Possible plans for Edinburgh Waverley station?

[NotATrainspott]

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

The real world use of this idea is on Barcelona's Line 9/10, which uses a ~12m diameter tunnel boring machine to provide space for both running lines, on two separate levels within the circular tunnel. Normally, the running line is in the middle of the floor, but at stations it moves to the side and there's then enough space left on the other side for the platform. The rest of the station then just consists of the escalator/lift shafts.

My suggestion is that each running line would still have its own separate tunnel and TBM, but instead of using a TBM only wide enough for the running tunnel and then having to manually carve out the wider platform tunnel, the entire tunnel would be built to the same diameter as one of the single platform tunnels. The Crossrail running tunnels are approximately 6m in diameter and I think the platform tunnels are around 9m. Although more spoil would have to be removed from the tunnel during construction, the flipside is that the amount of intense construction work in the city centre itself is reduced. Given that any Edinburgh tunnel would be relatively short, the extra waste of additional tunnelling wouldn't be as great as it would be for a longer line without many more stations.

 

[Zoidberg]

...

The taxi ramp could then be cut back to bridge level. That means less diesel fumes and more pedestrian space at plat level.

There is no taxi ramp! Nitwit Rail has banned vehicular access to the station (apart from that which it considers authorised).

 

[Murph]

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.

They are only extending 5 and 6 to the length needed. The maximum needed length is basically the same as the main shed platforms at King's Cross. Waverley really doesn't need any more through platforms, it's already got plenty of them to basically max out the tracks on both sides.

I think it's highly unlikely that a large mezzanine would be allowed there, to be honest, and I don't think one is really needed, as the bridge is already very wide. Signage is generally quite reasonable to find platforms, and I really struggle to see how it's any more confusing than pretty much any other major terminus station. Two major reasons why it wouldn't be allowed: 1) Category 'A' listed; 2) World Heritage Site.

 

[jopsuk]

There is no taxi ramp! Nitwit Rail has banned vehicular access to the station (apart from that which it considers authorised).

One of the things removing the taxis has done is enable these platform works

 

[sng7]

5 and 6 don't need to be through as currently several through platforms are taken up by trains to and from london that terminate and start at edinburgh, these can be put in the new 5 and 6 freeing up through platforms to be used more from both directions particularly as once EGIP is complete and there are longer trains to glasgow you need more platform length from the other side

 

[NotATrainspott]

They are only extending 5 and 6 to the length needed. The maximum needed length is basically the same as the main shed platforms at King's Cross. Waverley really doesn't need any more through platforms, it's already got plenty of them to basically max out the tracks on both sides.

I think it's highly unlikely that a large mezzanine would be allowed there, to be honest, and I don't think one is really needed, as the bridge is already very wide. Signage is generally quite reasonable to find platforms, and I really struggle to see how it's any more confusing than pretty much any other major terminus station. Two major reasons why it wouldn't be allowed: 1) Category 'A' listed; 2) World Heritage Site.

It should be possible to fit a mezzanine level at the current footbridge level, so there would be no outward change in the station's appearance. Why one might become necessary is that passenger numbers are continuing to grow and you need enough concourse space to safely deal with those numbers, especially when things go wrong. By reinstating and extending platforms the amount of space available on platform level for passengers is going down just as more and more space is becoming necessary.

 

[Murph]

It should be possible to fit a mezzanine level at the current footbridge level, so there would be no outward change in the station's appearance. Why one might become necessary is that passenger numbers are continuing to grow and you need enough concourse space to safely deal with those numbers, especially when things go wrong. By reinstating and extending platforms the amount of space available on platform level for passengers is going down just as more and more space is becoming necessary.

The listed building status includes appearances inside the station's overall roof, I believe. The planning application talking about how they will continue to minimise the visual impact of OHLE inside the station, restore the appearance of original walls and pillars, match the appearance of platform faces, and will only be demolishing new structures. Even after the changes detailed in the planning application, the main concourse and booking hall will have a huge amount of space remaining.

 

[railjock]

5 and 6 don't need to be through as currently several through platforms are taken up by trains to and from london that terminate and start at edinburgh, these can be put in the new 5 and 6 freeing up through platforms to be used more from both directions particularly as once EGIP is complete and there are longer trains to glasgow you need more platform length from the other side

This would also increase the case for an east side access door to and from the ticket centre.

 

[AngusH]

This would also increase the case for an east side access door to and from the ticket centre.

I seem to recall old photos that showed an exit where the route the station toilets currently is. (?)

Presumably this could be reopened without too much trouble? Unless something has been built on the other side of course...

 

[scotsman]

I seem to recall old photos that showed an exit where the route the station toilets currently is. (?)

Presumably this could be reopened without too much trouble? Unless something has been built on the other side of course...

I believe that's currently where the Interserve and ISS offices and facilities are.

 

[clc]

Was interested to read this in an official source:-

"Though not needed currently, aligning platforms 6 and 12 offers the potential for a through platform in the future should it be required"

http://www.egip.info/projects/edinburgh-waverley-platform-extensions-infrastructure-works

 

[keppoch69]

With respect, it WAS two(x2) railway stations which sat very close to each other in the past. I love the past and I like history. When one is within the confines of Waverly Station one can almost hear the steam trains. The escalators in my mind going up to the end of Prince's Street, are there for the less mobile, or lazy sods new to the city. The Carlton Road exit used to be known by regulars but not by "passing through people"

 

[reb0118]

Remember folks it is:-

Waverley

Feel free to edit your posts to correct...........

 

[90019]

Not forgetting 'Princes Street' and 'Calton Road'.


See also: St. Andrew Square.

 

[47271]

In the application they state that it is not an original building:

Sorry to dig up such an old thread but I was waiting on Platform 11 at Waverley yesterday and took a closer look at the 'Scotrail Lounge' that I was so outraged about the possible demolition of to allow extension of Platform 12.

Looking at it closely, I think it's no more than a false frontage on a large Portakabin, rather like a mobile school classroom, which itself is next to the brick built monstrosity closer to the foot of the south ramp. My guess is that it all got put in ('traditional' front and all) at the same time in the 70s or 80s, and the facade is there simply to mask the view of the modern additions from those looking into the station from the west.

Slightly less young Scottish readers will remember another Portakabin, on the main concourse at Waverley - the John Menzies bookshop, where Boots is now, and it wouldn't surprise me if they both arrived at the same time in some cash strapped BR improvement scheme in the 70s. That got removed in the 90s thank goodness and Smiths moved to the space opposite.

Never let us complain again about Network Rail's large station redevelopments.

 

[AndrewE]

With respect, it WAS two(x2) railway stations which sat very close to each other in the past. I love the past and I like history.

I thought they drained a loch and built a station. I know there was another major station in Edinburgh until the 60's, but surely Waverley was only ever one station? Birmingham New St on the other hand was 2 parallel (MR and LNWR) stations from 1885 until 1923 (if Wikipedia is to be believed.)
A

 

[reb0118]

with respect, it was two (x2) railway stations which sat very close to each other in the past........

I thought they drained a loch and built a station. I know there was another major station in Edinburgh until the 60's, but surely Waverley was only ever one station?.....

From Wikipedia:-

The North Bridge station was opened on 22 June 1846 by the North British Railway as the terminus for its line from Berwick-upon-Tweed. The Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway's General station opened on 17 May 1847, on the same day as the Canal Street station of the Edinburgh, Leith and Newhaven Railway, serving Leith and Granton via a long rope-hauled tunnel under the New Town. The collective name "Waverley", after the Waverley Novels by Sir Walter Scott, was used for the three from around 1854 when the through 'Waverley' route to Carlisle opened. Canal Street station was also known as Edinburgh Princes Street,[1] not to be confused with the Caledonian Railway railway station later built at the West End which was named Princes Street station from 1870.

In 1868 the North British Railway acquired the stations of its rivals, demolished all three, and closed the Scotland Street tunnel to Canal Street. The present Victorian station was built on the site, and extended in the late 19th century. Waverley has been in continual use since, under the auspices of the North British, the LNER, British Railways (rebranded as British Rail after 1965),Railtrack, & Network Rail.

Seems there were three stations........

 

[Altnabreac]

From Wikipedia:-



Seems there were three stations........

Indeed. There is a plaque marking the location of the old Scotland Street tunnel portal on the wall opposite platform 19 if you go and have a look.

http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/1_edin_...anal_street_station_today_zoom-in.htm#picture

 

[route:oxford]

Seems there were three stations........

Three demolished and one built. I make that 4.

(Also, I'm sure the John Menzies wasn't a Portable building, it was a solid structure.)

 

[47271]

Three demolished and one built. I make that 4.

(Also, I'm sure the John Menzies wasn't a Portable building, it was a solid structure.)

Quite, nothing's simple in the history of Waverley!

And so, strangely interested earlier this evening, I've been doing a bit of digging on the Mings by the North Ramp. There are a few 60s pics of quite a decent looking building of the era. Then on Railscot there's a shot of a 'cafeteria' getting pulled down on the site in the early 70s. My childhood memory from the 80s is of a nasty grey square portable thing, so I'm not sure what period you're referring to? Anyway, too obscure to discuss further unless anyone really wants to...

Just while we're on odd corners of the station, does anyone know the original purpose of what is now the main First Class Lounge? The stairway is quite grand, as are a few of the features in the lounge itself. They're also in the process of restoring an elaborate floor mosaic in the reception area, so it was obviously a bit more than a parcels office.

 

[Chrism20]

(Also, I'm sure the John Menzies wasn't a Portable building, it was a solid structure.)

It was indeed, I worked in that building for a while back in the early nineties when I was a student.

The building was shared with a Travellers Fare/SSP store (Quicksnack rings a bell). Menzies to the front, the coffee bar to the back nearest the platforms.

There was a storeroom upstairs which resembled a sauna even in the dead of winter.

Funny John Menzies should come up, someone posted a picture of the store on the Lost Edinburgh Facebook page just the other day. That page is well worth a look, in the past week there has been a cracking one of the old Caley station and one of Waverley whilst they were building the North Bridge.

 

[jopsuk]

Returning the platform numbering, Cambridge follows a similar-ish logic to Edinburgh Waverley. The south end of the main platform is 1, the adjacent bays are 2 & 3, then the north end is 4 with the adjacent bays 5 & 6, then the new island is 7 & 8.

 

[47271]

It was indeed, I worked in that building for a while back in the early nineties when I was a student.

The building was shared with a Travellers Fare/SSP store (Quicksnack rings a bell). Menzies to the front, the coffee bar to the back nearest the platforms.

There was a storeroom upstairs which resembled a sauna even in the dead of winter.

Funny John Menzies should come up, someone posted a picture of the store on the Lost Edinburgh Facebook page just the other day. That page is well worth a look, in the past week there has been a cracking one of the old Caley station and one of Waverley whilst they were building the North Bridge.

Had a look at Lost Edinburgh and, yes thank you for finding that pic, I think that I was misremembering the JM building. It's as ugly as a Portakabin mind, and could be of the same vintage as the horrible brick built thing on Platform 11.

Anyway, they can pull down all of that stuff at the end of Platform 12 any time they like as far as I'm concerned!

 

[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.

For me what is depressing is the fencing needed for ticket barriers: ruins a one fine open station.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I thought they drained a loch and built a station. I know there was another major station in Edinburgh until the 60's, but surely Waverley was only ever one station? Birmingham New St on the other hand was 2 parallel (MR and LNWR) stations from 1885 until 1923 (if Wikipedia is to be believed.)
A

I love the idea that they drained a loch to build the station. Any truth in this? Any source?

Certainly it would go some way to explain the large and prominent position of the station in the heart of the city.

 

[najaB]

I love the idea that they drained a loch to build the station. Any truth in this? Any source?

I know it's Wikipedia, but here you go: Nor Loch.

 

[Murph]

The Nor Loch was not drained for the station or the railway. It had been completely drained a decade before Edinburgh first had a railway (which terminated in the long gone St Leonards station, to the south of the Old Town), and before the first proposals for a railway running through the former loch. I believe one of the major factors around it finally being eliminated was due to it having become a giant cess pool. It was a man made loch, created as a giant defensive moat for the castle, so draining it wasn't as difficult as draining a natural loch.

 

[najaB]

The Nor Loch was not drained for the station or the railway.

I know that, but what remained of the Loch was drained for the railway.

 

[deltic08]

For me what is depressing is the fencing needed for ticket barriers: ruins a one fine open station.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I love the idea that they drained a loch to build the station. Any truth in this? Any source?

Certainly it would go some way to explain the large and prominent position of the station in the heart of the city.

More of a bog than a loch.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

...I believe one of the major factors around it finally being eliminated was due to it having become a giant cess pool.

More of a bog than a loch.

 

[HowardGWR]

I know it's Wikipedia, but here you go: Nor Loch.

I've just read it (thanks) and I don't see the need for the apologetic reference.

There was good guidance given by the moderators in blue upper case and in full references were also attached.

Why is it that folk (not getting at you najaB) feel the need to do this? I find the Wikipedia entries for railways most useful and this entry was very interesting indeed.