Talk:Edinburgh Waverley railway station

rail services

I don't know very much about rail services eastward from Waverley. I'd appreciate it if someone who does know would add that in. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:50, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've done this - Newcraighall and North Berwick are the only ones I can think of, please correct if there are more. Cal T 17:22, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

controversial

Why was it locally controversial? -- User:Colin Angus Mackay moved here from the article by User:Finlay McWalter

If memory serves, some people thought "The Balmoral Hotel" was a silly name, given that it has nothing whatever to do with Balmoral. They couldn't call it The Waverley Hotel (I think there's one across the road called that), and I suspect Forte's marketroids figured "North British" had too much of a flat-caps-and-whippets sound to it. Still, it wasn't very controversial (which is why I didn't bother explaining in the article), so I'd be okay if we did any of the following:

• nuked "controversial" altogether (it's no great loss), or
• we said "under the name The Balmoral Hotel (this despite the hotel being XX miles from Balmoral Castle)", or even
• we said "under the name The Balmoral Hotel (in what has proved to be an astute marketing move, despite the hotel being XX miles from Balmoral Castle)"

Oh, and thanks to KF for fixing my spelling of this my most oft-mispelled word. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:31, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I put the last of the three options in. Mapquest says it's about 115 miles. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:14, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks.... And I must remember about these talk pages --Colin Angus Mackay 23:41, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Capitalisation

We need to standardise the capitalisation of Waverley Station in this article, as the S is sometimes capitalised and sometimes not. (For example, the title of the article has a lowercase S, while the lead text has it in uppercase.) My feeling is that it should be uppercase. Has there been any discussion of this issue elsewhere in the talk or Wikipedia namespace? —User:Caesura^(t) 10:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

move article?

Should this article be moved to Edinburgh Waverley station, for similar reasons that Central Station, Glasgow was moved to Glasgow Central station? The city name should always come first to remove any ambiguity. Our Phellap 17:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The naming standard for rail-transport stations in Great Britain is very clear:

Served by	example name
Mainline rail	Leeds railway station
London Underground	Pimlico tube station
Docklands Light Railway	Poplar DLR station
Tyne & Wear Metro	Pelaw Metro station
More than one of the above	Sunderland station

Note: There is no consensus (AFAIK) on whether tram stops need an article, but any of the above also served by trams use Footown station (e.g. East Croydon station). None of the Glasgow subway stations appear to have articles.

This shows to me that this article should be at Edinburgh Waverley railway station (until the (poposed?) tram system is up and running and serving the station). Thryduulf 21:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

My first instinct on seeing this proposal was to oppose it--when I lived in Edinburgh everyone referred to this station as just Waverley station, and the wikipedia naming conventions prefer the most common usage. However, browsing through the timetables of the companies that provide rail service to Waverley I noticed that none of them even mention the word Waverley, instead they just call the station Edinburgh. So I am now wondering if in my time away (I've been out of the UK for five years) the common usage has changed. Going by the rail companies it seems that this article ought to be moved to Edinburgh railway station or Edinburgh station (both of these options should at the very least be redirects). JeremyA 06:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Edinburgh station and Edinburgh railway station should definately be redirects. Thryduulf 09:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The station nameboard and National Rail both use "Edinburgh Waverley" Our Phellap 19:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Although timetables – National Rail Enquiries, Network Rail (via RailPlanner / HAFAS), GNER, ScotRail, Virgin – use just "Edinburgh". -- Picapica 08:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Edinburgh railway station should be a disambig (for Waverley, Haymarket, Newcraighall, and Edinburgh Park) and Edinburgh station a redirect to it. I've no problem with this article being called "Edinburgh Waverley railway station", and I don't think the tram will make any difference to that (as presumably the stops on it will be called "metro stops" or "tram stops" or something). Anyway, by the time that's finished, Wikipedia will have become artificially intelligent, and will be responsible itself for article naming issues :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 07:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Princes Street Station

There doesn't seem to be an article for Princes Street Station. I think we need one.

But there is no Princes Street Station - it closed in 1965. It should pehaps be covered in the article on the Caledonian Railway.

I am currently working my way around Scotland with Historical Railway lines, which is included the relevant stations (including the Closed ones). In due course, I will reach the Caledonian Railway article, and cover the closed stations. This will be a big piece of work - look at the route at the RAILSCOT map and the similar work that has been carried out on Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway --Stewart 21:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Platform numbering

I was thinking I might add a section explaining the station's unusual platform numbering scheme, but then thought some people might see it as a bit frivolous. What do you think? Ian27 14:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It could merit a brief mention: it's a consequence of most of the platforms at the east end being removed some years ago. --RFBailey 15:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Platform numbering has been revised over the 2006/07 Christmas/New Year period as a result of the new platform construction. --Stewart 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Number of Platforms

One particular editor appears to be insistent that there are twenty platforms at the station. Network Rail's station plan show 18 platforms in the final arrangement. There are no platforms 4 and 5. Two of the west end platforms are also out of service as part of the ongoing major reconstruction of the station. User:Signalhead has the current up-to-date information on the progress on this construction, and I would suggest to others that before changing the number of platforms in the article, they should discuss here as this is a moving target. --Stewart ^(talk) 07:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, the platforms are numbered 1 to 20, but there are no platforms 5 or 6. Platforms 10 and 11 are currently out of use while track remodelling takes place, and will remain so until 19 November 2007. Would users please refrain from editing unless they are certain of the facts. Signalhead 12:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Opening date

I feel hurt that Waverley opened in 1868. It did not. I can prove you. It says 1846 in the 'History of Scotland' book. It was classified in railway stations that opened that year. Do not change it. Tharnton345 (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be hurt. North Bridge Station was opened in 1846, along with the adjacent Canal Street Station. In 1868, the North British Railway bought out their competitors, and demolished both stations. The new station became known as Waverley. So you see both dates are, in fact, correct, as Waverley as it is now was opened 1868, but there has been a station on the site since 1846. So no, I'm not going to change it. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have revised the infobox - taking the info form the history section of the article to identify the three original stations which were on the site to be replaced by Waverley. This shows all the various dates and is consistent with the main body of the article. --Stewart ^(talk) 11:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Could we have a layout plan please

Whilst the description of the layout in words is good, a map would say it all much more comprehensively. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This is already available via the Station Information link in the infobox. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 21:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. G-13114 (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Name change?

Network Rail refers to the station as just Edinburgh; should the article be renamed to reflect that? 5.80.26.231 (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The article already says: Edinburgh Waverley railway station (also known simply as Edinburgh or as Waverley) So there's no obvious need to change the article name. G-13114 (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

But I don't understand why the article was named Edinburgh Waverley to begin with, since that's not its official name. 31.48.66.213 (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

What do the signs on the platforms say? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Probably to differentiate it from other stations in the city, such as Haymarket and Edinburgh Gateway, etc. --TBM10 (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Since photographic evidence (right) shows "Edinburgh Waverley", then per WP:NCUKSTATIONS, the article should be named Edinburgh Waverley railway station. Which it is already. So no action is required. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Here [1] the station is named only Edinburgh, also the .pdf timetables show the name Edinburgh, so there are 2 possibilities: 1) when the station Edinburgh Waverly was renamed Edinburgh in the 1966 the old name indication remained and the return to the old name mentioned in the template not been there; 2) both who realized the station website on National Rail website and who write the timetables have mistakenly forgotten to indicate it. However, the second possibility is less probable than the first. I would not change the name to the page, but I would remove the "? renamed Edinburgh Waverly" from the end of the template because it is uncertain that the last change of name has taken place. DelvecchioSimone12 5 96 (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you. Waverley is its common name, but I believe it is indeed officially Edinburgh, according to National Rail and (as far as I know, it may have changed) railway ticket machines. I have also read this in Britain's Railways From The Air (2009, authored by John Glover) although this is obviously a less reliable source than genuine industry documentation. Juniper334 (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Borders Railway

The article states that "the recently reopened Borders Railway" - what is 'recently'? It also states in the services section that Scotrail serves all stations in Scotland apart from Lockerbie - this is either wrong or poorly worded. Scotrail, as a TOC, do serve every railway station in Scotland, but they don't do so from Edinburgh (for example, you can't travel direct to Oban from Edinburgh). Ccw34 (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Adjacent Buildings section

Per WP:BRD, I deleted this section on the basis that it has absolutely no relevance to the article (hence my link to WP:COATRACK) and was reverted. We can have "Location" sections (e.g., Ashford International railway station, etc), but I felt that this was completely irrelevant to the subject of the article - the station itself. I would welcome the opinions of other editors as to whether this was a welcome or a bad move on my part. Courtesy ping of Grieg2 who reverted me. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The second half of the section is in my opinion irrelevant, you were right to remove it. However the hotel, as a railway-built hotel run by the railway company is worthy of mention and linking-to - see London's St Pancras as notable example and perhaps Paddington as a lesser example. For the meantime I have cut the crap and stripped it to bare facts pending further discussion. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done - removed second paragraph (as well as some random unsourced bits besides). Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I tweaked your tweak because I think the current name is relevant. So now, while we are at it, the whole "Past layout" section is unsourced original research and has been tagged as such for a while now. I'd side with removing the whole section. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that.

Past layout section removal is now also  Done Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the (intrusive) image of the hotel can also be removed. Grieg2 (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, a short mention of the NB hotel and Waverley Market is relevant for the page, because their development is tied to the construction of the station. For the market, a few referenced sentences about this relation could be added. Grieg2 (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)