Possible plans for Edinburgh Waverley station?

[NotATrainspott]

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.

My suggestion is for what could happen after the Dalmeny Chord is built, when there won't be any 'quick wins' left to add capacity cheaply and easily.

 

[John07]

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

If it's such a good idea, how come other stations do not use that system?

Or do they?

 

[HowardGWR]

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

"Auld Reekie" indeed!

 

[najaB]

If it's such a good idea, how come other stations do not use that system?

Edinburgh Waverley is a bit unique in that it is really two terminal stations end-on-end with a few through roads for good measure. With the current numbering scheme the low numbered platforms are East facing and the higher numbers are West facing.

 

[30907]

If it's such a good idea, how come other stations do not use that system?

Or do they?

I can't think of any other UK station like it - basically a massive island with a high proporion of bays (the central island with bays both ends is a typical Prussian design but on a much smaller scale).

 

[Altnabreac]

Edinburgh Waverley is a bit unique in that it is really two terminal stations end-on-end with a few through roads for good measure. With the current numbering scheme the low numbered platforms are East facing and the higher numbers are West facing.

I think this is an important part of the numbering scheme especially for the through platforms with 2 numbers.

It's very useful to know whether you need to be heading for the east or west half of the station. If say 2 and 19 were renumbered as 2A and 2B I think this would become more difficult.

If I was renumbering from scratch I would keep the distinction between east and west but maybe add a third distinction for the southern platforms that you need to access via the bridge. I'd also want the long through platforms to have more logic than they do now.

So I would keep 1-4 as they are now.

We do some renumbering of the eastern platforms so they line up with the western ones:
5 becomes 8
6 becomes 9
7 becomes 10

Then all the western platforms are renumbered:
20 becomes 11
19 becomes 12
18 becomes 13
17 becomes 14
16 becomes 15
15 becomes 16
14 becomes 17
13 becomes 18
12 becomes 19
11 becomes 20

Then the southern platforms are renumbered 21-23
10 becomes 21
9 becomes 22
8 becomes 23

So you have a pattern that numbers increase from north to south and where they are the same track they are a simple increase of 10 i.e
1 / 11
2 / 12
10 / 20
and potentially 8 / 18 and 9 / 19 in future.

And you straight away know that 1-10 is the east, 11-20 the west and 21-23 is the south.

5-7 are unused but I don't see that as a huge problem and who knows you might want more eastern bays in future.

Of course my idea for more western bays would mess this up completely!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think numbering only some of the through platforms with two numbers, and some with one, is misleading. In my view the through platforms should all be single numbered with "a" and "b" ends as is usual practice elsewhere in the UK. It's less important what the bays are numbered as, but it would make sense for them to be (a) consecutive on that side, and (b) numbered between the through platforms they lie between.

It is particularly confusing that 1 and 20 are opposite ends of the same platform.

 

[najaB]

I think numbering only some of the through platforms with two numbers, and some with one, is misleading.

There is, of course a logical and practical reason for it. Both 1/20 and 2/19 can be used as completely separate platforms due to the crossovers where as 8 and 9 really are long platforms.

A train can be at platform 20 and depart to the East past a train at platform 1, but this can't happen with 8E and 8W.

 

[onionjoe76]

Slight change or "topic" but still within the original heading.

I have always fancied going to Waverley in the early hours to see the Caledonian Sleeper service come in and be split up (or the London bound service put together). My question is, is the station accessible 24 hours a day. I was informed possibly incorrectly that the station doors are shut up at a certain time with would bar late night entry. Can anyone give me more information. Thank you in advance.

 

[47271]

Slight change or "topic" but still within the original heading.

I have always fancied going to Waverley in the early hours to see the Caledonian Sleeper service come in and be split up (or the London bound service put together). My question is, is the station accessible 24 hours a day. I was informed possibly incorrectly that the station doors are shut up at a certain time with would bar late night entry. Can anyone give me more information. Thank you in advance.

We came in on a very delayed last train from Glasgow once and a security man had to let us out by unlocking a gate, so I think it gets closed up I'm afraid.

There's often a lot of building work going on overnight (eg shifting escalators from one place to another!) so it probably wouldn't be safe anyway.

 

[onionjoe76]

We came in on a very delayed last train from Glasgow once and a security man had to let us out by unlocking a gate, so I think it gets closed up I'm afraid.

There's often a lot of building work going on overnight (eg shifting escalators from one place to another!) so it probably wouldn't be safe anyway.

Thank you for the info

 

[Altnabreac]

Slight change or "topic" but still within the original heading.

I have always fancied going to Waverley in the early hours to see the Caledonian Sleeper service come in and be split up (or the London bound service put together). My question is, is the station accessible 24 hours a day. I was informed possibly incorrectly that the station doors are shut up at a certain time with would bar late night entry. Can anyone give me more information. Thank you in advance.

Official opening hours are 04.00 - 00.45 so it is shut up for 3 hours 15 mins per day.

However is it is the Highland Caledonian Sleeper services you are interested in then you can always explicitly access the station when they are departing because the Fort William portion can be boarded at Waverley at 04.45.

The southbound Highland is a bit trickier because it is for alighting passengers only at 01.10 so it is slightly after the station closes. Safest thing to do would be to arrive at Waverley on said sleeper (Dalmuir is the closest stop to Edinburgh you are permitted to board) and hang around afterwards to watch the joining. Or go on Sunday night / Monday morning when the Highland arrives at 00.24 which is within station opening hours.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is, of course a logical and practical reason for it. Both 1/20 and 2/19 can be used as completely separate platforms due to the crossovers where as 8 and 9 really are long platforms.

A train can be at platform 20 and depart to the East past a train at platform 1, but this can't happen with 8E and 8W.

There is that[1], but Birmingham New St is used almost as flexibly, as is Chester (which does have mid-platform crossovers) - and those use a/b.

But the thing that is *really* confusing is not that that platform has two numbers, it's that two connected platforms (if you'd call them that) are 1 and 20. The issue would be far lesser if they were 1 and 2.

It confused the hell out of me (with a group of even more confused Scouts in tow) the first time I encountered it, and I know the railway.

[1] Though trains going to/from the West do sometimes use 8E (or was it 9E, I forget). The 1612 TPE to Manchester did yesterday for example.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

hang around afterwards to watch the joining

I expect you would be hassled to leave before it was locked up, so the best chance of seeing it is to actually travel on the train past Edinburgh.

 

[najaB]

Though trains going to/from the West do sometimes use 8E (or was it 9E, I forget). The 1612 TPE to Manchester did yesterday for example.

Yes, but not past a train sitting at 8W.

 

[reb0118]

Uhm... do you use the same Waverley that I use?

waverly?

Obviously not.

 

[Chrism20]

A fine station. After a long journey from London you feel you have arrived somewhere really significant. Sure it is big and takes some navigating, but that is part of the appeal.

Operationally it is interesting with the mix of services, and it has one of the best waiting rooms anywhere - the Halfway House, halfway up the stairs on the castle side.

Have to agree with both points. In comparison to twenty years ago when I worked in Waverley it is barely recognisable. I have to admit I find it much easier to navigate now it's traffic free rather than with cars, vans and lorries rolling in and out at all times like what it used to.

I've missed many a train home sitting in that waiting room, cracking little place

 

[dk1]

I use Waverley Steps pretty frequently (though a bit less so in the last couple of months), and most of the time there is at least one escalator not working.
They're also so painfully slow that it's considerably quicker to just walk up the stairs.

& that god awful squeal that comes from the 2nd from top down escalator. Can't be doing it any good.

 

[onionjoe76]

Official opening hours are 04.00 - 00.45 so it is shut up for 3 hours 15 mins per day.

However is it is the Highland Caledonian Sleeper services you are interested in then you can always explicitly access the station when they are departing because the Fort William portion can be boarded at Waverley at 04.45.

The southbound Highland is a bit trickier because it is for alighting passengers only at 01.10 so it is slightly after the station closes. Safest thing to do would be to arrive at Waverley on said sleeper (Dalmuir is the closest stop to Edinburgh you are permitted to board) and hang around afterwards to watch the joining. Or go on Sunday night / Monday morning when the Highland arrives at 00.24 which is within station opening hours.

Oh that is some awesome info. Thank you. I'll feel like I'm Special Forces going on a mission. Just to see some trains being joined or seperated hahaha

 

[thealexweb]

I visited Waverley at 5pm today. Some escalators were working

 

[leightonbd]

Nice pic. Brings back memories.

No thanks to me - these links will give you far more:


https://canmore.org.uk/site/79884/edinburgh-princes-street-princes-street-station who are the owners of the pic I linked


https://www.railscot.co.uk/locationnew.php?photographer=&loc=Edinburgh Princes Street&offset=6 which is great for anything local

I dearly love what the old railway infrastructure gives me in Edinburgh but whenever I bump up against it my mind just goes into complete overdrive trying to imagine what used to happen there ...

 

[Hadders]

I've alighted from the southbound sleeper several times at Edinburgh. Never had a problem getting out of the station, although you normally have to go via the vehicle ramps.

The sleeper arrival used to be timed to arrive a few minutes before the station officially closed but recently it's been pushed back to 0010 since it started running via the Bathgate line. No-one's amended the station opening time although as I say it's never been as issue for me.

 

[iain-j]

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 modify 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 suburban 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.

It may be possible for a chord to be built at Slateford yards where the sub passes under the Slateford junction to Haymarket east junction section of the WCML, just after it heads south easterly below the WCML the chord could turn north westerly towards the WCML and form a junction with the existing chord coming of the WCML at Slateford junction that heads to Craiglockhart junction.
See here for an example https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.9292203,-3.2357193,810m/data=!3m1!1e3
All this land is Network Rail owned so would be less expensive to create it than acquiring lands from outside sources. This could have the advantage of allowing access to all platforms at Haymarket helping to reduce capacity constraints and Gorgie East could be used as an interchange if the south sub was ever to reopen to passengers especially if not all services on the sub went to Haymarket/Waverley e.g. to Airport etc.

Looking at the plans of Waverley redevelopments is fascinating and I thank all those who posted links to the various materials.
It is interesting to note that page 6 of http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov...15_05062_LBC-SUPPORTING_STATEMENT-3222327.pdf shows an 1898 diagram of the Waverley and you can see that the current platform 18 extended as far as platforms 12 and 13 do now.
If the BTP offices were relocated it appears it would be possible to lengthen platform 18 to its original length.
It also makes me wonder if it would be possible to put a platform alongside the north face of the north access ramp similar to how platform 12 is set to be expanded.

The east side of the station is another side of the station that could be better utilised as there is definitely room to reinstate the four old platforms that used to exist there as seen in these pictures,
https://www.railscot.co.uk/imageenlarge/imagecomplete.php?id=8124
https://www.railscot.co.uk/imageenlarge/imagecomplete.php?id=25831

This would allow a great deal of the services that use the ECML to terminate here instead of using through tracks.
Even as an amateur I have noticed a great deal of trains sit idle on through tracks for a great length of time before heading out again.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Lengthaning 18 would be helpful and maybe a BTP Suite could be built at the Calton Road side on the old Short Stay Carpark? As an asside I spent yesturday bashing Mersyrail and they know how to do escalaters!

 

[sng7]

It may be possible for a chord to be built at Slateford yards where the sub passes under the Slateford junction to Haymarket east junction section of the WCML, just after it heads south easterly below the WCML the chord could turn north westerly towards the WCML and form a junction with the existing chord coming of the WCML at Slateford junction that heads to Craiglockhart junction.
See here for an example https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.9292203,-3.2357193,810m/data=!3m1!1e3
All this land is Network Rail owned so would be less expensive to create it than acquiring lands from outside sources. This could have the advantage of allowing access to all platforms at Haymarket helping to reduce capacity constraints and Gorgie East could be used as an interchange if the south sub was ever to reopen to passengers especially if not all services on the sub went to Haymarket/Waverley e.g. to Airport etc.

That does sound more feasible but it would cause a dramatic reduction with linespeed as the current lines have a 70mph restriction compared to the 25 on the current chord which is a similar radius to the proposed one. Also if you wanted to keep the current capacity you would have to improve slateford junction which could be awkward with the station location, at the end of the day i can't see a day where this idea would work as i can't see it freeing up that much capacity and if haymarket is that full up you would need a long term solution to the capacity problems such as something like the proposed glasgow to edinburgh high speed which could use a new alignment entirely

 

[NotATrainspott]

That does sound more feasible but it would cause a dramatic reduction with linespeed as the current lines have a 70mph restriction compared to the 25 on the current chord which is a similar radius to the proposed one. Also if you wanted to keep the current capacity you would have to improve slateford junction which could be awkward with the station location, at the end of the day i can't see a day where this idea would work as i can't see it freeing up that much capacity and if haymarket is that full up you would need a long term solution to the capacity problems such as something like the proposed glasgow to edinburgh high speed which could use a new alignment entirely

The idea here is that although the existing route is reasonably high speed, there is little way to improve capacity on it because the junction is only metres before the Haymarket platforms. Even though reconfiguring it would reduce linespeeds, it would benefit much more from being able to have a much more sophisticated junction. There's no point having a 70mph route if most trains would have to slow to a crawl or stop waiting for the junction to clear.

If the connection between the two lines were modified like this then the existing route would be abandoned completely and the main line would swerve from Slateford up to Murrayfield. Demolishing some buildings to increase the curve radius would be not unreasonable by the time this intervention needs to be done as every other capacity enhancement possible will require it. I imagine that the then-abandoned railway route could be retained for a future Edinburgh Trams line to the south west of Edinburgh.

One of the things which I have found most interesting about seeing the planning portal plans for the new platforms is that it also makes it clear that it would be possible to fit in a reasonably-sized HS2 terminus at Waverley, effectively taking over the entire set of southern through platforms. The length is already there, all that would be needed would be for them to be rebuilt to be completely standardised (i.e. perfectly straight or curved, no sidings) and at UIC gauge. Such a reconstruction could even be done piecemeal while the station is in use, with each reconstructed platform given back to classic rail services in the meantime using a temporary raised surface. The most efficient way to increase capacity for high speed services in the long term is to build a tunnel from Waverley out to join any high speed route to Glasgow and the south. That would allow extra HS services and relief of passengers to Glasgow but I can't see it really freeing up too many paths, as those currently used for these services would still be running but wouldn't be carrying end-to-end passengers. There would still be around the same number of ICEC services going eastwards but calling at more intermediate stations and the 4/6tph to Queen Street would now be all-stops affairs, but those changes only really affect pathing well outside of Edinburgh.

Over on SSC there's been a bit of discussion about single-bore metro tunnels, which is when you use a single very large tunnel for both directions of a metro line which is also constantly large enough for the platforms. Tunnelling with a TBM is cheap now, it's the stations which are expensive. Any east-west tunnel under Edinburgh wouldn't be that long, so the option of using a larger TBM which would be large enough to carve out a single track platform tunnel is an interesting one. Originally my thoughts for building an east-west tunnel involved using the southern surface platforms at Haymarket and then rebuilding the tunnel east of there to head downwards into a new tunnelled station underneath Waverley itself. Using the large TBM technique it could be feasible to have Haymarket as an underground station as well, which would also help with construction staging and rail capacity. What I'm thinking now is that the lines past Murrayfield could be changed to be paired by direction, after adding a new flyover/under where the E&G and Fife lines split. At Murrayfield, the new South Suburban/Slateford line would then have an easier time connecting to both as each track direction could join in between the two mainline tracks of that same direction. Just after that line joins in the new tunnelled tracks could split away from the middle as well and then run down into the new underground station at Haymarket, leaving the surface tracks for longer-distance services. Since the HS2 works would remove the southern side of Waverley from the classic network, there would be no need for four tracks beyond Haymarket. Instead each running line would have two platforms, so that platform dwell times would no longer restrict capacity.

 

[QueensCurve]

Does anyone know if there is plans to upgrade Edinburgh waverly? I use that station often and its so depressing. They upgraded haymartket along the road and the station is an absolute pleasure to use.

The worst part of it in my view is the serpentine fences put in to enforce barrier lines. Totally inappropriate in this location.

 

[jopsuk]

Over on SSC there's been a bit of discussion about single-bore metro tunnels, which is when you use a single very large tunnel for both directions of a metro line which is also constantly large enough for the platforms. Tunnelling with a TBM is cheap now, it's the stations which are expensive.

not on SSC and don't want to dig into their mammoth threads, but taking this off-topic- has the issue of the vast amounts of extra spoil this would create been raised? Crossrail's platforms are 5m wide at floor level. That's about 17-18m diameter tunnel plus ~1m of tunnel lining. Lets go with 18m TBM then. That's a 56.5m^2 cross section. By comparison two 7.1m bores (Crossrail) is 44.6m^2. Creating 25% more spoil is not trivial

 

[najaB]

Creating 25% more spoil is not trivial.

Agreed, but it can still be a cheaper than building station boxes, and also future-proofs the system in the case that additional stations or platform extensions are ever required.

 

[edwin_m]

A bored tunnel needs a certain amount of cover. I think the rule of thumb is two diameters but in any case it relates to the diameter. So a larger diameter tunnel needs a proportionately larger ramp before the TBM can start. This has to be either open cut or cut-and-cover, either of which is very difficult in urban areas.

 

[LesF]

Thanks for the info Altnabreac, I think Waverley would benefit from more through roads so I'm fascinated that plats 5 and 6 are to be extended. But why do they stop slightly short of plats 13 and 12? Perhaps due to the pedestrian bridge? I find the layout of Waverley confusing and believe that an expanded pedestrian circulation area at bridge level would be better than the existing congested walkways. The taxi ramp could then be cut back to bridge level. That means less diesel fumes and more pedestrian space at plat level.