>>> FULL details of how the city centre's roads will fit around the new
>>>>>>> £498 million tram line are revealed today. In what will be one of
>>>>>>> the biggest shake-ups of Edinburgh's traffic in decades, several
>>>>>>> key routes in the city will be closed or re-routed to make way for
>>>>>>> the trams.
>>>>>>> http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1671082007
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does anyone want these things? Waste of money, will screw up the
>>>>>> roads, doesnt serve large chunks of edinburgh. Politicians' pet
>>>>>> project phucks up city.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think it will be of benefit to passengers in general.  But yes, not
>>>>> so good for motorists.  But it has to be that way.  Edinburgh has
>>>>> pretty much reached capacity for cars.  We need other options if we
>>>>> wish to increase passenger miles.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the Greenways went in, motorists complained about Leith Walk
>>>>> being more congested.  But the end result was more people per hour,
>>>>> mainly onn buses.  I think trams are the next logical step and I'd
>>>>> like to think it's just the start of a major network.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the Tyne&Wear Metro went in it was hopelessly over budget.  But
>>>>> would they do without it now?
>>>> I would prefer a metro to trams
>>>>
>>>
>>> So would I.  But Alex only reluctantly let us have trams.  No way would 
>>> we be allowed to spend perhaps 5 times as much on a metro.
>>
>> Sure but how about re-opening the old railway lines?
>
> Yes please!
>
> The Borders line to Galashiels and the Bathgate-Airdrie lines are going to 
> be re-opened which is a good start, but I'd like to see serious progress 
> on the south sub. It wouldn't cost much to reintroduce passenger services, 
> and the benefits would be considerable.

I may be wrong but isn't one of the major problems having platform space at 
stations like Waverly. I was under the impression that Waverly was working 
close to full capacity and that it isn't easy to squeeze more trains in, and 
quite a few would be needed for the service to be meaningful! If the new 
trains coming in aren't as full as other trains then it makes no sense to 
displace full trains for half empty trains.

Also when you compare a railway like the South-Sub to buses the railway 
doesn't have that many pickup/drop-off points compared to buses which stop 
every few hundred yards, in reality the railway has very few stations and 
IMO will only appeal to people who live near a station and work/shop near 
another station so although it might seem comparatively cheap to open the 
appeal is surely limited which is one reason why they were closed in the 
first place.

Not Crossposted, your replies will only appear in this newsgroup    On
Tue, 23 Oct 2007 07:59:36 GMT, in alt.uk.edinburgh.misc CanalBuilder
 wrote:


>> The number 22 buses currently run in pairs to cope.

>This isn't helped by the fact that the 22 is one of the few 
>single-decker routes in Edinburgh. There must be a bridge or something 
>that they have to pass under.

Westfield?  



-- 

Sign the Edinburgh-Florida petition!
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Edinburgh-Florida

"Bryan"  wrote in
news:OTDTi.92838$o15.53885@newsfet05.ams: 

> 
> "Callum Johnstone"  wrote in message
> news:5mqTi.426145$xp6.335934@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> "Terrance"  wrote in message 
>> news:xsmdne0WutwJiIPaRVnyvwA@bt.com...
>>> Mister Niceguy wrote:
>>>> Terrance  wrote in
>>>> news:QMidnaSx1_ofboHaRVnyjwA@bt.com:
>>>>> Mister Niceguy wrote:
>>>>>> Terrance  wrote in
>>>>>> news:DbmdnWUJd4VVEIHanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com:
>>>>>>> Bryan wrote:
>>>>>>>> FULL details of how the city centre's roads will fit around the
>>>>>>>> new £498 million tram line are revealed today. In what will be
>>>>>>>> one of the biggest shake-ups of Edinburgh's traffic in decades,
>>>>>>>> several key routes in the city will be closed or re-routed to
>>>>>>>> make way for the trams.
>>>>>>>> http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1671082007
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does anyone want these things? Waste of money, will screw up the
>>>>>>> roads, doesnt serve large chunks of edinburgh. Politicians' pet
>>>>>>> project phucks up city.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it will be of benefit to passengers in general.  But yes,
>>>>>> not so good for motorists.  But it has to be that way.  Edinburgh
>>>>>> has pretty much reached capacity for cars.  We need other options
>>>>>> if we wish to increase passenger miles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the Greenways went in, motorists complained about Leith Walk
>>>>>> being more congested.  But the end result was more people per
>>>>>> hour, mainly onn buses.  I think trams are the next logical step
>>>>>> and I'd like to think it's just the start of a major network.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the Tyne&Wear Metro went in it was hopelessly over budget. 
>>>>>> But would they do without it now?
>>>>> I would prefer a metro to trams
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So would I.  But Alex only reluctantly let us have trams.  No way
>>>> would we be allowed to spend perhaps 5 times as much on a metro.
>>>
>>> Sure but how about re-opening the old railway lines?
>>
>> Yes please!
>>
>> The Borders line to Galashiels and the Bathgate-Airdrie lines are
>> going to be re-opened which is a good start, but I'd like to see
>> serious progress on the south sub. It wouldn't cost much to
>> reintroduce passenger services, and the benefits would be
>> considerable. 
> 
> I may be wrong but isn't one of the major problems having platform
> space at stations like Waverly. I was under the impression that
> Waverly was working close to full capacity and that it isn't easy to
> squeeze more trains in, and quite a few would be needed for the
> service to be meaningful! If the new trains coming in aren't as full
> as other trains then it makes no sense to displace full trains for
> half empty trains. 

Yes, that's what they say.  And there's a bottleneck in the tunnels 
under Calton Hill.  But presumably 35 years ago they managed?

> Also when you compare a railway like the South-Sub to buses the
> railway doesn't have that many pickup/drop-off points compared to
> buses which stop every few hundred yards, in reality the railway has
> very few stations and IMO will only appeal to people who live near a
> station and work/shop near another station so although it might seem
> comparatively cheap to open the appeal is surely limited which is one
> reason why they were closed in the first place. 

Yes, this is my reservation too.

"Callum Johnstone"  wrote in
news:UrqTi.426149$xp6.10870@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk: 

> 
> "Neil McD."  wrote in message 
> news:mOOdnZjMyYUYr4PanZ2dnUVZ8qijnZ2d@bt.com...
>> "charles"  wrote in message 
>> news:4f365d64dfcharles@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
>>> In article ,
>>>   Terrance  wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Sure but how about re-opening the old railway lines?
>>>
>>> But they are using some of the old lines.  The Roseburn to Granton 
>>> section
>>> uses an old line and I suspect a large chunk of the airport route
>>> will do as well.
>>>
>>> Is the old "south circle route" still clear?
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"
>>
>>
>> It's still in constant use for freight trains (and passenger trains
>> which are not carrying passengers). Also used for passenger trains
>> which do have passengers on board when the Waverley Station is closed
>> for engineering work.
>> Cost to re-open the South Suburban line (which serves a large swathe
>> of the population of Edinburgh and takes them to a variety of
>> destinations) - £18m.
>> Cost to build the one tram route which serves a small part of the 
>> population of Edinburgh and a large area of industrial wasteland
>> which has not yet received planning permission for homes to be built
>> on (and which most Edinburgh residents will not be able to afford if
>> they are built) - £600m.
>> Guess which one of these projects most boosts the ego of your local 
>> politician and therefor got the go-ahead...
> 
> I don't feel remotely guilty about lending my support to both schemes.
> The north of the city (where the bulk of population development is
> likely to occur over the next decade) isn't likely to see passenger
> heavy rail reinstated any time soon, so tram is still a good
> compromise. And yes - the reality is that it costs.

I think that's right.  Much of the South Sub passes through low-density 
housing and virtually nowhere people will go to work.  It does pass 
close to two major shopping ares, though and if those who know about 
these things do it right, will help serve the NERI too.

> As a resident of south Edinburgh, though, I cannot comprehend why it's
> taking so long to get the south sub back up and running, especially
> when as you say it comes with such a reasonable price tag. 

How often would you use it?

"Mister Niceguy"  wrote in message 
news:Xns99D381E049C68niceguyonzetnet@194.247.47.119...
> "Callum Johnstone"  wrote in
> news:UrqTi.426149$xp6.10870@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>
>>
>> "Neil McD."  wrote in message
>> news:mOOdnZjMyYUYr4PanZ2dnUVZ8qijnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> "charles"  wrote in message
>>> news:4f365d64dfcharles@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In article ,
>>>>   Terrance  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Sure but how about re-opening the old railway lines?
>>>>
>>>> But they are using some of the old lines.  The Roseburn to Granton
>>>> section
>>>> uses an old line and I suspect a large chunk of the airport route
>>>> will do as well.
>>>>
>>>> Is the old "south circle route" still clear?
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"
>>>
>>>
>>> It's still in constant use for freight trains (and passenger trains
>>> which are not carrying passengers). Also used for passenger trains
>>> which do have passengers on board when the Waverley Station is closed
>>> for engineering work.
>>> Cost to re-open the South Suburban line (which serves a large swathe
>>> of the population of Edinburgh and takes them to a variety of
>>> destinations) - £18m.
>>> Cost to build the one tram route which serves a small part of the
>>> population of Edinburgh and a large area of industrial wasteland
>>> which has not yet received planning permission for homes to be built
>>> on (and which most Edinburgh residents will not be able to afford if
>>> they are built) - £600m.
>>> Guess which one of these projects most boosts the ego of your local
>>> politician and therefor got the go-ahead...
>>
>> I don't feel remotely guilty about lending my support to both schemes.
>> The north of the city (where the bulk of population development is
>> likely to occur over the next decade) isn't likely to see passenger
>> heavy rail reinstated any time soon, so tram is still a good
>> compromise. And yes - the reality is that it costs.
>
> I think that's right.  Much of the South Sub passes through low-density
> housing and virtually nowhere people will go to work.

But it will offer connections to Haymarket and (hopefully) a re-opened 
Portobello station, allowing for connections to places where people do go to 
work.

> It does pass close to two major shopping ares, though and if those who 
> know about
> these things do it right, will help serve the NERI too.
>
>> As a resident of south Edinburgh, though, I cannot comprehend why it's
>> taking so long to get the south sub back up and running, especially
>> when as you say it comes with such a reasonable price tag.
>
> How often would you use it?

Probably not to get to work, but evenings and weekends for sure. To get to 
Kinnaird Park and Portobello (both of which I travel to frequently), and if 
I was going through to Glasgow on the train, I could jump on at Morningside 
and connect through Haymarket. Less bother (and probably quicker) than 
sitting on a bus all the way into Waverley.

"Bryan"  wrote in message 
news:OTDTi.92838$o15.53885@newsfet05.ams...
>
> "Callum Johnstone"  wrote in message 
> news:5mqTi.426145$xp6.335934@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> "Terrance"  wrote in message 
>> news:xsmdne0WutwJiIPaRVnyvwA@bt.com...
>>> Mister Niceguy wrote:
>>>> Terrance  wrote in
>>>> news:QMidnaSx1_ofboHaRVnyjwA@bt.com:
>>>>> Mister Niceguy wrote:
>>>>>> Terrance  wrote in
>>>>>> news:DbmdnWUJd4VVEIHanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com:
>>>>>>> Bryan wrote:
>>>>>>>> FULL details of how the city centre's roads will fit around the new
>>>>>>>> £498 million tram line are revealed today. In what will be one of
>>>>>>>> the biggest shake-ups of Edinburgh's traffic in decades, several
>>>>>>>> key routes in the city will be closed or re-routed to make way for
>>>>>>>> the trams.
>>>>>>>> http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1671082007
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does anyone want these things? Waste of money, will screw up the
>>>>>>> roads, doesnt serve large chunks of edinburgh. Politicians' pet
>>>>>>> project phucks up city.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it will be of benefit to passengers in general.  But yes, not
>>>>>> so good for motorists.  But it has to be that way.  Edinburgh has
>>>>>> pretty much reached capacity for cars.  We need other options if we
>>>>>> wish to increase passenger miles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the Greenways went in, motorists complained about Leith Walk
>>>>>> being more congested.  But the end result was more people per hour,
>>>>>> mainly onn buses.  I think trams are the next logical step and I'd
>>>>>> like to think it's just the start of a major network.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the Tyne&Wear Metro went in it was hopelessly over budget.  But
>>>>>> would they do without it now?
>>>>> I would prefer a metro to trams
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So would I.  But Alex only reluctantly let us have trams.  No way would 
>>>> we be allowed to spend perhaps 5 times as much on a metro.
>>>
>>> Sure but how about re-opening the old railway lines?
>>
>> Yes please!
>>
>> The Borders line to Galashiels and the Bathgate-Airdrie lines are going 
>> to be re-opened which is a good start, but I'd like to see serious 
>> progress on the south sub. It wouldn't cost much to reintroduce passenger 
>> services, and the benefits would be considerable.
>
> I may be wrong but isn't one of the major problems having platform space 
> at stations like Waverly. I was under the impression that Waverly was 
> working close to full capacity and that it isn't easy to squeeze more 
> trains in, and quite a few would be needed for the service to be 
> meaningful! If the new trains coming in aren't as full as other trains 
> then it makes no sense to displace full trains for half empty trains.
>
> Also when you compare a railway like the South-Sub to buses the railway 
> doesn't have that many pickup/drop-off points compared to buses which stop 
> every few hundred yards, in reality the railway has very few stations and 
> IMO will only appeal to people who live near a station and work/shop near 
> another station so although it might seem comparatively cheap to open the 
> appeal is surely limited which is one reason why they were closed in the 
> first place.

Well, if they do it properly we could be looking at the following locations:

Waverley, Abbeyhill, Piershill/Craigentinny, Portobello, Brunstane, Kinnaird 
Park, Bingham/Niddrie, Craigmillar, Cameron Toll, Newington/Mayfield, 
Blackford, Morningside, Craiglockhart, Gorgie, Haymarket ... and back to 
Waverley.

Abbeyhill/Meadowbank could well be a growth area in population terms over 
the next few years, depending on how the Sports Centre situation goes. 
Portobello could become a significant interchange with potentially the North 
Berwick and Galashiels trains serving it in addition to the sub. Kinnaird 
Park is about to undergo yet another phase of expansion (bye bye Odeon, 
bowling hall and Frankie & Bennys I gather). Cameron Toll could be a future 
interchange for the ERI/Bio park once Tram Line Three is built (I may be 
being overly optimistic there!). Morningside and Craiglockhart would both 
serve significant local populations, as would Gorgie (together with football 
traffic!).

I honestly believe there is huge potential in the south sub. Lothian Buses 
will have an idea of the numbers of passengers who regularly commute across 
town by bus (the slow and unreliable way). The south sub will makes those 
journeys a lot easier and a lot quicker.

It's certainly true that capacity at Waverley needs to be addressed (the new 
platforms seeming to be very cosmetic). Unfortunately the last 
administration shied away from the wholesale redevelopment of Waverley which 
was desperately needed, and the current lot seem no more eager to change 
that. If we're serious about expanding suburban rail services in and around 
Edinburgh - and, for that matter, boosting services to London and other 
cross-UK services - then something needs to happen at Waverley for sure.

I think the economics - and the demographics - are different now compared to 
what they were in the 1950s. This should be much more do-able now, IMHO.

"Callum Johnstone"  wrote in message 
news:jeLTi.87306$lV4.15358@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Bryan"  wrote in message 
> news:OTDTi.92838$o15.53885@newsfet05.ams...
>>
>> "Callum Johnstone"  wrote in message 
>> news:5mqTi.426145$xp6.335934@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> I may be wrong but isn't one of the major problems having platform space 
>> at stations like Waverly. I was under the impression that Waverly was 
>> working close to full capacity and that it isn't easy to squeeze more 
>> trains in, and quite a few would be needed for the service to be 
>> meaningful! If the new trains coming in aren't as full as other trains 
>> then it makes no sense to displace full trains for half empty trains.
>>
>> Also when you compare a railway like the South-Sub to buses the railway 
>> doesn't have that many pickup/drop-off points compared to buses which 
>> stop every few hundred yards, in reality the railway has very few 
>> stations and IMO will only appeal to people who live near a station and 
>> work/shop near another station so although it might seem comparatively 
>> cheap to open the appeal is surely limited which is one reason why they 
>> were closed in the first place.
>
> Well, if they do it properly we could be looking at the following 
> locations:
>
> Waverley, Abbeyhill, Piershill/Craigentinny, Portobello, Brunstane, 
> Kinnaird Park, Bingham/Niddrie, Craigmillar, Cameron Toll, 
> Newington/Mayfield, Blackford, Morningside, Craiglockhart, Gorgie, 
> Haymarket ... and back to Waverley.
>
> Abbeyhill/Meadowbank could well be a growth area in population terms over 
> the next few years, depending on how the Sports Centre situation goes. 
> Portobello could become a significant interchange with potentially the 
> North Berwick and Galashiels trains serving it in addition to the sub. 
> Kinnaird Park is about to undergo yet another phase of expansion (bye bye 
> Odeon, bowling hall and Frankie & Bennys I gather). Cameron Toll could be 
> a future interchange for the ERI/Bio park once Tram Line Three is built (I 
> may be being overly optimistic there!). Morningside and Craiglockhart 
> would both serve significant local populations, as would Gorgie (together 
> with football traffic!).
>
> I honestly believe there is huge potential in the south sub. Lothian Buses 
> will have an idea of the numbers of passengers who regularly commute 
> across town by bus (the slow and unreliable way). The south sub will makes 
> those journeys a lot easier and a lot quicker.
>
> It's certainly true that capacity at Waverley needs to be addressed (the 
> new platforms seeming to be very cosmetic). Unfortunately the last 
> administration shied away from the wholesale redevelopment of Waverley 
> which was desperately needed, and the current lot seem no more eager to 
> change that. If we're serious about expanding suburban rail services in 
> and around Edinburgh - and, for that matter, boosting services to London 
> and other cross-UK services - then something needs to happen at Waverley 
> for sure.
>
> I think the economics - and the demographics - are different now compared 
> to what they were in the 1950s. This should be much more do-able now, 
> IMHO.

sounds a lot better than I thought. How many of these are existing stations?

"Bryan"  wrote in
news:naMTi.18437$Jc7.9552@newsfet07.ams: 

> 
> "Callum Johnstone"  wrote in message
> news:jeLTi.87306$lV4.15358@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> "Bryan"  wrote in message 
>> news:OTDTi.92838$o15.53885@newsfet05.ams...
>>>
>>> "Callum Johnstone"  wrote in
>>> message news:5mqTi.426145$xp6.335934@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>
>>> I may be wrong but isn't one of the major problems having platform
>>> space at stations like Waverly. I was under the impression that
>>> Waverly was working close to full capacity and that it isn't easy to
>>> squeeze more trains in, and quite a few would be needed for the
>>> service to be meaningful! If the new trains coming in aren't as full
>>> as other trains then it makes no sense to displace full trains for
>>> half empty trains. 
>>>
>>> Also when you compare a railway like the South-Sub to buses the
>>> railway doesn't have that many pickup/drop-off points compared to
>>> buses which stop every few hundred yards, in reality the railway has
>>> very few stations and IMO will only appeal to people who live near a
>>> station and work/shop near another station so although it might seem
>>> comparatively cheap to open the appeal is surely limited which is
>>> one reason why they were closed in the first place.
>>
>> Well, if they do it properly we could be looking at the following 
>> locations:
>>
>> Waverley, Abbeyhill, Piershill/Craigentinny, Portobello, Brunstane, 
>> Kinnaird Park, Bingham/Niddrie, Craigmillar, Cameron Toll, 
>> Newington/Mayfield, Blackford, Morningside, Craiglockhart, Gorgie, 
>> Haymarket ... and back to Waverley.
>>
>> Abbeyhill/Meadowbank could well be a growth area in population terms
>> over the next few years, depending on how the Sports Centre situation
>> goes. Portobello could become a significant interchange with
>> potentially the North Berwick and Galashiels trains serving it in
>> addition to the sub. Kinnaird Park is about to undergo yet another
>> phase of expansion (bye bye Odeon, bowling hall and Frankie & Bennys
>> I gather). Cameron Toll could be a future interchange for the ERI/Bio
>> park once Tram Line Three is built (I may be being overly optimistic
>> there!). Morningside and Craiglockhart would both serve significant
>> local populations, as would Gorgie (together with football traffic!).

To be fair we'd need to open a station near Easter Road too.  Easily 
done!

>> I honestly believe there is huge potential in the south sub. Lothian
>> Buses will have an idea of the numbers of passengers who regularly
>> commute across town by bus (the slow and unreliable way). The south
>> sub will makes those journeys a lot easier and a lot quicker.
>>
>> It's certainly true that capacity at Waverley needs to be addressed
>> (the new platforms seeming to be very cosmetic). Unfortunately the
>> last administration shied away from the wholesale redevelopment of
>> Waverley which was desperately needed, and the current lot seem no
>> more eager to change that. If we're serious about expanding suburban
>> rail services in and around Edinburgh - and, for that matter,
>> boosting services to London and other cross-UK services - then
>> something needs to happen at Waverley for sure.
>>
>> I think the economics - and the demographics - are different now
>> compared to what they were in the 1950s. This should be much more
>> do-able now, IMHO.
> 
> sounds a lot better than I thought. How many of these are existing
> stations? 

None really (apart from the obvious).  Platforms exist in some places 
but they're probably no use for modern requirements.

"Mister Niceguy"  wrote in message 
news:Xns99D3E579613B0niceguyonzetnet@194.247.47.119...
> "Bryan"  wrote in
> news:naMTi.18437$Jc7.9552@newsfet07.ams:
>
>>
>> "Callum Johnstone"  wrote in message
>> news:jeLTi.87306$lV4.15358@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "Bryan"  wrote in message
>>> news:OTDTi.92838$o15.53885@newsfet05.ams...
>>>>
>>>> "Callum Johnstone"  wrote in
>>>> message news:5mqTi.426145$xp6.335934@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> I may be wrong but isn't one of the major problems having platform
>>>> space at stations like Waverly. I was under the impression that
>>>> Waverly was working close to full capacity and that it isn't easy to
>>>> squeeze more trains in, and quite a few would be needed for the
>>>> service to be meaningful! If the new trains coming in aren't as full
>>>> as other trains then it makes no sense to displace full trains for
>>>> half empty trains.
>>>>
>>>> Also when you compare a railway like the South-Sub to buses the
>>>> railway doesn't have that many pickup/drop-off points compared to
>>>> buses which stop every few hundred yards, in reality the railway has
>>>> very few stations and IMO will only appeal to people who live near a
>>>> station and work/shop near another station so although it might seem
>>>> comparatively cheap to open the appeal is surely limited which is
>>>> one reason why they were closed in the first place.
>>>
>>> Well, if they do it properly we could be looking at the following
>>> locations:
>>>
>>> Waverley, Abbeyhill, Piershill/Craigentinny, Portobello, Brunstane,
>>> Kinnaird Park, Bingham/Niddrie, Craigmillar, Cameron Toll,
>>> Newington/Mayfield, Blackford, Morningside, Craiglockhart, Gorgie,
>>> Haymarket ... and back to Waverley.
>>>
>>> Abbeyhill/Meadowbank could well be a growth area in population terms
>>> over the next few years, depending on how the Sports Centre situation
>>> goes. Portobello could become a significant interchange with
>>> potentially the North Berwick and Galashiels trains serving it in
>>> addition to the sub. Kinnaird Park is about to undergo yet another
>>> phase of expansion (bye bye Odeon, bowling hall and Frankie & Bennys
>>> I gather). Cameron Toll could be a future interchange for the ERI/Bio
>>> park once Tram Line Three is built (I may be being overly optimistic
>>> there!). Morningside and Craiglockhart would both serve significant
>>> local populations, as would Gorgie (together with football traffic!).
>
> To be fair we'd need to open a station near Easter Road too.  Easily
> done!
>

Abbeyhill isn't far...

>>> I honestly believe there is huge potential in the south sub. Lothian
>>> Buses will have an idea of the numbers of passengers who regularly
>>> commute across town by bus (the slow and unreliable way). The south
>>> sub will makes those journeys a lot easier and a lot quicker.
>>>
>>> It's certainly true that capacity at Waverley needs to be addressed
>>> (the new platforms seeming to be very cosmetic). Unfortunately the
>>> last administration shied away from the wholesale redevelopment of
>>> Waverley which was desperately needed, and the current lot seem no
>>> more eager to change that. If we're serious about expanding suburban
>>> rail services in and around Edinburgh - and, for that matter,
>>> boosting services to London and other cross-UK services - then
>>> something needs to happen at Waverley for sure.
>>>
>>> I think the economics - and the demographics - are different now
>>> compared to what they were in the 1950s. This should be much more
>>> do-able now, IMHO.
>>
>> sounds a lot better than I thought. How many of these are existing
>> stations?
>
> None really (apart from the obvious).  Platforms exist in some places
> but they're probably no use for modern requirements.

why not?

"Bryan"  wrote in news:jkQTi.145512
$ml1.12582@newsfet13.ams:

> 
> "Mister Niceguy"  wrote in message 
> news:Xns99D3E579613B0niceguyonzetnet@194.247.47.119...
>> "Bryan"  wrote in
>> news:naMTi.18437$Jc7.9552@newsfet07.ams:
>>
>>>
>>> "Callum Johnstone"  wrote in 
message
>>> news:jeLTi.87306$lV4.15358@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> "Bryan"  wrote in message
>>>> news:OTDTi.92838$o15.53885@newsfet05.ams...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Callum Johnstone"  wrote in
>>>>> message news:5mqTi.426145$xp6.335934@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>
>>>>> I may be wrong but isn't one of the major problems having platform
>>>>> space at stations like Waverly. I was under the impression that
>>>>> Waverly was working close to full capacity and that it isn't easy 
to
>>>>> squeeze more trains in, and quite a few would be needed for the
>>>>> service to be meaningful! If the new trains coming in aren't as 
full
>>>>> as other trains then it makes no sense to displace full trains for
>>>>> half empty trains.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also when you compare a railway like the South-Sub to buses the
>>>>> railway doesn't have that many pickup/drop-off points compared to
>>>>> buses which stop every few hundred yards, in reality the railway 
has
>>>>> very few stations and IMO will only appeal to people who live near 
a
>>>>> station and work/shop near another station so although it might 
seem
>>>>> comparatively cheap to open the appeal is surely limited which is
>>>>> one reason why they were closed in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> Well, if they do it properly we could be looking at the following
>>>> locations:
>>>>
>>>> Waverley, Abbeyhill, Piershill/Craigentinny, Portobello, Brunstane,
>>>> Kinnaird Park, Bingham/Niddrie, Craigmillar, Cameron Toll,
>>>> Newington/Mayfield, Blackford, Morningside, Craiglockhart, Gorgie,
>>>> Haymarket ... and back to Waverley.
>>>>
>>>> Abbeyhill/Meadowbank could well be a growth area in population 
terms
>>>> over the next few years, depending on how the Sports Centre 
situation
>>>> goes. Portobello could become a significant interchange with
>>>> potentially the North Berwick and Galashiels trains serving it in
>>>> addition to the sub. Kinnaird Park is about to undergo yet another
>>>> phase of expansion (bye bye Odeon, bowling hall and Frankie & 
Bennys
>>>> I gather). Cameron Toll could be a future interchange for the 
ERI/Bio
>>>> park once Tram Line Three is built (I may be being overly 
optimistic
>>>> there!). Morningside and Craiglockhart would both serve significant
>>>> local populations, as would Gorgie (together with football 
traffic!).
>>
>> To be fair we'd need to open a station near Easter Road too.  Easily
>> done!
>>
> 
> Abbeyhill isn't far...

No and there's a spur which runs closer still.

> 
>>>> I honestly believe there is huge potential in the south sub. 
Lothian
>>>> Buses will have an idea of the numbers of passengers who regularly
>>>> commute across town by bus (the slow and unreliable way). The south
>>>> sub will makes those journeys a lot easier and a lot quicker.
>>>>
>>>> It's certainly true that capacity at Waverley needs to be addressed
>>>> (the new platforms seeming to be very cosmetic). Unfortunately the
>>>> last administration shied away from the wholesale redevelopment of
>>>> Waverley which was desperately needed, and the current lot seem no
>>>> more eager to change that. If we're serious about expanding 
suburban
>>>> rail services in and around Edinburgh - and, for that matter,
>>>> boosting services to London and other cross-UK services - then
>>>> something needs to happen at Waverley for sure.
>>>>
>>>> I think the economics - and the demographics - are different now
>>>> compared to what they were in the 1950s. This should be much more
>>>> do-able now, IMHO.
>>>
>>> sounds a lot better than I thought. How many of these are existing
>>> stations?
>>
>> None really (apart from the obvious).  Platforms exist in some places
>> but they're probably no use for modern requirements.
> 
> why not? 

Health and safety?  Disabled access?  There will be a reason I'm sure.

"Mister Niceguy"  wrote in message 
news:Xns99D3E579613B0niceguyonzetnet@194.247.47.119...
> "Bryan"  wrote in
> news:naMTi.18437$Jc7.9552@newsfet07.ams:
>
>>
>> "Callum Johnstone"  wrote in message
>> news:jeLTi.87306$lV4.15358@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "Bryan"  wrote in message
>>> news:OTDTi.92838$o15.53885@newsfet05.ams...
>>>>
>>>> "Callum Johnstone"  wrote in
>>>> message news:5mqTi.426145$xp6.335934@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> I may be wrong but isn't one of the major problems having platform
>>>> space at stations like Waverly. I was under the impression that
>>>> Waverly was working close to full capacity and that it isn't easy to
>>>> squeeze more trains in, and quite a few would be needed for the
>>>> service to be meaningful! If the new trains coming in aren't as full
>>>> as other trains then it makes no sense to displace full trains for
>>>> half empty trains.
>>>>
>>>> Also when you compare a railway like the South-Sub to buses the
>>>> railway doesn't have that many pickup/drop-off points compared to
>>>> buses which stop every few hundred yards, in reality the railway has
>>>> very few stations and IMO will only appeal to people who live near a
>>>> station and work/shop near another station so although it might seem
>>>> comparatively cheap to open the appeal is surely limited which is
>>>> one reason why they were closed in the first place.
>>>
>>> Well, if they do it properly we could be looking at the following
>>> locations:
>>>
>>> Waverley, Abbeyhill, Piershill/Craigentinny, Portobello, Brunstane,
>>> Kinnaird Park, Bingham/Niddrie, Craigmillar, Cameron Toll,
>>> Newington/Mayfield, Blackford, Morningside, Craiglockhart, Gorgie,
>>> Haymarket ... and back to Waverley.
>>>
>>> Abbeyhill/Meadowbank could well be a growth area in population terms
>>> over the next few years, depending on how the Sports Centre situation
>>> goes. Portobello could become a significant interchange with
>>> potentially the North Berwick and Galashiels trains serving it in
>>> addition to the sub. Kinnaird Park is about to undergo yet another
>>> phase of expansion (bye bye Odeon, bowling hall and Frankie & Bennys
>>> I gather). Cameron Toll could be a future interchange for the ERI/Bio
>>> park once Tram Line Three is built (I may be being overly optimistic
>>> there!). Morningside and Craiglockhart would both serve significant
>>> local populations, as would Gorgie (together with football traffic!).
>
> To be fair we'd need to open a station near Easter Road too.  Easily
> done!

Or run a connecting tram link/people mover from Abbeyhill station up to 
Albion Road :-)
>
>>> I honestly believe there is huge potential in the south sub. Lothian
>>> Buses will have an idea of the numbers of passengers who regularly
>>> commute across town by bus (the slow and unreliable way). The south
>>> sub will makes those journeys a lot easier and a lot quicker.
>>>
>>> It's certainly true that capacity at Waverley needs to be addressed
>>> (the new platforms seeming to be very cosmetic). Unfortunately the
>>> last administration shied away from the wholesale redevelopment of
>>> Waverley which was desperately needed, and the current lot seem no
>>> more eager to change that. If we're serious about expanding suburban
>>> rail services in and around Edinburgh - and, for that matter,
>>> boosting services to London and other cross-UK services - then
>>> something needs to happen at Waverley for sure.
>>>
>>> I think the economics - and the demographics - are different now
>>> compared to what they were in the 1950s. This should be much more
>>> do-able now, IMHO.
>>
>> sounds a lot better than I thought. How many of these are existing
>> stations?
>
> None really (apart from the obvious).  Platforms exist in some places
> but they're probably no use for modern requirements.

Waverley and Haymarket (obviously!), plus Brunstane's there, but could 
probably use a second platform.

I go past the old station at Morningside every day on the bus, and wondered 
what they would do about the platform. It's still there, with overhanging 
branches blocking the way. But the old station building is now home to a 
hairdressers and a newsagents. Wonder if those two businesses would be 
bought up and the building reclaimed for the railways?

"Callum Johnstone"  wrote in
news:XupUi.101860$lV4.41363@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk: 

> 
> "Mister Niceguy"  wrote in message 
> news:Xns99D3E579613B0niceguyonzetnet@194.247.47.119...
>> "Bryan"  wrote in
>> news:naMTi.18437$Jc7.9552@newsfet07.ams:
>>
>>>
>>> "Callum Johnstone"  wrote in
>>> message news:jeLTi.87306$lV4.15358@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> "Bryan"  wrote in message
>>>> news:OTDTi.92838$o15.53885@newsfet05.ams...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Callum Johnstone"  wrote in
>>>>> message news:5mqTi.426145$xp6.335934@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>
>>>>> I may be wrong but isn't one of the major problems having platform
>>>>> space at stations like Waverly. I was under the impression that
>>>>> Waverly was working close to full capacity and that it isn't easy
>>>>> to squeeze more trains in, and quite a few would be needed for the
>>>>> service to be meaningful! If the new trains coming in aren't as
>>>>> full as other trains then it makes no sense to displace full
>>>>> trains for half empty trains.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also when you compare a railway like the South-Sub to buses the
>>>>> railway doesn't have that many pickup/drop-off points compared to
>>>>> buses which stop every few hundred yards, in reality the railway
>>>>> has very few stations and IMO will only appeal to people who live
>>>>> near a station and work/shop near another station so although it
>>>>> might seem comparatively cheap to open the appeal is surely
>>>>> limited which is one reason why they were closed in the first
>>>>> place. 
>>>>
>>>> Well, if they do it properly we could be looking at the following
>>>> locations:
>>>>
>>>> Waverley, Abbeyhill, Piershill/Craigentinny, Portobello, Brunstane,
>>>> Kinnaird Park, Bingham/Niddrie, Craigmillar, Cameron Toll,
>>>> Newington/Mayfield, Blackford, Morningside, Craiglockhart, Gorgie,
>>>> Haymarket ... and back to Waverley.
>>>>
>>>> Abbeyhill/Meadowbank could well be a growth area in population
>>>> terms over the next few years, depending on how the Sports Centre
>>>> situation goes. Portobello could become a significant interchange
>>>> with potentially the North Berwick and Galashiels trains serving it
>>>> in addition to the sub. Kinnaird Park is about to undergo yet
>>>> another phase of expansion (bye bye Odeon, bowling hall and Frankie
>>>> & Bennys I gather). Cameron Toll could be a future interchange for
>>>> the ERI/Bio park once Tram Line Three is built (I may be being
>>>> overly optimistic there!). Morningside and Craiglockhart would both
>>>> serve significant local populations, as would Gorgie (together with
>>>> football traffic!). 
>>
>> To be fair we'd need to open a station near Easter Road too.  Easily
>> done!
> 
> Or run a connecting tram link/people mover from Abbeyhill station up
> to Albion Road :-)
>>
>>>> I honestly believe there is huge potential in the south sub.
>>>> Lothian Buses will have an idea of the numbers of passengers who
>>>> regularly commute across town by bus (the slow and unreliable way).
>>>> The south sub will makes those journeys a lot easier and a lot
>>>> quicker. 
>>>>
>>>> It's certainly true that capacity at Waverley needs to be addressed
>>>> (the new platforms seeming to be very cosmetic). Unfortunately the
>>>> last administration shied away from the wholesale redevelopment of
>>>> Waverley which was desperately needed, and the current lot seem no
>>>> more eager to change that. If we're serious about expanding
>>>> suburban rail services in and around Edinburgh - and, for that
>>>> matter, boosting services to London and other cross-UK services -
>>>> then something needs to happen at Waverley for sure.
>>>>
>>>> I think the economics - and the demographics - are different now
>>>> compared to what they were in the 1950s. This should be much more
>>>> do-able now, IMHO.
>>>
>>> sounds a lot better than I thought. How many of these are existing
>>> stations?
>>
>> None really (apart from the obvious).  Platforms exist in some places
>> but they're probably no use for modern requirements.
> 
> Waverley and Haymarket (obviously!), plus Brunstane's there, but could
> probably use a second platform.

Yes, I forgot about Brunstane.

> 
> I go past the old station at Morningside every day on the bus, and
> wondered what they would do about the platform. It's still there, with
> overhanging branches blocking the way. But the old station building is
> now home to a hairdressers and a newsagents. Wonder if those two
> businesses would be bought up and the building reclaimed for the
> railways? 

Doubt it.  More like a ticket machine on the platform and no staff.

"Mister Niceguy"  wrote in message 
news:Xns99D5D98EEBE7Aniceguyonzetnet@194.247.47.119...
> "Callum Johnstone"  wrote in
> news:XupUi.101860$lV4.41363@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>
>>
>> "Mister Niceguy"  wrote in message
>> news:Xns99D3E579613B0niceguyonzetnet@194.247.47.119...
>>> "Bryan"  wrote in
>>> news:naMTi.18437$Jc7.9552@newsfet07.ams:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Callum Johnstone"  wrote in
>>>> message news:jeLTi.87306$lV4.15358@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bryan"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:OTDTi.92838$o15.53885@newsfet05.ams...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Callum Johnstone"  wrote in
>>>>>> message news:5mqTi.426145$xp6.335934@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I may be wrong but isn't one of the major problems having platform
>>>>>> space at stations like Waverly. I was under the impression that
>>>>>> Waverly was working close to full capacity and that it isn't easy
>>>>>> to squeeze more trains in, and quite a few would be needed for the
>>>>>> service to be meaningful! If the new trains coming in aren't as
>>>>>> full as other trains then it makes no sense to displace full
>>>>>> trains for half empty trains.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also when you compare a railway like the South-Sub to buses the
>>>>>> railway doesn't have that many pickup/drop-off points compared to
>>>>>> buses which stop every few hundred yards, in reality the railway
>>>>>> has very few stations and IMO will only appeal to people who live
>>>>>> near a station and work/shop near another station so although it
>>>>>> might seem comparatively cheap to open the appeal is surely
>>>>>> limited which is one reason why they were closed in the first
>>>>>> place.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, if they do it properly we could be looking at the following
>>>>> locations:
>>>>>
>>>>> Waverley, Abbeyhill, Piershill/Craigentinny, Portobello, Brunstane,
>>>>> Kinnaird Park, Bingham/Niddrie, Craigmillar, Cameron Toll,
>>>>> Newington/Mayfield, Blackford, Morningside, Craiglockhart, Gorgie,
>>>>> Haymarket ... and back to Waverley.
>>>>>
>>>>> Abbeyhill/Meadowbank could well be a growth area in population
>>>>> terms over the next few years, depending on how the Sports Centre
>>>>> situation goes. Portobello could become a significant interchange
>>>>> with potentially the North Berwick and Galashiels trains serving it
>>>>> in addition to the sub. Kinnaird Park is about to undergo yet
>>>>> another phase of expansion (bye bye Odeon, bowling hall and Frankie
>>>>> & Bennys I gather). Cameron Toll could be a future interchange for
>>>>> the ERI/Bio park once Tram Line Three is built (I may be being
>>>>> overly optimistic there!). Morningside and Craiglockhart would both
>>>>> serve significant local populations, as would Gorgie (together with
>>>>> football traffic!).
>>>
>>> To be fair we'd need to open a station near Easter Road too.  Easily
>>> done!
>>
>> Or run a connecting tram link/people mover from Abbeyhill station up
>> to Albion Road :-)
>>>
>>>>> I honestly believe there is huge potential in the south sub.
>>>>> Lothian Buses will have an idea of the numbers of passengers who
>>>>> regularly commute across town by bus (the slow and unreliable way).
>>>>> The south sub will makes those journeys a lot easier and a lot
>>>>> quicker.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's certainly true that capacity at Waverley needs to be addressed
>>>>> (the new platforms seeming to be very cosmetic). Unfortunately the
>>>>> last administration shied away from the wholesale redevelopment of
>>>>> Waverley which was desperately needed, and the current lot seem no
>>>>> more eager to change that. If we're serious about expanding
>>>>> suburban rail services in and around Edinburgh - and, for that
>>>>> matter, boosting services to London and other cross-UK services -
>>>>> then something needs to happen at Waverley for sure.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the economics - and the demographics - are different now
>>>>> compared to what they were in the 1950s. This should be much more
>>>>> do-able now, IMHO.
>>>>
>>>> sounds a lot better than I thought. How many of these are existing
>>>> stations?
>>>
>>> None really (apart from the obvious).  Platforms exist in some places
>>> but they're probably no use for modern requirements.
>>
>> Waverley and Haymarket (obviously!), plus Brunstane's there, but could
>> probably use a second platform.
>
> Yes, I forgot about Brunstane.
>
>>
>> I go past the old station at Morningside every day on the bus, and
>> wondered what they would do about the platform. It's still there, with
>> overhanging branches blocking the way. But the old station building is
>> now home to a hairdressers and a newsagents. Wonder if those two
>> businesses would be bought up and the building reclaimed for the
>> railways?
>
> Doubt it.  More like a ticket machine on the platform and no staff.

Yes. The days when even the smallest of stations had a full ticket office, 
and even staffing, are long gone.

In alt.uk.edinburgh.misc John Dundas <j.m.dundas(removethisnow)@btinternet.com> wrote:

> "Bryan"  wrote in message 
> news:p35Si.95154$Iq7.43541@newsfet10.ams...
>> FULL details of how the city centre's roads will fit around the new 
>> #498 million tram line are revealed today. In what will be one of 
>> the biggest shake-ups of Edinburgh's traffic in decades, several key 
>> routes in the city will be closed or re-routed to make way for the 
>> trams.
>>
>> http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1671082007
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Never, ever, argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their 
>> level and beat you with experience

> Well that's just buggered up everyone's Sat Nav units that's for sure. 

No, only those with maps, and only those with fixed maps which can't
be upgraded. Of course, many car drivers think that's the only kind of
Sat Nav you can get :-)

-- 
Chris Malcolm        cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk              DoD #205
IPAB,  Informatics,  JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

"Callum Johnstone"  wrote in message 
news:IhCUi.104340$lV4.31279@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Mister Niceguy"  wrote in message 
> news:Xns99D5D98EEBE7Aniceguyonzetnet@194.247.47.119...
>> "Callum Johnstone"  wrote in
>> news:XupUi.101860$lV4.41363@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>>
>>>
>>> "Mister Niceguy"  wrote in message
>>> news:Xns99D3E579613B0niceguyonzetnet@194.247.47.119...
>>>> "Bryan"  wrote in
>>>> news:naMTi.18437$Jc7.9552@newsfet07.ams:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Callum Johnstone"  wrote in
>>>>> message news:jeLTi.87306$lV4.15358@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Bryan"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:OTDTi.92838$o15.53885@newsfet05.ams...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Callum Johnstone"  wrote in
>>>>>>> message news:5mqTi.426145$xp6.335934@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I may be wrong but isn't one of the major problems having platform
>>>>>>> space at stations like Waverly. I was under the impression that
>>>>>>> Waverly was working close to full capacity and that it isn't easy
>>>>>>> to squeeze more trains in, and quite a few would be needed for the
>>>>>>> service to be meaningful! If the new trains coming in aren't as
>>>>>>> full as other trains then it makes no sense to displace full
>>>>>>> trains for half empty trains.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also when you compare a railway like the South-Sub to buses the
>>>>>>> railway doesn't have that many pickup/drop-off points compared to
>>>>>>> buses which stop every few hundred yards, in reality the railway
>>>>>>> has very few stations and IMO will only appeal to people who live
>>>>>>> near a station and work/shop near another station so although it
>>>>>>> might seem comparatively cheap to open the appeal is surely
>>>>>>> limited which is one reason why they were closed in the first
>>>>>>> place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, if they do it properly we could be looking at the following
>>>>>> locations:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Waverley, Abbeyhill, Piershill/Craigentinny, Portobello, Brunstane,
>>>>>> Kinnaird Park, Bingham/Niddrie, Craigmillar, Cameron Toll,
>>>>>> Newington/Mayfield, Blackford, Morningside, Craiglockhart, Gorgie,
>>>>>> Haymarket ... and back to Waverley.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Abbeyhill/Meadowbank could well be a growth area in population
>>>>>> terms over the next few years, depending on how the Sports Centre
>>>>>> situation goes. Portobello could become a significant interchange
>>>>>> with potentially the North Berwick and Galashiels trains serving it
>>>>>> in addition to the sub. Kinnaird Park is about to undergo yet
>>>>>> another phase of expansion (bye bye Odeon, bowling hall and Frankie
>>>>>> & Bennys I gather). Cameron Toll could be a future interchange for
>>>>>> the ERI/Bio park once Tram Line Three is built (I may be being
>>>>>> overly optimistic there!). Morningside and Craiglockhart would both
>>>>>> serve significant local populations, as would Gorgie (together with
>>>>>> football traffic!).
>>>>
>>>> To be fair we'd need to open a station near Easter Road too.  Easily
>>>> done!
>>>
>>> Or run a connecting tram link/people mover from Abbeyhill station up
>>> to Albion Road :-)
>>>>
>>>>>> I honestly believe there is huge potential in the south sub.
>>>>>> Lothian Buses will have an idea of the numbers of passengers who
>>>>>> regularly commute across town by bus (the slow and unreliable way).
>>>>>> The south sub will makes those journeys a lot easier and a lot
>>>>>> quicker.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's certainly true that capacity at Waverley needs to be addressed
>>>>>> (the new platforms seeming to be very cosmetic). Unfortunately the
>>>>>> last administration shied away from the wholesale redevelopment of
>>>>>> Waverley which was desperately needed, and the current lot seem no
>>>>>> more eager to change that. If we're serious about expanding
>>>>>> suburban rail services in and around Edinburgh - and, for that
>>>>>> matter, boosting services to London and other cross-UK services -
>>>>>> then something needs to happen at Waverley for sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the economics - and the demographics - are different now
>>>>>> compared to what they were in the 1950s. This should be much more
>>>>>> do-able now, IMHO.
>>>>>
>>>>> sounds a lot better than I thought. How many of these are existing
>>>>> stations?
>>>>
>>>> None really (apart from the obvious).  Platforms exist in some places
>>>> but they're probably no use for modern requirements.
>>>
>>> Waverley and Haymarket (obviously!), plus Brunstane's there, but could
>>> probably use a second platform.
>>
>> Yes, I forgot about Brunstane.
>>
>>>
>>> I go past the old station at Morningside every day on the bus, and
>>> wondered what they would do about the platform. It's still there, with
>>> overhanging branches blocking the way. But the old station building is
>>> now home to a hairdressers and a newsagents. Wonder if those two
>>> businesses would be bought up and the building reclaimed for the
>>> railways?
>>
>> Doubt it.  More like a ticket machine on the platform and no staff.
>
> Yes. The days when even the smallest of stations had a full ticket office, 
> and even staffing, are long gone.
>

have you never been on the Strathspey steam railway?  :-)

"Bryan"  wrote in message 
news:JhYUi.182396$ml1.96632@newsfet13.ams...
>
> "Callum Johnstone"  wrote in message 
> news:IhCUi.104340$lV4.31279@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> "Mister Niceguy"  wrote in message 
>> news:Xns99D5D98EEBE7Aniceguyonzetnet@194.247.47.119...
>>> "Callum Johnstone"  wrote in
>>> news:XupUi.101860$lV4.41363@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Mister Niceguy"  wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns99D3E579613B0niceguyonzetnet@194.247.47.119...
>>>>> "Bryan"  wrote in
>>>>> news:naMTi.18437$Jc7.9552@newsfet07.ams:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Callum Johnstone"  wrote in
>>>>>> message news:jeLTi.87306$lV4.15358@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Bryan"  wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:OTDTi.92838$o15.53885@newsfet05.ams...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Callum Johnstone"  wrote in
>>>>>>>> message news:5mqTi.426145$xp6.335934@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I may be wrong but isn't one of the major problems having platform
>>>>>>>> space at stations like Waverly. I was under the impression that
>>>>>>>> Waverly was working close to full capacity and that it isn't easy
>>>>>>>> to squeeze more trains in, and quite a few would be needed for the
>>>>>>>> service to be meaningful! If the new trains coming in aren't as
>>>>>>>> full as other trains then it makes no sense to displace full
>>>>>>>> trains for half empty trains.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also when you compare a railway like the South-Sub to buses the
>>>>>>>> railway doesn't have that many pickup/drop-off points compared to
>>>>>>>> buses which stop every few hundred yards, in reality the railway
>>>>>>>> has very few stations and IMO will only appeal to people who live
>>>>>>>> near a station and work/shop near another station so although it
>>>>>>>> might seem comparatively cheap to open the appeal is surely
>>>>>>>> limited which is one reason why they were closed in the first
>>>>>>>> place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, if they do it properly we could be looking at the following
>>>>>>> locations:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Waverley, Abbeyhill, Piershill/Craigentinny, Portobello, Brunstane,
>>>>>>> Kinnaird Park, Bingham/Niddrie, Craigmillar, Cameron Toll,
>>>>>>> Newington/Mayfield, Blackford, Morningside, Craiglockhart, Gorgie,
>>>>>>> Haymarket ... and back to Waverley.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Abbeyhill/Meadowbank could well be a growth area in population
>>>>>>> terms over the next few years, depending on how the Sports Centre
>>>>>>> situation goes. Portobello could become a significant inter