Possible plans for Edinburgh Waverley station?

[Zoidberg]

...

They're also so painfully slow that it's considerably quicker to just walk up the stairs.

Indeed they are and so it is. An historic icon spoiled.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Indeed they are and so it is. An historic icon spoiled.

Well said that Man!

 

[DarloRich]

Indeed they are and so it is. An historic icon spoiled.

although the Waverley Steps entrance makes accessing the station easier for many people! I have never had an issue with the escalators, they always seem to be working, if a little slow.

 

[cb a1]

Interesting to read the various perceptions of Waverley Steps. I would guess I use them about once a month.

1. Whilst escalators are slow [I tend to use the stairs], I would expect that those who find them most useful [people with mobility problems and baggage] would welcome that.

2. I've not noticed a frequency of failure any different to that of any other escalator I use.

3. I'm not going to say the refurbishment couldn't be even better, but the current set up is a welcome improvement on what they were like.

 

[Altnabreac]

Interesting to read the various perceptions of Waverley Steps. I would guess I use them about once a month.

1. Whilst escalators are slow [I tend to use the stairs], I would expect that those who find them most useful [people with mobility problems and baggage] would welcome that.

2. I've not noticed a frequency of failure any different to that of any other escalator I use.

3. I'm not going to say the refurbishment couldn't be even better, but the current set up is a welcome improvement on what they were like.

Agreed that the new steps are a huge improvement. The other thing no one has mentioned is the new roof.

Waverley Steps used to be a wet, miserable experience in all but the most clement weather. It is now a much more pleasant entrance to the city whether you use the lift, the (slow) escalators or walk up the steps.

For the people who prefer climbing the steps that option has not been removed so I can't see why anyone would object to them?

 

[John07]

The only thing wrong with Waverley as far as I am concerned is the Byzantine numbering of platforms. If there is any logic to the numbering system then it has escaped me.

 

[sheff1]

Agreed that the new steps are a huge improvement. The other thing no one has mentioned is the new roof.

Waverley Steps used to be a wet, miserable experience in all but the most clement weather. It is now a much more pleasant entrance to the city whether you use the lift, the (slow) escalators or walk up the steps.

For the people who prefer climbing the steps that option has not been removed so I can't see why anyone would object to them?

It would appear that they object to people, such as myself, who find it much more exhausting to walk up the steps than they would have done 30/40 years ago, now having an option to use escalators :cry:

I agree that the new roof is a vast improvement as well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only thing wrong with Waverley as far as I am concerned is the Byzantine numbering of platforms. If there is any logic to the numbering system then it has escaped me.

Yes, it's truly bizarre.

 

[Altnabreac]

Yes, it's truly bizarre.

Clockwise from North East (equivalent of 1 O'Clock).

How difficult is it to understand that?

 

[scotraildriver]

It is numbered in a circular fashion. Stand in the middle looking East and 1 is on your left followed by 2 -9 left to right. Turn round and look West and 10 to 20 are numbered left to right.

 

[najaB]

Yes, it's truly bizarre.

Look at it from above.

 

[oldman]

As long as you understand that 1/20, 2/19 and 7/11 are each two distinct platforms, there is no problem.

I guess you could do something like (from the Princes Street side) 1/2, 3/4, 5-8 east bays , 9-15 west bays, 16/17, 18, 19, 20, which would give the double platforms adjacent numbers and might be a bit better, but it would have involved a total renumbering when the alterations were made. As it was 11-19 stayed the same which reduced the confusion at the time.

 

[Zoidberg]

...

For the people who prefer climbing the steps that option has not been removed so I can't see why anyone would object to them?

It's the reduced width to which I object. It was bad enough before trying to get past slowcoaches who did their best to organise taking up the whole width while using the steps, leaving little space for others to get by. It's worse now.

Those to whom the steps were a challenge had the ramp up to Waverley Bridge. They still do and they have a lift. What need to reduce the width of the steps?

 

[sng7]

As other said it is numbered clockwise around the middle starting from the Waverley Steps entrance

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's the reduced width to which I object. It was bad enough before trying to get past slowcoaches who did their best to organise taking up the whole width while using the steps, leaving little space for others to get by. It's worse now.

Try "Excuse me, please"?

FWIW I like the escalators (I'm quite fit but have dodgy knees and climbing stairs is about the most annoying angle possible for these), though they need speeding up a bit. The concept is very Swiss.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Look at it from above.

OK, others have mentioned the logic - but it is poor logic when seen from the ground, where one would expect consecutive numbering starting from one end. The position of 8/9 is particularly bizarre, coupled with the East/West suffix that I don't think is used anywhere else in the UK - and it just so happens that those two platforms are the most likely to be used by visitors not familiar with the station as they get most IC services.

While I recognise that changing numbering is usually not an option due to it being marked on signalling panels etc, if I were starting from scratch using UK concepts I'd start at 1 at the Princes St end and use a/b to split the long ones. Only oddity I'd use to keep them together would be that the barriered platforms would be 3-6 and the terminal platforms facing the opposite way 7 and 8.

 

[Altnabreac]

Some further digging has found the actual planning applications submitted to Edinburgh City Council here a couple of weeks ago:
https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.go...s.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=NXADCLEWJ4E00

Looking at the platform layout document I think I can see what the next stage of expanding Waverley might be after the currently planned works.

If you demolish the southern ramp then it really opens out more space in the western side of the station.

If you then also got rid of the excess fares office and the retail units where WHSmith and Boots are you could bring platforms 13-17 right up to the bottom of the current ramps as is proposed with platform 12.

By realigning 14, 15 and 16 southwards into the space currently occupied by the southern ramp and losing the platform 16 mid road you should be able to fit an additional 2 bays into the west of the station between 16 and 17.

That would give you 8 west facing bays of at least 8 coach length, (plus the short platform 18) possibly even able to take 10 coaches. You could also if you preferred join platform 12 to platform 6 and platform 13 to platform 7 to create an extra 2 through platforms.

To make this work for passengers you would need to create a new mezzanine level spreading westwards from the current Market Street Footbridge with all the retail facilities and waiting area with lifts / escalators providing direct access down into the west facing bays on one side and the old ticket hall on the other.

It would move the whole centre of gravity up onto the mezzanine level which would become the focus of the station and give additional retail opportunities (which NR love in their major stations!).

Would need someone who has more technical knowledge than me to work out whether an increase from 5 to 8 usable, 8-10 coach west facing bays would actually create much more capacity or whether the track layout in the western throat would restrict the benefit from this?

 

[najaB]

The position of 8/9 is particularly bizarre, coupled with the East/West suffix that I don't think is used anywhere else in the UK - and it just so happens that those two platforms are the most likely to be used by visitors not familiar with the station as they get most IC services.

It's not that unusual - Aberdeen has 6N & 6S, Dundee has 1 and 1S, I'm sure there are others.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I am again no expert but Im told that extra Westen Bays wouldnt do a great deal for capacity. The huge boost will be the one thats being built i.e 2 extra East Facing bays and extentions to P12.

 

[Altnabreac]

I am again no expert but Im told that extra Westen Bays wouldnt do a great deal for capacity. The huge boost will be the one thats being built i.e 2 extra East Facing bays and extentions to P12.

I did wonder if that might be the case. I know Network Rail have a desire to work up a potential CP6 project to look at creating more west facing capacity for Waverley but I guess the question is whether the bottleneck is platform space, western throat track layout, Haymarket Station or the flat junctions west of Haymarket is the million dollar question. Maybe a combination of all 4 is required.

 

[najaB]

I did wonder if that might be the case. I know Network Rail have a desire to work up a potential CP6 project to look at creating more west facing capacity for Waverley but I guess the question is whether the bottleneck is platform space, western throat track layout, Haymarket Station or the flat junctions west of Haymarket is the million dollar question. Maybe a combination of all 4 is required.

My money is on platforms at Haymarket, with the junctions in close second. I base this on many experiences of being on trains that have to wait just outside Haymarket for a platform.

 

[scotsman]

My money is on platforms at Haymarket, with the junctions in close second. I base this on many experiences of being on trains that have to wait just outside Haymarket for a platform.

Do you have anything else other than this to base your prophecy on?

 

[NotATrainspott]

My money is on platforms at Haymarket, with the junctions in close second. I base this on many experiences of being on trains that have to wait just outside Haymarket for a platform.

What could they do there, though? The eastern end of the platforms is the tunnel portal, so it wouldn't be feasible to add more through platforms, and any extra terminating platforms like Platform 0 would result in conflicting movements which would result in less capacity increase overall.

The E&G and Fife lines are able to be sorted out well outside of Edinburgh with schemes like the Dalmeny Chord. The problematic route is to Shotts and the WCML, since it meets the E&G lines in a flat junction just at the western end of Haymarket station. If that route is going to become more important in future it may be worthwhile to consider deleting this junction and instead building a new chord so that it uses the junction with the South Suburban line instead. That is also currently a flat junction, but it is far enough away from the station and in a location which should make it feasible to put the westbound E&G line on a new flyover so that the junction would be grade-separated. Since the junction site is also the site of Haymarket depot, should the need arise there would be plenty of land in railway ownership for a more elaborate junction design to be created.

At Edinburgh Waverley itself it does seem that building a proper concourse level above the platforms at the level of the current footbridge is the only realistic option for the future. More passengers doesn't just mean a need for more and longer trains, it means more passengers milling around (especially when things go wrong) and they'll need space and enough retail to cope. There's going to be no way to deliver that when more and more of the space currently accessible to pedestrians is going to need to given over to train tracks.

 

[najaB]

Do you have anything else other than this to base your prophecy on?

I don't recall making a prophecy, simply stated my opinion based on my experience. I thought that was allowed, but must've missed the change of rules.

 

[sng7]

I can't see moving the WCML and Shotts junction to south suburban ever working really. To start with i am not convinced fitting a flyover would be feasible (I could be wrong) With the constraints of the railways and haymarket depot opposite the suburban entrance. also to get an acceptable linespeed and double track the current suburban junction you would probably have to modifie the existing formation which is both built around and over it goes west approach road with is pretty important in terms of traffic flow into and out of edinburgh. Then to create the chord between the South Suburban line and the Current Route you would not only have to deal with a large altitude change as the south suburan line goes under the current route but to build the chord would mean demolition of a large number of buildings and a large amount of rebuilding and raising to the A70/Slateford Road. All in all it would probably have so much negative publicity and would cost so much to cause a bad benefit to cost ratio it wouldn't happen bearing in mind works such as the dalmeny chord could provide capacity for these service on the southern 2 platform at haymarket by moving glasgow trains onto the fife lines.

 

[route:oxford]

My money is on platforms at Haymarket, with the junctions in close second. I base this on many experiences of being on trains that have to wait just outside Haymarket for a platform.

It is utterly hellish isn't it. Sitting staring at abandoned garages outside Haymarket whilst waiting for the path due to the timetable slack between Carlisle and Haymarket.

Usually knowing that if the service was able to enter Haymarket - there'd be the opportunity to catch an earlier connecting service.

The best option would be for a new twin-bore tunnel running beneath linking East Coast and West Coast lines beneath Waverley and Haymarket with two underground platforms at Haymarket and four at Waverley.

 

[47271]

Looking at the platform layout document I think I can see what the next stage of expanding Waverley might be after the currently planned works.

If you demolish the southern ramp then it really opens out more space in the western side of the station.

If you then also got rid of the excess fares office and the retail units where WHSmith and Boots are you could bring platforms 13-17 right up to the bottom of the current ramps as is proposed with platform 12.

By realigning 14, 15 and 16 southwards into the space currently occupied by the southern ramp and losing the platform 16 mid road you should be able to fit an additional 2 bays into the west of the station between 16 and 17.

That would give you 8 west facing bays of at least 8 coach length, (plus the short platform 18) possibly even able to take 10 coaches. You could also if you preferred join platform 12 to platform 6 and platform 13 to platform 7 to create an extra 2 through platforms.

To make this work for passengers you would need to create a new mezzanine level spreading westwards from the current Market Street Footbridge with all the retail facilities and waiting area with lifts / escalators providing direct access down into the west facing bays on one side and the old ticket hall on the other.

It would move the whole centre of gravity up onto the mezzanine level which would become the focus of the station and give additional retail opportunities (which NR love in their major stations!).

Would need someone who has more technical knowledge than me to work out whether an increase from 5 to 8 usable, 8-10 coach west facing bays would actually create much more capacity or whether the track layout in the western throat would restrict the benefit from this?

The mezzanine would work well on the site well below the level of most surrounding streets, could still be achieved within existing headroom of the new roof, and brings this thread full circle in that the OP unfavourably compared Waverley with the new and improved Haymarket.

As I recall Railtrack fancied a complete building over of the site in the late 1990s. If they'd been left to it no doubt all of the spaces where we now see potential for new platforms would've been irrevocably occupied by supports for an office block or shopping centre. That would've been depressing.

 

[najaB]

The best option would be for a new twin-bore tunnel running beneath linking East Coast and West Coast lines beneath Waverley and Haymarket with two underground platforms at Haymarket and four at Waverley.

I like the way you think, not sure if it's feasible* though. Where would you locate the tunnel portals?

*Where 'feasible' is a synonym for 'affordable'.

 

[47271]

I like the way you think, not sure if it's feasible* though. Where would you locate the tunnel portals?

*Where 'feasible' is a synonym for 'affordable'.

I believe that there's a long thin extensive railway shaped expanse of tarmac to the west of the city and leading towards Lothian Road from Dalry. There's a few office blocks in the way, but their summary demolition and the creation of a new station, let's call it 'Princes Street' would work I treat don't we think?

It certainly wouldn't be any less feasible!

 

[leightonbd]

I believe that there's a long thin extensive railway shaped expanse of tarmac to the west of the city and leading towards Lothian Road from Dalry. There's a few office blocks in the way, but their summary demolition and the creation of a new station, let's call it 'Princes Street' would work I treat don't we think?

It certainly wouldn't be any less feasible!

Kind of like this, with added tunnels? I'd support that!

 

[Zoidberg]

Kind of like this, with added tunnels? I'd support that!

Nice pic. Brings back memories.