400m platforms at Edinburgh Waverley

[Nottingham59]

Could Waverley handle 400m HS2 trains?

When HS2 phase 1 opens in 2033, it seems to me that HS2 will become the main route between London and Edinburgh, with journey times from Old Oak Common to Waverley likely to be under four hours. Edinburgh-London flows (at 2700 passengers / day) are much greater than Glasgow-London traffic (750 p/d).

Which leads to the question: is there capacity at Waverley to handle 400m full length HS2 trains without splitting?

• Platforms 7 and 11 combined can handle 542m trains, but one plaform is not enough at a terminus
• Platform 2 & 19 together are 595m long, but these are on the North side of the station, and trains from Carstairs will arrive on the south side.
• Platforms 1 & 20 are 385m, and P1 could be extended by 25m alongside Calton Road to make a narrow third 400m platform, but again this would be on the wrong side of the station.

My proposal would be to remove platform 9 and create a new island filling all the space between platforms 10 (currently 221m) and Platform 8 (293m). The island would be 450m long and wide enough to handle the passenger flows from 1100 seat train sets, as shown in this diagram.



This would give three platforms on the south side of the station able to handle HS2 trains (P7+11; P10; P8).

Would this layout be feasible? Or is Waverley so intensively used that it couldn't cope with the loss of platform 9? Or is there a better way to add much needed capacity between England and Scotland?

 

[zwk500]

Part of it depends on how long the turnrounds are, but I suspect the loss of P9 would be very keenly felt, as well as having a train locking up either of the Scissors crossovers.

Could it be done? Probably. The big question is what would have to move out of the way for it, and if anything would have to drop out entirely.

 

[Nottingham59]

Part of it depends on how long the turnrounds are, but I suspect the loss of P9 would be very keenly felt, as well as having a train locking up either of the Scissors crossovers.

Could it be done? Probably. The big question is what would have to move out of the way for it, and if anything would have to drop out entirely.

Platform occupancy could be quite short. HS2 trains will be arriving from the West, so they could use the sidings at Craigentinny to reverse and servicing until just before they were due to return south.

If it was absolutley essential to keep platform 9, you could extend 8 and 9 to the east, and squeeze the end of P7 to fit it all in, as shown here.



But it's messy, and the islands would get crowded when the equivalent of three Lumos arrive at once.

 

[lachlan]

Are we still expecting HS2 trains to run to Edinburgh (really hoping the answer is Yes as the interchange at OOC with GWR will be much easier than going across London)

As for the platforms, the mezzanine proposal (https://scotlandsrailway.com/assets/site/Waverley-Station-Masterplan-Summary-Web.pdf) talks about removing the vehicular ramps which would allow for platform remodelling/extensions

 

[zwk500]

Platform occupancy could be quite short. HS2 trains will be arriving from the West, so they could use the sidings at Craigentinny to reverse and servicing until just before they were due to return south.

Extra movement at the east end would be just as unhelpful, and going into and out of Craigentinny would require depot staff on hand to shunt the moves, wouldn't it?

If it was absolutley essential to keep platform 9, you could extend 8 and 9 to the east, and squeeze the end of P7 to fit it all in, as shown here.

But it's messy, and the islands would get crowded when the equivalent of three Lumos arrive at once.

I have a feeling there's not a lot of spare length in the bays for a 10-car azuma, so shortening 7 would be unlikely to work.

Given the scale of intervention being proposed, an additional bore under the National Gallery of Scotland to allow the station throat for 8/9 to be straightened out at the East End may well be the better option. There's room on the far side of the tunnel to have a conventional double junction onto the southern pair of lines before the castle rock gets in the way, although the loss of parkland is a problem.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Which leads to the question: is there capacity at Waverley to handle 400m full length HS2 trains without splitting?

But what about the rest of the line?
Crewe, Warrington, Wigan, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith, Carlisle, Lockerbie and Haymarket, do they all fit 400m?
I'm pretty sure there'd be signalling annoyances with trains having 140m that doesn't fit.

 

[Nottingham59]

Are we still expecting HS2 trains to run to Edinburgh

I don't know. The orginal HS2 scheme was to have 1tph going to Scotland, splitting at Carlisle. But that didn't take account of the likelihood that East Coast traffic from Edinburgh would switch to the West Coast once phase 1 was open.

And I see no evidence of any planning by NR or DfT to exploit the opportunities for passenger growth and modal shift that will come when HS2 phase 1 opens, even if it's only from Old Oak Common.

EDIT: The mezzanine Masterplan looks interesting. Thanks for that. I'll have to read it tomorrow.

But what about the rest of the line?
Crewe, Warrington, Wigan, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith, Carlisle, Lockerbie and Haymarket, do they all fit 400m?

I'd expect Crewe, Preston and Carlisle to be able to fit 400m plaforms. But that's for another thread. Do you want to start one?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jun 2024 ==

Given the scale of intervention being proposed, an additional bore under the National Gallery of Scotland to allow the station throat for 8/9 to be straightened out at the East End may well be the better option.

I like that idea.

It might be better to extend any tunnel to bypass Haymarket and emerge near the Slateford sidings. That would give Waverley six continuous tracks to the west, which would add a huge amount of capacity and operational flexibilty to the network.

Adding the two tracks to the east gives eight tracks, which is about right for a Hauptbahnof for a city the size of Edinburgh.

 

[waverley47]

Or, and this is going to sound potentially ridiculous, but bear with me, we could not spend a bucket of money and years of disruption to muck around with platforms in Waverley and instead run trains that aren't 400m long.

Realistically what is going to happen is that they'll split at Carlisle, and we'll be stuck without any spare capacity on the ECML because it will be full of fast expresses covering for the abject failure to extend HS2 beyond Handsacre. Bulldozing half of Waverley station isn't going to solve that I'm afraid.

(Besides, and this is pure crayon, but if you're going to these lengths to improve capacity building new tunnels and knocking through walls, you'd just tunnel new platforms underground)

 

[Trainbike46]

Some relevant context I think:

- the service plan proposed before the various infrastructure cancellations was to run 2tph London-Carlisle (split train)-Edinburgh/Glasgow, and an hourly Edinburgh and Glasgow to Birmingham
- ECML service will likely still continue, but focused more on the intermediate stations

So the plan didn't involve 400m trains to Edinburgh. Of course, plans can be changed, and 2 tph at 200m probably wouldn't be enough for Edinburg-London demand anyway, so this would either require more frequent trains or at least some 400m services to Edinburgh, or significant passenger numbers remaining on the ECML route

Of course, if approximately half the services are 400m you probably only need one platform at 400m length, which is available

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jun 2024 ==

I don't know. The orginal HS2 scheme was to have 1tph going to Scotland, splitting at Carlisle. But that didn't take account of the likelihood that East Coast traffic from Edinburgh would switch to the West Coast once phase 1 was open.

it was for 2tph to Scotland from london, and 1 tph from Birmingham (possibly alternating between Edinburgh/Glasgow, as now)

 

[The exile]

It might be better to extend any tunnel to bypass Haymarket and emerge near the Slateford sidings. That would give Waverley six continuous tracks to the west, which would add a huge amount of capacity and operational flexibilty to the network

Vastly different undertakings. The Mound is basically landfill (so the main problem might well be ensuring the stability of what’s on top), whereas anything else you’re going to be tunnelling through to get to Slateford is the volcanic plug.

 

[Nottingham59]

- the service plan proposed before the various infrastructure cancellations was to run 2tph London-Carlisle (split train)-Edinburgh/Glasgow, and an hourly Edinburgh and Glasgow to Birmingham

That was based on getting phase 2a and the Golborne link built, I think. Without those, the whole pattern of HS2 services is up in the air. I've not seen any official modelling yet about how many HS2 services can get through Handsacre.

- ECML service will likely still continue, but focused more on the intermediate stations

... which of course, would slow down the east coast expresses, making the west coast route even more attractive. (But it would resolve the current difficulties with the ECML timetable which seems obsessed with reducing the headline journey times from Kings Cross to Edinburgh.) One of the great benefits of HS2 phase 1 is to add capacity to the ECML by not forcing end-to-end express services into the ECML timetable.

So the plan didn't involve 400m trains to Edinburgh. Of course, plans can be changed, and 2 tph at 200m probably wouldn't be enough for Edinburg-London demand anyway, so this would either require more frequent trains or at least some 400m services to Edinburgh, or significant passenger numbers remaining on the ECML route

That's my thinking. I'm expecting demand to switch to the West Coast route even with just Phase 1. If phase 2a gets built, then nearly all England - Scotland traffic will go through Carlisle. So I'm looking to see if it's possible to avoid splitting HS2 services on the main route, which is to Edinburgh.

 

[edwin_m]

That's my thinking. I'm expecting demand to switch to the West Coast route even with just Phase 1. If phase 2a gets built, then nearly all England - Scotland traffic will go through Carlisle. So I'm looking to see if it's possible to avoid splitting HS2 services on the main route, which is to Edinburgh.

I don't know the exact figures, but London-Glasgow passengers are going to be nearly as many as London-Edinburgh, and can only really use the WCML*. So Glasgow needs at least as many London trains as Edinburgh via HS2 and the existing route between Handsacre and Carstairs.

If it is still possible to run a London train every 30min then this could either be a 400m split/join service as previously proposed and mentioned above, or a 400m non-splitting service alternating between Glasgow and Edinburgh. The latter will be a few minutes quicker (removal of the Carlisle split/join stop, but some of this probably lost due to traction current limitation) but is it worth halving the frequency?

If you really wanted to run a 400m train to Waverley, wouldn't the best option be just to use the full length of one of the "double" platforms 7/11 and 2/19?

*In the 1990s London-Glasgow was a similar journey time via Edinburgh or via Carlisle and each ran every 2hr giving an approximate hourly interval. However, with the advent of Pendolinos the WCML was clearly quicker and the London-Edinburgh-Glasgow service has now withered away. Even in truncated form HS2 is likely to accelerate the WCML option so makes restoration of this service less likely.

 

[Nottingham59]

I don't know the exact figures, but London-Glasgow passengers are going to be nearly as many as London-Edinburgh,

According to @RailAleFan 's ORR data, ticket numbers from Glasgow Central to Euston are 275,000 per year. Waverley to Kings Cross are 994,999. So the Edinburgh flow is nearly four times Glasgow's. Which really surprised me when I saw the numbers. https://railalefan.co.uk/labs/flowstats/GLC/ https://railalefan.co.uk/labs/flowstats/EDB/

If all that traffic switches to the West Coast route when HS2 Phase 1 opens, it will make a huge difference to the WCML. And they will need to run 400m trains as paths will be at a premium.

 

[edwin_m]

According to @RailAleFan 's ORR data, ticket numbers from Glasgow Central to Euston are 275,000 per year. Waverley to Kings Cross are 994,999. So the Edinburgh flow is nearly four times Glasgow's. Which really surprised me when I saw the numbers. https://railalefan.co.uk/labs/flowstats/GLC/ https://railalefan.co.uk/labs/flowstats/EDB/

If all that traffic switches to the West Coast route when HS2 Phase 1 opens, it will make a huge difference to the WCML. And they will need to run 400m trains as paths will be at a premium.

Thanks for this - interesting information. I note however that it only shows routes with through trains - does it include journeys connecting at Glasgow or Edinburgh to another train on a through ticket? There may be more of these at Glasgow, as it has more "suburban" stations.

The 3:1 ratio might suggest running two 400m trains per hour, one for Edinburgh only and the other splitting for Edinburgh and Glasgow. However it's questionable whether it would be politically acceptable to give Edinburgh twice the frequency, plus remaining ECML services.

 

[Krokodil]

According to @RailAleFan 's ORR data, ticket numbers from Glasgow Central to Euston are 275,000 per year. Waverley to Kings Cross are 994,999. So the Edinburgh flow is nearly four times Glasgow's. Which really surprised me when I saw the numbers. https://railalefan.co.uk/labs/flowstats/GLC/ https://railalefan.co.uk/labs/flowstats/EDB/

If all that traffic switches to the West Coast route when HS2 Phase 1 opens, it will make a huge difference to the WCML. And they will need to run 400m trains as paths will be at a premium.

This is why (if the full Y ever opened) I felt that the HS2 Newcastle service should have continued north to Edinburgh. Then you'd have a 2tph 200m service via Carlisle (which would have been combined with a Glasgow portion) and another 2tph via Newcastle. The latter would be 200m unless York, Darlington, Newcastle and Waverley can be made suitable for 400m and would be achieved in the same time as via Carlisle.

 

[edwin_m]

This is why (if the full Y ever opened) I felt that the HS2 Newcastle service should have continued north to Edinburgh. Then you'd have a 2tph 200m service via Carlisle (which would have been combined with a Glasgow portion) and another 2tph via Newcastle. The latter would be 200m unless York, Darlington, Newcastle and Waverley can be made suitable for 400m and would be achieved in the same time as via Carlisle.

The problem with this would have been that the planned NE England service would have filled the 200m units on its own, leaving no space for Edinburgh passengers. Running extra trains for Edinburgh via the ECML and making the WCML trains Glasgow only would have exceeded HS2 route capacity further south, and would probably have been difficult to fit onto the ECML too.

 

[BayPaul]

I think the classic compatible trains would have been better as 5 carriage 130m trains. That would allow them to run in 3s (390m), with the Scotland service split as 5 carriages to Glasgow and 10 to Edinburgh, with the same length as existing LNER trains.

 

[goldisgood]

One of the benefits of compulsory reservations from HS2 would help to manage the demand on a splitting train: whilst the current East Coast Edinburgh-London trains need the capacity for Newcastle and York, I suppose it is feasible that the slightly shorter Edinburgh-London trains on HS2 would be almost solely catering to an Edinburgh-London express demand, with intermediate demand from Carlisle and Preston seated in the quieter Glasgow portions.

If 400m platforms were necessary (which even with compulsory reservations set up as above will need consideration), an extension of platforms 8 and 9 into the New Street car park is the best option I can come up with. This avoids knocking down a significant portion of the A-listed Waverley trainshed and creates a new east-facing bay platform which I reckon could handle a 5-car IET confortably, or possibly even a 6x24 consist. The loss of platform 8 as a through platform isn't ideal, but I don't think it would cause any particular operational headache. Such a proposal would, I presume, be far cheaper and paletable to the public, and reduce the impacts of an expansion of Waverley on the city centre.

 

[Nottingham59]

an extension of platforms 8 and 9 into the New Street car park is the best option I can come up with.

That might work, but it's exactly 400m to the wall at the end of the car park. So they might have to relocate the western end of the 8/9 island to give a useable 420m platform.

creates a new east-facing bay platform

There seems to be plenty of places where additional plaforms could be created at Waverley. there are a number of platform islands with a track only on one side (e.g. P10; P2; P3), and the ramps get in the way. A wholesale reconfiguration with a proper mezzanine level would allow quite a lot of extra, and longer, platforms to fit into the existing station footprint.