Edinburgh tram fiasco gets even worse!

[rjhowie]

For a long time there has been a very acrimonius dispute between Edinburgh City Council via the tramway company it owns and the German builders. It has now become a total mess-up.

Originally it was to be 3 lines then due to spiralling costs and changes it was reduced to two. However in the last week the ruling Coalition in the City Chambers has been divided on the whole issue. One of the two parties in the Coalition has been against the tramway from the start. At the meeting the other two opposing parties against the ruling Coalition got together and trucuated the one remaining planned route to the point of nonsense. Now it seems they have decided that the single route from the Airport will not go into the city centre along Prncess Street and terminate at st andrew's Square. It will stop at Haymarket then people would have to get off an take a taxi or bus or train into the city centre!

The busines community has said this will never make a profit and should have been continued. It has become utterly stupid and Edinburgh has become a laughing stock. I am a tram fan but this is a ludicurous situation. You couldn't make this up. Thank goodneas it is Edinburgh - being a Glaswegian!

 

[Paulsw2]

I've heard about this fiasco and I fear it may prejudice the case against light rail/trams right across the UK. How can Edinburgh have got it so wrong?

Paul

 

[paulzmay]

Fortunately it's not the first UK scheme. Manchester, Croydon and Nottingham have all been resounding successes, with Birmingham and Sheffield being a little less successful (though far from useless). Birmingham's route may have in fact suffered from its edge of centre terminii - Edinburgh will be 100x worse in this respect - I hope that at least there will be an integrated through ticket so you can hop a train through to Princes Street. The problem they will have is that it will be hard to justify the extension into the centre if the line fails to attract patronage. Sheffield's system for many years suffered from direct cut-throat competition from buses - I suspect that that may now be less since Stagecoach took over.

Paul

 

[pfx]

The Edinburgh tram project was given the go ahead for political, not strategic reasons. It was misguided from the start, especially as Edinburgh has what is widely recognised as one of the best bus services in Europe. I lived there for 10 years and found my car was redundant as it was so easy to get around by bus.

The idea of running a tram from the airport to Haymarket will save 1 minute on the current equivalent bus journey on which you can continue on, right to the city centre.

Unfortunately, as with most of these 'politically' managed projects, it's unlikely any heads will roll for this fiasco.

 

[RossC]

If Edinburgh's trams do finally get used in anger lets hope they are better than metrolink, seeing as their trams are two coaches(sometimes 4 on the T68 units but never 4 on the new M5000 units) which causes lots of over crowding, yesterday I took the train to bolton and bus home instead of using the metrolink due to their being so many people and so little trams.

 

[masontaylor]

Every decision taken seems to make even less sense. There's certainly a need for a rail link of some kind to Edinburgh Airport, but the tram scarcely answers it.

Since the ECML Aberdeen extension abuts the eastern end of the runway, the option of creating a new station on an existing line within a mile and a half of the the terminal and creating a shuttle bus or light rail link to complete the journey would not only have been massively cheaper, but also considerably more practical, making it possible for anyone coming by rail from almost anywhere in eastern Scotland or the North East of England to make a direct connection.

Until the inception of the Stagecoach bus service from Inverkeithing (just up the line from the Fife end of the Forth Bridge) rail passengers from the north had the frustrating prospect of passing the airport in the knowledge that it would be at least another forty minutes before they actually reached it, having to continue on to one of the two Edinburgh city stations then change to a bus before making the journey back out again.

As it is, many arriving at a train terminating at Waverley will still have to change for Haymarket if they want a tram to the airport. Presumably those trams will at least be useful for the expected hordes visiting the zoo once the pandas arrive from China, but they'll still have to get to Haymarket first: the recently revived area of Leith and the city centre, where most of the visitors congregate, are now to be left out of the tram system completely (even after years of disruption in the centre in preparation for the tracks it will now never receive). It has been cogently argued that abandoning the airport as the western terminus and shifting the whole system to the east (e.g. Zoo - Murrayfield - Haymarket - Centre - Leith) would serve the city's needs rather better.

Doesn't really bode well for the replacement Forth Road Bridge, does it?

 

[wholbr]

Hi Everybody.
Just reading this thread while having a cup of coffee and it only confirms my belief that local authorities or central government should not be involved in projects like these.

Obviously with the Edinburgh project the local authority would have to be involved with the planning applications and any road closures required etc but it should end there.

Any private company looking at such a huge project would have only two criteria for consideration. The first would be the amount of capital needed to complete the project and the borrowing cost. The second consideration would be whether they would be able to obtain a reasonable return on that investment. The project would then stand or fall by the above considerations before the first rail was laid.

Speaking for myself I would like to see the return of the "trolley buses" if anybody can remember them. I used to see and ride on them when on holiday in Portsmouth and southsea as a kid. Being electrically driven they were clean, quiet and comfortable with the great benefit of running on ordinary roads. These days extended bus lanes would be ideal for them.

Just a thought
Bill
(Now back to work)

 

[pfx]

Bill, if you want to ride trolley buses, get yourself off to Wellington, NZ. They were still running there when I last visited in 2001.

As for Embra trams, if they don't change the route terminus (there's an emergency meeting being held this week since Alex 'chip pan' Salmond announced the Executive may withdraw a couple of quid funding) there's no point in having anything.

 

[wholbr]

Hi pfx And Everybody.
I would love to once again ride on a trolley bus and re-live my childhood years. The problem is for me is I would have to get on one of those newfangled aeroplanes that defy gravity to get to New Zealand and I have always believed that it is not natural to travel in such a manner

Seriously though, I am the world's worst traveler who only feels comfortable either driving my own car or traveling on Britain's railways. Travel sickness has always been the bane of my life and I am the only person forum members will ever know who was seasick on the Isle of wight ferry. A total crossing time of 20 minutes (it was a very rough night though).

As regards to trolley buses I do genuinely believe that they could be the answer to mass public transport in our cities being the genuinely affordable, clean and reliable answer to the overpriced tram solutions at present on offer.

as I am one of the very few who seem to remember the old trolley buses I think I will get a few sketches up together on what they look like and start touting them around local councils. Who knows I may yet finish up as the public transport guru held in the same stature in years to come as Bill Gates

I could start by asking Edinburgh Council to give me half the savings they make on scrapping the tram system in favour of my trolley bus system. Now that would be nice

Bill
AAAAH, the spirit of free enterprise

 

[pfx]

I see no reason why a trolley bus wouldn't work in place of the tram, in Edinburgh at least. It would surely be a case of adding catenary and not having to waste any more money on track. That said, I'm not sure that the loading gauges would be very similar though as from my experience, trams are much more narrow than a trolley bus.

It's a good idea though.

 

[johnwhelan]

About 60% of the cost of operating a bus is the bus driver. So light rail / tram when one driver is spread over more passengers usually is cheaper than buses or trolley buses but it depends on the load factor.

Cheerio John

 

[Paulsw2]

Just reading this thread while having a cup of coffee and it only confirms my belief that local authorities or central government should not be involved in projects like these.

Well the private sector made such a grand job of upgrading the West Coast Mainline didn't they?!

As Paulzmay noted above, most of the local authority tram/light rail schemes have been a success and have built on the revitalisation of local rail in England's metropolitan areas led by the local authority Passenger Transport Authorities/Executives in the 70s, 80s and 90s.

Paul (in a municipal frame of mind)

 

[wholbr]

Hi Everybody

About 60% of the cost of operating a bus is the bus driver. So light rail / tram when one driver is spread over more passengers usually is cheaper than buses or trolley buses but it depends on the load factor.

Cheerio John

Actually driver cost throughout the transport industry in Great Britain both passenger and freight is less than 30% of total running costs.

However, it is not the running costs that are the major factor here. It is the construction costs of tramway systems which is the biggest problem in bringing them about. County councils and local government both put large amounts of public money into the maintenance of the road network system in the UK. However, to increase that amount by building tramway systems on already constructed roads makes that a non-starter as far as most sensible councils and central government is concerned in the present financial climate.

Well the private sector made such a grand job of upgrading the West Coast Mainline didn't they?!

As Paulzmay noted above, most of the local authority tram/light rail schemes have been a success and have built on the revitalisation of local rail in England's metropolitan areas led by the local authority Passenger Transport Authorities/Executives in the 70s, 80s and 90s.

Paul (in a municipal frame of mind)

What ever the problems with the upgrading of the West Coast mainline by the private sector it did at least get constructed and finished. That is more than can be said of the Edinburgh and Bristol tramway systems under the complete direction and cock up on the local councils involved. In the case of the Bristol system, millions of pounds have been spent of public money without one rail being placed on the ground. The system has now been abandoned with the only people benefiting where the hundreds of private consultants brought in to “advise” on the planning and construction.

Another great tribute to quality and knowledge of our servants in the public sector

Bill
jobs for the boys

 

[johnwhelan]

Originally Posted by johnwhelan
About 60% of the cost of operating a bus is the bus driver. So light rail / tram when one driver is spread over more passengers usually is cheaper than buses or trolley buses but it depends on the load factor.

Cheerio John

Hi Everybody

Actually driver cost throughout the transport industry in Great Britain both passenger and freight is less than 30% of total running costs.

However, it is not the running costs that are the major factor here. It is the construction costs of tramway systems which is the biggest problem in bringing them about. County councils and local government both put large amounts of public money into the maintenance of the road network system in the UK. However, to increase that amount by building tramway systems on already constructed roads makes that a non-starter as far as most sensible councils and central government is concerned in the present financial climate.



What ever the problems with the upgrading of the West Coast mainline by the private sector it did at least get constructed and finished. That is more than can be said of the Edinburgh and Bristol tramway systems under the complete direction and cock up on the local councils involved. In the case of the Bristol system, millions of pounds have been spent of public money without one rail being placed on the ground. The system has now been abandoned with the only people benefiting where the hundreds of private consultants brought in to “advise” on the planning and construction.

Another great tribute to quality and knowledge of our servants in the public sector

Bill
jobs for the boys

Actually for our local bus service the driver cost was running about 70% of total running costs but they do use a lot of single deckers. The main argument for going light rail here is lower running costs than buses.

I've worked both public sector and for a consulting firm. I've seen projects that every one concerned knew wouldn't work but the consultants were being paid $x a day whilst the project proceeded so they weren't going to say anything, management was due to retire before the project was finished and wanted a quiet life, we just hoped that the opposition would get in and kill the project on political grounds then we could get on with life.

Cheerio John

 

[rjhowie]

Well the fiasco is taking yet another twist.

On Friday the Lord Provost has called a special whole Council meeting for Friday night so there may be yet another change of mind. According to Newsnight Scotland this evening when 2 councillors from the two opposition parties they were only now getting a meeting of everyone. They claimed that the two parties in the Coaltion in Edinburgh were keeping them at a distance hence them voting for the reduced route to save money.

Now the Scottish Government Finance Secretary who was on tv is more or less saying that the £500,000,000 grant will be stopped unless they take the line into the city centre and St Andrew's Square. You are being a wee bit tight suggesting a minute there pfx. There is no way the route will make any profit stopping short of the city centre at Haymarket even if it only several minutes away. People won't be bothered using it if they have to change. Even if it does get the go-ahead into Princes Street (and St Andrew's Square) where track is down it is still a pale shadow of what was originally planned. It was meant to go right across the city from west to East with a circular route in Leith.

What is an extra puzzle is the incompetence. Why did the present Scottish Government administration take Transport Scotland out of the management executive? That left people who obviously were out of their depth. Add to that are constant changes of estimate figures by Council staff and Councillors don't know who to believe or what to work on. Then the governing party in the Scottish Parliament is on a different argument from the stance of their own Councillors in the ruling City Council Coalition!

Over here in the Wst we have the "Glasgow Kiss" but in Edinburgh they just have traditional head-bangers who only cause an echo......

ps. will let you all know what happens on Friday!

 

[paulzmay]

As a matter of interest, UK light rail systems tend to cost at least twice as much to build than continental European ones. Much of this is because of the insistence that all utilities are moved from beneath the right of way, to save on disruption later. Much of the cost overrun in Edinburgh's case was due to this work blowing out. The utilities also get a substantial bonus from this, as they get old infrastructure replaced with new, largely at the tramways cost - in fact IIRC the last government actually reduced the share of costs that the utilities have to pay for these works.

Apparently, such work is not generally done in continental Europe, with access to underground utilities being provided with more provision for single-line running by use of more facing cross-overs. It seems that government in the UK is waking up to the fact that a combination of these measures, and perhaps the aplication of LR55 track technology (http://www.lr55.com/) could see light rail construction costs tumble.

I'm certainly not against the use of trolleybusses - I suspect that for many routes that will have little or no reserved trackage, and moderate passenger numbers they are a worthwhile option. The double wire overhead makes for some complications, though developments in battery technology now allow for some sections (city centres, complex junctions, temporary diversions) to be off-the-wire. I still think that trams are a better way forward for heavilly used routes - longer vehicles - lower energy costs - more attractive to many passengers.

And there really is no absolute reason why either private sector or public sector should be worse. The private sector is full of massive cock-ups - the only difference is that the big ones see companies go to the wall. Private sector projects can often be more expensive, as companies always need to include some contingency against risk when quoting, and obviously a profit margin. A fully publicly run project will cost what it costs, but obviously the taxpayer will pick up the tab for over-runs. Of course, the PPP for the tube shows that private contractors aren't above trying to come back for more money when they screw up. The greatest issue in using private companies is that often they make a big profit when the project goes right, but get bailed out when it goes wrong.

Paul

 

[schweitzerdude]

To wholbr re "does anyone remember trolleybuses?"

Yes I remember trolleybuses. And they are still used in several cities in the USA, which would be closer to the UK than you having to fly to New Zealand. (of course you would still have to fly in either case).

In Chicago, USA (where I grew up) there were several trolleybus lines, alas all gone now.

In the USA, Seattle and San Francisco are two examples. Trolleybuses are very useful in hilly cities, which applies to both Seattle and San Francisco. Chicago, being very flat, the advantage wasn't there and they are no more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus

For those who are interested, if you read the above link, you will see that trolleybuses are by no means a "relic of the past". There are hybrids which can go to battery power for short distances, and others that can switch from electric to diesel as required. They do seem to be extinct in the UK now, with (according to wikipedia) plans to introduce to Leeds.

 

[wholbr]

Hi Everybody.

Snip~ there really is no absolute reason why either private sector or public sector should be worse. The private sector is full of massive cock-ups - the only difference is that the big ones see companies go to the wall. ~Snip Paul

You are absolutely right there Paul in saying that there is no reason why private sector decision-making should be any better or worse than the public sector. Where I would disagree with you is that the vast majority of the British people myself included clearly see that the ongoing track record of the public sector continuously demonstrates that it is far worse in terms of failure when it comes to large projects than the private sector. You only look have no further than British defence procurement to realize the abject poverty of their all too often decision making.

I believe that the foregoing is down to the lack of accountability when things go wrong. In the private sector people are held to account and heads do roll when decisions made do not hold the return expected. As someone involved in workplace health and safety incident/accident investigation reports, I all too often see employees being disciplined and even dismissed for mistakes and decisions they have made. It is one of the most unpleasant aspects of my occupation. However, it does have the effect on other employees of the companies involved of demonstrating the penalties of failure.

The problem is in the public sector the above does not seem to happen. Have we seen anybody involved in the Edinburgh or Bristol Tramway debacles dismissed or even reprimanded for their wrong decisions, No we have not. The same could be demonstrated for many other public financed projects in the UK where the lamentable decision making has cost the taxpayer millions of pounds and yet no one is ever personally held to account for the failure.

The foregoing only leads to further inefficiency by those involved or employed in the public sector as it leads to an ever growing belief that there are no consequences to their actions. At least with the private sector the public do see companies go under when things go wrong or the employees being responsible losing their jobs.

The above is why I believe that large-scale projects such as the building of the Edinburgh tramway system should be looked at on a purely commercial basis and if viable then constructed using private company funds by which the builders and owners stand and fall.

Bill

 

[rjhowie]

Regarding the moving of utilities in Britain re tramways and the Edinburgh fiasco. Considering this was dealt with in Sheffield, Birmingham, Nottingham, south London and therefor an accepted feature in GB I don't think that can be too different for Edinburgh? Even one of the two parties in the Edinburgh Coalition has a different stance from it's party in government down the road at Holywood (!).

As for management there were those who jumped ship as the mess got deeper and the Council's own staff kept revising figures adding to confusion and to be fair not very helpful to the councillors. But why they equally ignored the Continental company that was much involved in the Machester tram system? They say they can do the job cheaper. But again the Council could get penalty charges from the present builders. Each day there is nothing done is adding big money. From the original plan of a reasonable system down to a shadow of that is a disgrace. Te majority can be blamed on Edinburgh but the Scottish Government as I pointed out were not exactly helpful withdrawing Transport Scotland from the organising executive. I suspect that politics would be involved as the adminsitration at Holyrood didn't want the tramway but inhereited the dishing out of money due to the previous parliament regime deciding to support Edinburgh.

That this Friday will se the 4 political parties meet together for the first time in the is saga is unbeliveable!

 

[johnwhelan]

There is one difference between the public sector and private companies that was illustrated by a new computerised system recently. A private company hit problems putting it in and went bankrupt about two months later. The public sector doesn't have the luxury of going bankrupt.

Also on the defense spending remember the time frames and complexity. If the project is large then the requirements will change over time and that's what the defense industry depends on. The IE bombs for example have changed the requirements for many vehicles. The defense industry quotes a low even loss making price at the start of the contract in order to get approval. Once the contract is in place and the changes come in there is very little room for negotiation. The American Air tanker is a classic, its been something like 20 years getting the contract in place.

I was involved with one contract once that was for three years and took two years to let because of the rules etc. It was for computers and it was only when I greeted the salesman with one of his competitors products on my desk and pointed out that it was now just possible to buy them one at a time at a cheaper price than he was holding us to that his price came down.

Cheerio John