• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Possible plans for Edinburgh Waverley station?

Status
Not open for further replies.

och aye

Member
Joined
21 Jan 2012
Messages
799
Going slightly off topic, but I wonder what the chances of the station being reinstated at Abbeyhill when/if this work happens?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

railjock

Member
Joined
30 Jun 2012
Messages
373
Going slightly off topic, but I wonder what the chances of the station being reinstated at Abbeyhill when/if this work happens?
Slim I would imagine. It's never been really backed by Edinburgh Council and who wants to increase the time to get to Tweedbank/North Berwick/Dunbar. Not convinced of any significant demand to/from there either.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,414
Location
Salt & Vinegar
Slim I would imagine. It's never been really backed by Edinburgh Council and who wants to increase the time to get to Tweedbank/North Berwick/Dunbar. Not convinced of any significant demand to/from there either.

If it were going to reopen it would have to be as a terminus station for trains from the west rather than as a stop on services to the east. I can see value to an Abbeyhill station but I'd agree it seems unlikely ever to happen.
 

railjock

Member
Joined
30 Jun 2012
Messages
373
If it were going to reopen it would have to be as a terminus station for trains from the west rather than as a stop on services to the east. I can see value to an Abbeyhill station but I'd agree it seems unlikely ever to happen.
I agree but wouldn't extending services from the west just make congestion on the three lines through the east tunnels as bad as now with two lines.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,414
Location
Salt & Vinegar
I agree but wouldn't extending services from the west just make congestion on the three lines through the east tunnels as bad as now with two lines.

Yes, it would free up overall capacity at the main station by reducing platform dwell time at the expense of using up capacity in the eastern throat. Depends on where the capacity is most needed and how much extra capacity the third line gives you through the Calton tunnels as to whether it is a goer or not.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,266
Yes, it would free up overall capacity at the main station by reducing platform dwell time at the expense of using up capacity in the eastern throat. Depends on where the capacity is most needed and how much extra capacity the third line gives you through the Calton tunnels as to whether it is a goer or not.
My interpretation of the proposed track layout shown in the route study (page 61) was that the new third line would be predominantly for up (eastbound) services, it would only have quite limited use if heading towards the station.

[if unaware others please refer to Altnabreac’s earlier post #538 to find the route study and diagram.]
 
Last edited:

railjock

Member
Joined
30 Jun 2012
Messages
373
My interpretation of the proposed track layout shown in the route study (page 61) was that the new third line would be predominantly for up (eastbound) services, it would only have quite limited use if heading towards the station.

[if unaware others please refer to Altnabreac’s earlier post #538 to find the route study and diagram.]
The diagram on that page also indicates that the new third line would also merge into the current two lines at Jocks Lodge rather than run all the way to Portobello.
 

385001

Member
Joined
27 Nov 2017
Messages
211
Location
Edinburgh
I popped into Waverley this afternoon to have a look at the progress on platforms 5 & 6.

Coming along nicely.


A5AE69D7-16D4-4DAC-BEAF-2EEEB6EF1B5E.jpeg

120D584D-EEBA-4259-9D57-A78293043A96.jpeg

974EA64C-1A68-4F83-ADDB-3CF490851D9F.jpeg

C4B667F5-A94B-4410-B10A-3141C0C1B01B.jpeg
 

railjock

Member
Joined
30 Jun 2012
Messages
373
When were platforms 5 and 6 converted for motorail? Apparently the original buffer stops have been excavated and are now visible.
 

railjock

Member
Joined
30 Jun 2012
Messages
373
This photo from the early 1970s ( just as rationalisation was starting ) shows that there were 4 tracks out of the east end of Waverley as far as Portobello East junction. One challenge in any re-instatement to 3 or 4 lines is that slow trains coming on or off the Sub, Millerhill or Borders line would still need to cross the fast lines.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3428.JPG
    IMG_3428.JPG
    512.4 KB · Views: 197

route:oxford

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Messages
4,949
This photo from the early 1970s ( just as rationalisation was starting ) shows that there were 4 tracks out of the east end of Waverley as far as Portobello East junction. One challenge in any re-instatement to 3 or 4 lines is that slow trains coming on or off the Sub, Millerhill or Borders line would still need to cross the fast lines.

So what is best. Over or Under?
 

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,208
When the Abbeyhill/Powderhall line(s) meets the direct lines they should cross over - the formation has space for two extra lines after there, so there would be a Berwick pair and a Borders/ECS pair.
 

railjock

Member
Joined
30 Jun 2012
Messages
373
A double lead junction would be a good start before anyone starts worrying about Grade Separation.
I don't think a double lead junction is in any plans as yet. Even upping the speed on the current single lead would be a good start.
 

XDM

Member
Joined
9 Apr 2016
Messages
483
I don't think a double lead junction is in any plans as yet. Even upping the speed on the current single lead would be a good start.

Agreed 15 mph is pitiful, & it also delays main line trains in both directions.
If Chris Green was still in charge in Scotland he would have called in his chief civil engineer & told him to make it 40mph.

Railjock's picture of the junction shows plenty of room for a flyover across the junction at a modern 1 in 35 passenger train gradient.

Every new hillybilly road scheme incorporates many bridges crossing other roads.
Surely just one bridge for rail crossing rail can be provided in the whole of Scotland.
The location looks ideal for it.
It would benefit the ECML as well as Borders trains.

Oh I had forgotten - it's Network Rail in charge.
So 5 years of reports, consultants fees, press releases & then nothing.
 

PaulLothian

Member
Joined
27 Sep 2010
Messages
678
Location
Linlithgow
Though still slightly off topic, I had never noticed till last week, when I used the adjacent pedestrian bridge, that there appears to be reverse cant on the first bit of curve round to Brunstane, which presumably contributes to the speed restriction.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,038
https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=16.752666672269502&lat=55.9471&lon=-3.1048&layers=10&b=7 is probably the best way to view what was there and is there now. Just change the transparency to see the roads replace the rail lines.

There is probably still room to put in a flyover, but it wouldn't be able to follow the original alignment, and I'm not convinced it's what you'd want from a traffic point of view either since it doesn't align that well with the platforms you want to use at Waverley
 

Photohunter71

Member
Joined
17 Jan 2012
Messages
576
Location
In a flat beside Niddrie West junction
I live beside the sub split for Millerhill and Portobello, Could there be a possibility of making the single track to Portobello a double as there appears to be room for it? Besides, what are the chances of some passenger use around the sub,and are there any plans for more freight round the sub?
 

och aye

Member
Joined
21 Jan 2012
Messages
799
I live beside the sub split for Millerhill and Portobello, Could there be a possibility of making the single track to Portobello a double as there appears to be room for it? Besides, what are the chances of some passenger use around the sub,and are there any plans for more freight round the sub?
I think the general consensus is that there isn't much chance of passenger services returning to the South Sub any time soon. If and when Abbeyhill junction is reinstated (which at the same time, would recreate the South Sub route in its original form) , there might be a possibility of the station being reinstated.

I think the general long term plan for the South Sub is electrification only.
 

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,208
I seem to have messed up this post!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20181004_162615.jpg
    IMG_20181004_162615.jpg
    1.9 MB · Views: 70
  • IMG_20181004_162029.jpg
    IMG_20181004_162029.jpg
    862.4 KB · Views: 69
  • IMG_20181004_162613.jpg
    IMG_20181004_162613.jpg
    1.9 MB · Views: 68
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top