I am bizarrely tempted to keep it on to see how cringeworthy the suggestions are. A bit like the reason why anyone scrolls through their linkedin feed.

Top tip:

It seems quite reasonable to insist on a few million for 50 metres of embankment and a bridge to maintain 3m width, when the alternative (Orchard Brae) is a route that is much, much, much worse for operation of the trams and £320M more expensive

The original plans ("tramline 1b") had the entire Roseburn section as double track, apart from under one bridge. @robbieainsworth.bsky.social seems to have saved the drawings.
The single track has removed pinch points under bridges. The two problematic (<3m) sections have engineering solutions (££)

#Tram-#Roseburn

From trams team

Hope it clarifies position now + possibilities

@edi.bike @edtiss.bsky.social @wingpig.bsky.social @robbieainsworth.bsky.social @edinreporter.bsky.social @edfoc.bsky.social @unseriously.bsky.social @harryjwilliams.bsky.social @sw20.info @stephenjenkinson.bsky.social

Yes, the way they have presented the documents is *very* frustrating. The most contentious bit is the Roseburn Path, the alternative route via Orchard Brae is £330m more expensive (almost double), and many people just want to know if the path will remain. I think yes, but why make us guess?

On a different document in the consultation package they are proposing a path that is 3m wide across Roseburn Terrace Bridge.

www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/fi...

Here's what I get for the same 1966-2024 historical period, using 12-h motions from the best tracks. Erin's estimated 20-kt speed earlier today would rank 12th.

Helicopter view published by Pomona Media (🔗 below) shows the lake building up by the end of the day. 5 m3/s is a lot of water.
youtu.be/R0YlCNDW2l4?...

Hi Roeland, I think you were already in there? But you are definitely in the pack now.