Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Study on tram link launched

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

Published Date: 29 February 2008
A STUDY has been launched to find the best site for a tram-train interchange for Edinburgh Airport.
The new station at Gogar on the Edinburgh-Fife rail line may be built immediately north of the A8, where the airport tramline will run closest to the railway. However, other options include the planned tram stop at the Gyle shopping centre.

The interchange, to open with the launch of trams in early 2011, would replace the airport rail link scrapped by the Scottish Government.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 28 February 2008 9:42 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 29/02/2008 00:35:40
Trams: see bad trains in disguise.
2

truthsleuth,

A Motorist 29/02/2008 00:49:47
Far better trams than the fumes noise congestion accidents and CO2 produced by the curse of the modern world.
And I don't mean the car I mean the abuse of the car by the petrol head fraternity
3

Pilrig.,

Livingston 29/02/2008 06:39:05
2 - Us peasants living outwith Embra city centre should learn to give up the car I suppose. Anyway looking forward to seeing the No 22 on rails as opposed to wheels after all that money's been spent on it's conversion.
4

Douglas,

Bathgate 29/02/2008 08:41:11
Not a bad hike from The Gyle to the airport with a couple of suitcases. I don't suppose the "planners" could get a little bit closer to the advertised destination. Or is it going to be EasyTram?
5

jdships,

29/02/2008 09:15:52
Who are these people ?
Should this not have been settled before we were even committed to the whole fiasco !

6

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 29/02/2008 09:52:46
#5:

I was just about to say the same myself.
7

Dileas,

29/02/2008 10:02:21
Truthsleuth (2) - I really do appreciate reasoned argument rather than sheer kneejerk bigotry!

On the other hand, his comment adds nothing to the discussion - it's just that he can't resist airing his prejudices about "abuse of the car by the petrol head fraternity". Although he is "a motorist" rather than just someone who uses a car to get about, just like all of us who live outside Edinburgh proper, his car obviously isn't responsible for "the fumes noise congestion accidents and CO2 produced by the curse of the modern world", is it? It's those "petrolheads" whatever they are. I expect that it's just other drivers, or perhaps any dirver who has overtaken him on some occasion.

"Truthsleuth" - don't make me laugh! He doesn't even take the trouble to establish that there are no noxious emissions from petrol engines since catalysers became mandatory on cars in 1995, that much of today's road congestion is caused by the political dogma determined to "create modal change" by squeezing cars off the road and that Britain's roads remain among the safest in Europe, despite it being a more densely populated country than most others. But then perhaps these facts would just get in the way of his prejudice.

I really do loathe both bigots and hypocrites!
8

Dileas,

29/02/2008 10:09:22
Scallywag (7) - yes, I agree! Pity the original plan was both incredibly expensive and would require a tunnel to be bored under the airport's main commercial runway which is very active.

If we disregard both cost and construction hazard, it was a beautiful plan and would have been truly Utopian!

And we could have parked our cars at the airport to go to catch a train - in itself a big step forward.

What we really need is a benefactor to donate the cost - there are so many other demands on limited public money!
9

Irn-Bruce,

Edinburgh 29/02/2008 11:24:52
Have a look at:

http://www.eisl.org.uk/

for a proposed alternative to the original EARL.

I would appear to be a better proposal (as it would allow the new Glasgow -> Airdie -> Bathgate -> Edinburgh line to interchange as well), at a fraction of the cost of the original EARL.

Why aren't the Scottish Government giving this idea serious consideration?
10

Phyl,

29/02/2008 11:58:41
#8 'No noxious emissions from petrol engines since catalysers became mandatory on cars in 1995'

Really??? Praise be, the problem of climate change has been solved for eight years and nobody told us! Clearly all cars now drive around producing nothing but nice clean fresh air from the back end?

I really hope your post was intended as a spoof of the usual idiots that come on here quoting some supposed scientific 'proof' that actually all this hype is wrong, cars don't pollute at all really, it's just an eco-facist conspiracy to make us all take up sandal wearing, right?

In the very same post in which you accuse someone of not establishing facts you then include within yours the most blatant lie/mistruth/idiot misunderstanding that I have seen on here for a while (and lets face it, there is some stiff competition).

Catalysers do reduce (note: REDUCE - entirely remove) the levels of SOME harmful emissions. However they leave plenty of bad stuff to come out into the atmosphere, and making a catalyser takes a lot of energy and lots of heavy metals - which then are a pollution problem themselves when the car gets scrapped.
11

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 29/02/2008 12:19:39
Phyl,

Before you start pontificating, please read a few books on automotive engineering. Dileas is largely correct. Modern vehicles with 3-way catalytic converters produce very little out of their exhausts other than water and CO2. Also there is a very short warm-up time. You may also wish to speak to an MoT tester, who will tell you that it is far harder to get a pass reading on exhaust emissions from a small-engined car than it is for a large-engined car such as a Jag, BMW or Merc. Small cars are built to small budgets, therefore whilst a V8 Jag will have four catalytic converters, a 1000cc eurobox will have only one. You can therefore argue that small engined cars produce more noxious gases than large engined ones.

If you had ever worked in the garage trade, you would also realize that you are not permitted to simply dispose of catalytic converters as you would the rest of the exhaust system. They need to be bagged and sent away for re-cycling. They are not a polution problem.

Finally, your comments about noxious gasses causing "climate change" or whatever, are just completely wrong. Ask any of your eco-warrior buddies that you think are so clever and they will tell you that any climate change is down largely to CO2.
12

Miss Jean Brodie,

29/02/2008 12:43:08
Easy! - Existing Crosswinds Second Runway - Edinburgh to South Queensferry rail line - Turnhouse road all a few metres apart . . . slap a monorail around the airport perimetre . . . Doh! Sheesh! . . . Job done - thousands saved !

Launch Google maps - type in this . . . Turnhouse road edinburgh EH12 and figure it out for yerself - course if yer over the age of eighteen you may have a problem working that new fangled interweb though.
13

Phyl,

29/02/2008 12:46:10
I was making the point that what comes out of a car exhaust is still damaging, even after being through a converter. #8 seemed to be suggesting that car pollution is non-existant thanks to the megic-bullet of catalytic converters and that we should all drive around guilt free as a result. He neglected to mention the CO2, which OK you might not choose to classify as 'noxious' but that's kind of a semantic argument really. You wouldn't want to breathe it, would you.

My point about the construction of converters was similar - while not saying there aren't measures to reduce the impact, and that they don't help, they are still not a 'magic bullet' - they have an impact too. Recycling is very rarely 100% efficient of materials and cannot possibly be 100% efficient in energy use. Far better to reduce the useage in the first place, heretical though that may seem to someone who adopts a moniker such as yours!

Oh and lets not try to argue that big engined monsters are more environmentally friendly than small cars, eh?
14

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 29/02/2008 14:04:57
#15:

"Oh and lets not try to argue that big engined monsters are more environmentally friendly than small cars, eh?"

Yeah OK.

And lets not argue the reverse either eh?
15

Andrew,

CUMBERNAULD 29/02/2008 17:57:40
10) re < www.eisl.org.com >

EXCELLENT ALTERNATIVE 'EARL' OPTION!!
16

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 29/02/2008 18:44:08
#18 Concrete

Is that you being sensible again?

Why is there so much fatuous bumf about car emissions on this thread - all of which has nothing to do with trams...
17

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 29/02/2008 18:44:45
Who is 'Earl'?
18

Deag,

Edinburgh 29/02/2008 22:26:18
#18 You cannot be serious.

This is all about people getting off the trains and getting on the trams so that it can take them to the airport.
19

,

01/03/2008 01:40:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
20

Deag,

Edinburgh 01/03/2008 08:24:12
#23 The whole article is about building an interchange with the main line so that people do not need to travel to Waverley to get a bus. They can get off sooner, and make a short trip to the airport.
21

The Ghost of Sir William Arrol,

The Forthy Bridge 01/03/2008 15:45:00
1) EARL was a dreadful and extremely expensive (£1bn) piece of railway design and considering it would only have been used for a maximum of 20 years, the point at which fuel starvation kills off the airport, it is best forgotten.

2) The EISL is also a bad scheme. Poor business case and poor design. The passengers teeth would be well and truly on edge as trains squealed around tight radius curves and steep gradients at 10mph while adding untold delays to existing services. The sharply curved tracks would wear out in as little as two years and it would be a nightmare for Network rail to maintain.

3) The connecting tram service from Park, Gogar, or Gyle will actually provide a better timetable than EISL or EARL at a fraction of the capital cost. When the airport closes, the relatively modest cost of the tram connection to the railway, a 20th of the cost of EARL, isn't such a huge capital investment to write off!

PEAK oil production (circa now) will mean that in 20 years time there will be only 50% of today’s oil supply. It is unlikely that flying will be affordable then, if it costs 20 to 50 times more than at present, with costs increasing year by year.

Thankfully the EARL money is being spent on electrification and upgrading the railways: a much better strategic use of the public money.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

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

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