I don't know who you think it is who will be confused as to whether something is a railway station. The tracks and platforms would give it away you'd think. That said, branding on a station, what does it amount to? A few signs and the colour of paint in the booking office, if one exists at all. It's utterly irrelevant.
Haha (sarcasm).
I am sure most people knew what I meant. As in there's no need to make a station represent the operator (especially when multiple operators serve a station) that may change its branding tomorrow, or another operator takes over the franchise.
Why not simply maintain a standard colour scheme, using standard signs (like airports) using recognised symbols and a standard font? Most operators are now using standardised symbols, but I'd say they all should.
Network Rail does at least seem to manage that at the main stations it manages, although St Pancras seems to have done its own thing. Not too complicated, but only because things have gradually improved over the last 7-8 years. Signage was terrible early on.
Stations will need regular maintenance, including repainting, but that's all.
How do painted seats, lampposts, poster boards and so on benefit the passenger? If one operator manages a station served by lots of train companies, what's the benefit there? To sway someone into buying a ticket for the operator that painted the station? Of course not.
In fact, I do wonder why stations are even put under the control of TOCs, rather than Network Rail. I was quite surprised to learn that AGA is even responsible for maintaining the passenger information screens and so on. Why? Isn't a station infrastructure?