Possible plans for Edinburgh Waverley station?

[13h202]

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.

4 years later, looks like your dream is coming true. Proposals are now out for consultation. They include: a large mezzanaine level, an iconic gateway on Waverley Bridge, reinstating the main station builiding, creating a mixed-use transport hub in the New St car park and more. Further details and consultation here: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/scotland/edinburgh-waverley-masterplan/

 

[takno]

4 years later, looks like your dream is coming true. Proposals are now out for consultation. They include: a large mezzanaine level, an iconic gateway on Waverley Bridge, reinstating the main station builiding, creating a mixed-use transport hub in the New St car park and more. Further details and consultation here: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/scotland/edinburgh-waverley-masterplan/

Likes like a total mess tbh. Removal of about 70% of heritage features, and putting lids on the platforms so that the waiting space people actually want to use is more like Brimingham New Street, and a "gateway" onto the least useful surrounding street. Bet you'll be able to get some lovely shops on the mezzanine though

 

[gingertom]

didn't see anything by way of increasing the number or length of trains able to get in or out. There must be more and longer platforms to accommodate the predicted doubling of passenger numbers, or does this not enhance the retail experience?

 

[13h202]

Removal of about 70% of heritage features

Aside from the access ramps, what other heritage features have been removed? Surely removing the footbridge from the front of the main building and reinstating it properly (presumably the old mosaic flooring too) is better than it is now.

a "gateway" onto the least useful surrounding street

Ever seen the view from the top of the access ramps? It is stunning with the Galleries and castle. Perhaps one of the greatest gateways into any city – currently basically unused. I think with a larger Canary Wharf tube-station style arc over both ramps, you could create a really iconic part of the city. It may be useless at the moment but pedestrianising it and a putting the primary station entrance would transform it.

 

[swt_passenger]

didn't see anything by way of increasing the number or length of trains able to get in or out. There must be more and longer platforms to accommodate the predicted doubling of passenger numbers, or does this not enhance the retail experience?

The overview drawing has the additional long through platform on the north side, extending P18. As per the sketch uploaded in post #643. Also seem to be more east end bays?

There’s presumably still the option of linking through P5 and P6 and lengthening P10 - the drawings don’t appear to introduce anything to prevent that.

 

[d9009alycidon]

The comments being added to he BBC website are interesting, the general consensus is that the travelling public is not interested by more shops, they want reliable trains, track and signalling, Haymarket to Waverley already has capacity issues and any failure has massive knock on impact. It would be difficult to improve capacity save for electrifying the sub, re-instating the four track from Portobello through Calton Tunnel into the station and diverting some services (e.g. Cross Country) to use that route (which would not be popular with that franchise)

 

[13h202]

It's noted that it doesn't give any consideration towards infrastructure for trains. This is purely for passenger areas. I would imagine any options for the track etc are in a different plan.

 

[ejstubbs]

Interesting that the proposed new eastern concourse seems to kind-of reinstate the old pedestrian route from Jeffrey Street to Calton Road (although slightly further west, and probably starting from East Market Street rather than Jeffrey Street).

I wonder whether the 'secret' lift access into the Balmoral Hotel (as visited by Julie Walters for her 2017 Coastal Railways series on Channel 4*) would survive this masterplan?

I tend to agree with takno, that it looks like the actual platform areas would end up feeling more like Birmingham New Street. In that respect I suspect that Poolsharks1 might find it even more depressing than at present (though personally I don't actually find the current station particularly depressing at all - each to his own and all that).

* Still available on the Channel 4 web site, though you do need to register. Waverley features in episode 2.

 

[385001]

It looks like the masterplan involves removing the ramps to be replaced with an "iconic feature roof" and a new gateway entrance on Waverley Bridge. Presumably good news for future through platform extensions.

More entrances/exits would be welcome. Especially the one envisaged between the station and North Bridge. And the plans look like they would sort out the Calton Road entrance/exit and give good links for pedestrians.

I share concerns that the mezzanine could make it quite dark at platform level. I wonder why we all think of Birmingham New Street? However, modern construction methods can get natural light into places that wouldn't have in previous years. Think natural light on the Crossrail platforms at Paddington.

 

[Altnabreac]

didn't see anything by way of increasing the number or length of trains able to get in or out. There must be more and longer platforms to accommodate the predicted doubling of passenger numbers, or does this not enhance the retail experience?

The overview drawing has the additional long through platform on the north side, extending P18. As per the sketch uploaded in post #643. Also seem to be more east end bays?

There’s presumably still the option of linking through P5 and P6 and lengthening P10 - the drawings don’t appear to introduce anything to prevent that.

It's noted that it doesn't give any consideration towards infrastructure for trains. This is purely for passenger areas. I would imagine any options for the track etc are in a different plan.

Effectively the RUS identified the options for the track and platforms. This Masterplan is about enabling those possibilities while also dealing with the forecast extra passenger numbers.

To create the extra track capacity the RUS proposed extending platforms, 12, 13 and 18 through the station to make extra through platforms. To do this you need to:

• Remove the ramps from Waverley Bridge
• Replace the servicing of the existing station that is done via Waverley Bridge with another option (underground routes from Market Street proposed in the masterplan)
• Deal with the fact that the station would be more broken up into eparate sections by these new platforms.

The existing station already has 4 separate sections that are separated vertically. But these serve only 5 of the 20 platforms with 15 platforms in the main body of the station.

Adding the new through platforms would leave the station in 6 separate sections with the main central section only covering 10 of the 20 platforms.

The current model of getting everyone down to ground level to access the shops and information then distributing them out to the platforms just wouldn't work with only 10 platforms available at that ground level.

To a large extent this masterplan is being driven by that requirement to move the passengers up a level and improve their distribution.

I'm impressed that it is much more ambitious than I expected and it really looks at these ideas from first principles.

An initial glance at the preferred masterplan seems to suggest that what might be the current thinking on the track is to extend platform 18 right through the concourse but that connecting 5/6 to 12/13 isn't in current plans. I suspect this makes sense but if you removed the south ramp to Waverley Bridge you would probably extend platform 13 to be the same length as the existing platform 12.

It also appears to show platforms 14-17 lengthened into the existing concourse area as well so there is a fair bit of extra platform capacity included.

 

[gingertom]

Effectively the RUS identified the options for the track and platforms. This Masterplan is about enabling those possibilities while also dealing with the forecast extra passenger numbers.

To create the extra track capacity the RUS proposed extending platforms, 12, 13 and 18 through the station to make extra through platforms. To do this you need to:

• Remove the ramps from Waverley Bridge
• Replace the servicing of the existing station that is done via Waverley Bridge with another option (underground routes from Market Street proposed in the masterplan)
• Deal with the fact that the station would be more broken up into eparate sections by these new platforms.

The existing station already has 4 separate sections that are separated vertically. But these serve only 5 of the 20 platforms with 15 platforms in the main body of the station.

Adding the new through platforms would leave the station in 6 separate sections with the main central section only covering 10 of the 20 platforms.

The current model of getting everyone down to ground level to access the shops and information then distributing them out to the platforms just wouldn't work with only 10 platforms available at that ground level.

To a large extent this masterplan is being driven by that requirement to move the passengers up a level and improve their distribution.

I'm impressed that it is much more ambitious than I expected and it really looks at these ideas from first principles.

An initial glance at the preferred masterplan seems to suggest that what might be the current thinking on the track is to extend platform 18 right through the concourse but that connecting 5/6 to 12/13 isn't in current plans. I suspect this makes sense but if you removed the south ramp to Waverley Bridge you would probably extend platform 13 to be the same length as the existing platform 12.

It also appears to show platforms 14-17 lengthened into the existing concourse area as well so there is a fair bit of extra platform capacity included.

enough to double the capacity? Not sure about that. Half a dozen deep underground platforms with a new tunnel towards Haymarket and on to Mid Calder and Newbridge Jns would give the needed capacity, especially for HS. Not cheap though.

 

[InOban]

Most services at Waverley already operate at a quite adequate frequency. Growth will come from moving increasingly towards 8 coach trains. So the main challenge is to get these passengers in and out of the station, not to provide track capacity for more trains.

 

[jopsuk]

It's noted that it doesn't give any consideration towards infrastructure for trains. This is purely for passenger areas. I would imagine any options for the track etc are in a different plan.

There's not much point in asking the public about operational infrastructure

 

[Stopper]

Most services at Waverley already operate at a quite adequate frequency. Growth will come from moving increasingly towards 8 coach trains. So the main challenge is to get these passengers in and out of the station, not to provide track capacity for more trains.

That’s the case for many services but there will still need to be frequency increases. 7/8-car E-G services are already full and heavily standing at 4tph, if the Almond Chord is approved this would almost certainly have to be increased to 6tph. There’s obviously the extra TPE services and hopefully an increase in Inverness services. Track capacity will be required.

 

[47271]

To be fair on Network Rail, they now have a pretty good record as far as adding mezzanine levels to major stations without turning them into the depressing holes of the BR era like New Street, Charing Cross or the west side of Victoria. King's Cross, Haymarket and now even Euston have retail decks that don't in any way detract from the environment below, whether trains are present or not.

My only real misgiving is the 'Gateway to the City' which I fear is a little bit more mezzanine area that is strictly necessary, and is at risk of creating something quite bleak on the west facing platforms.

The roof already identified as being 'iconic' makes me smile - the world at large will decide whether the roof is iconic, not the people designing it.

Waverley's biggest problem at the moment is the shambolic taxi rank - I'd have liked it if they'd tried to be more specific about the proposed interchange rather than providing little pink blocks to show us where every retail unit might be.

All of the above said, I think it's a good attempt to sort out passenger handling at what is at present one of the UK's most bewildering large stations.

 

[takno]

To be fair on Network Rail, they now have a pretty good record as far as adding mezzanine levels to major stations without turning them into the depressing holes of the BR era like New Street, Charing Cross or the west side of Victoria. King's Cross, Haymarket and now even Euston have retail decks that don't in any way detract from the environment below, whether trains are present or not.

My only real misgiving is the 'Gateway to the City' which I fear is a little bit more mezzanine area that is strictly necessary, and is at risk of creating something quite bleak on the west facing platforms.

The roof already identified as being 'iconic' makes me smile - the world at large will decide whether the roof is iconic, not the people designing it.

Waverley's biggest problem at the moment is the shambolic taxi rank - I'd have liked it if they'd tried to be more specific about the proposed interchange rather than providing little pink blocks to show us where every retail unit might be.

All of the above said, I think it's a good attempt to sort out passenger handling at what is at present one of the UK's most bewildering large stations.

As far as I can see the items being eliminated are the current roof, the wetherspoons (and more importantly the listed building containing it), and the ramps. I could get on board with a small mezz between the ramps over the current concourse, and linked to the existing bridge, and there are no downsides to underground service access and an Eastern mezz. Really it's just the grand statement entrance that seems to be nothing but a vanity project.

 

[GrimShady]

Ticket gates installed and some other work still taking place.

Both 5 & 6 being used by LNER services when I was in.

View attachment 60562 View attachment 60563 View attachment 60564

Marvelous! More stupid ticket barriers!

 

[385001]

New ticket gates don’t look far from being operational.

 

[och aye]

As expected the heritage lobbyists aren't too happy with the proposals.

Edinburgh Waverley masterplan: Heritage groups and watchdog voice ‘deep concern’ over plans

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman....chdog-voice-deep-concern-over-plans-1-4896299

Rail bosses want to add a mezzanine floor to create a new concourse above the platforms, which would mean building a new, higher roof. And they plan a new street-level main entrance from Waverley Bridge which would involve removing the ramps down into the station. The station’s ticket hall would be preserved.

But the Cockburn Association said it was disappointed the heritage significance of the station had not been taken into account.

Director Terry Levinthal said: “The whole station is a Category A listed building, but that does not seem to have entered into their thinking.

“The way they want to reconfigure it, you would need to virtually demolish the whole of Waverley with some bits retained.”

Mr Levinthal argued other options for the redevelopment should be explored as well. He claimed there was “great scope” for improving the station and its surroundings and expanding westwards.

“We would also advocate the integration of Waverley Mall into the scheme, which could provide huge benefit over the ill-conceived rooftop extension granted consent recently.


Historic Environment Scotland said Waverley was “one of the UK’s greatest surviving Victorian city stations”. In a statement it said: “The entire station, including the roof, is Category A listed, and is set within Edinburgh’s World Heritage Site.

“We have not been formally consulted, but are aware of the initial masterplan proposals.

“We are keen to work closely with Network Rail and the City of Edinburgh Council on improvements to the operation of the station, but could not support proposals that removed the entire station excepting the booking hall.”

Edinburgh World Heritage said it viewed the masterplan approach “with deep concern”. In a statement, it said: “The suggested changes would result in the loss of much of the iconic glass roof, with its unusual ridge and furrow arrangement, as well as many, if not most, of the important 19th century details, such as cast-iron Corinthian capitals and bollards.”

It indicated the ticket hall was important, but there was much more to the station than that.

And it added: “There will also undoubtedly be an impact on the overall character of the Waverley valley, with its dramatic views and vistas at the heart of the Old and New Towns World Heritage Site.”

But the statement said Network Rail had “a positive record in conservation” and cited the revamp of London’s King’s Cross and St Pancras stations, which it said suggested ambitious plans for growth could be combined with caring for much-loved railway heritage.

 

[scosutsut]

New ticket gates don’t look far from being operational.

Not sure how they plan on stopping people heading towards 7 and then turning back towards 11/12 round the back of the lift shaft?

Anyone know if any further gates planned for 4/5/6/7? I'd love to see the faces of known fare dodgers on my route!

 

[jopsuk]

I love the way the sign for the pedestrian crossing of the road is hanging on, wrapped in much tape.

 

[KGC]

Is the space between the booking hall and platform 5 now too narrow for vehicle access? If so, this would surely make further redevelopment work more disruptive and suggests that the South ramp would be favourite to be removed first.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The BR mezzanine disasters normally involved building another concrete level on top of the concourse. Doing that meant it was hard enough getting light to the passenger concourse, let alone the platform level. The modern mezzanine layout, as typified by the plans for Euston and Old Oak Common, has a large glass roof canopy over a semi-open concourse level which allows reasonable amounts of natural light to filter down to the platforms.

The heritage aspect is a difficult one. The general problem is that the railway isn't a museum, and needs to be able to accommodate modern usage requirements. Given the number of times stations like Waverley have been rebuilt by the Victorians, is it really a good idea to hold back just to preserve old details? Defaulting to conservation works well when the existing architecture is grand, but any modern replacement would be far less so for penny-pinching reasons. If the listed bits are to be removed, they'll need to be replaced by something of equivalent or greater architectural merit. A benchmark could be the Queen Elizabeth II Great Court at the British Museum, which merges beautifully as a world-class piece of modern architecture with the traditional Victorian structures surrounding it.

If you're going for a unique piece of architecture to replace the current roof, then it's not too much of a stretch to consider styling some of the new pieces in the original Victorian styles. The Great Court works involved re-instating a long-demolished portico in an original matching style, and many places across Europe have successfully re-instated traditional buildings. Indeed, much of classic Edinburgh architecture of the period is based on traditional Greek styles, so it's not that absurd to build something 'retro'. If done correctly, it could be an excellent bridge between any retained old sections and the new.

 

[route:oxford]

enough to double the capacity? Not sure about that. Half a dozen deep underground platforms with a new tunnel towards Haymarket and on to Mid Calder and Newbridge Jns would give the needed capacity, especially for HS. Not cheap though.

Pretty much this. It's the best option.

HS2 compatible station and platforms underground at Waverley and Haymarket. Two platforms at Haymarket would be fine, along with 4-6 platforms at Waverley.

Imagine the consequences to the heritage rail services with a flying junction and upgraded curve at Carstairs, and no hanging around at the derelict garages outside Haymarket. Timetabling of 3h45m from Birmingham to Edinburgh possible?

 

[najaB]

Pretty much this. It's the best option.

It's also likely the priciest option too. Not saying it can't/won't happen but it will face an uphill challenge.

 

[gingertom]

It's also likely the priciest option too. Not saying it can't/won't happen but it will face an uphill challenge.

a radical increase in capacity calls for a radical rethink of how you access Waverley from the west. There's no room to add any more tracks to the south because of a castle and I'm sure the good people of Edinburgh won't take to kindly to losing more of Princes Street gardens to yet another pair of railway tracks. Underground is therefore the way to go. Expensive? Definitely. Worthwhile? I'd say so. Down to the bean counters to put the BCR figure on it so unlikely to happen.

 

[Altnabreac]

Pretty much this. It's the best option.

HS2 compatible station and platforms underground at Waverley and Haymarket. Two platforms at Haymarket would be fine, along with 4-6 platforms at Waverley.

Imagine the consequences to the heritage rail services with a flying junction and upgraded curve at Carstairs, and no hanging around at the derelict garages outside Haymarket. Timetabling of 3h45m from Birmingham to Edinburgh possible?

It's also likely the priciest option too. Not saying it can't/won't happen but it will face an uphill challenge.

a radical increase in capacity calls for a radical rethink of how you access Waverley from the west. There's no room to add any more tracks to the south because of a castle and I'm sure the good people of Edinburgh won't take to kindly to losing more of Princes Street gardens to yet another pair of railway tracks. Underground is therefore the way to go. Expensive? Definitely. Worthwhile? I'd say so. Down to the bean counters to put the BCR figure on it so unlikely to happen.

I won't say that a new pair of HS tracks into Edinburgh Waverley will never happen but I doubt they'll be heading westwards...

I'm also 100% sure there won't be any underground platforms. You can easily get 2 x 400m long HS2 platforms by extending Platforms 8 and 9. As Scotrail services move more towards the northern side of the station post Almond Chord that will fit the station usage better and with a mezzanine deck 8 and 9 become much better connected to the main station facilities than they are at present. For a likely 3tph service (2tph to London, 1tph to Birmingham) 2 x 400m platforms will be quite sufficient.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Six-tracking west of Waverley was mentioned in the 2043 Route Study as something only likely as a HSR requirement. When the will is there a way will be found, as there's no other practical way of adding more capacity without an isolated underground terminus that would need to be underneath the existing station.

I think the solution would involve building a set of TSI-compliant platforms abutting Market Street at current station level or below. If the opportunity is taken to raise up Princes Street gardens by enough to cover the tracks you could get away with a quite unsympathetic track layout. With only a few platforms there'd be no need for a complex grade-separated throat so the railway could be a simple twin-track route heading steeply down into the ground by the time it reaches the Castle.

 

[scosutsut]

New ticket gates don’t look far from being operational.

View attachment 60852

I can't confirm the exact go live date but these were active during the morning rush hour today.

 

[Photohunter71]

I saw in a building and architecture forum that Cameron Toll was mentioned as a possible new large railway station to ease capacity issues for Waverley and Haymarket, I'm pretty certain I read it in Skyscrapercity Edinburgh rail developments section, and it's a piece by a John McClellan of the Scotsman newspaper.