Best and Worst Major Interchange Stations

[WelshBluebird]

Then use the B end if it bothers you.

The point is that most people don't know there is a difference between the different ends, which leads to me asking the next question of why on earth is there a difference in the first place? There's no real reason for there to be, it just makes life more difficult for passengers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The point is that most people don't know there is a difference between the different ends, which leads to me asking the next question of why on earth is there a difference in the first place? There's no real reason for there to be, it just makes life more difficult for passengers.

Because it is the only practical way to have the central atrium "landside" without blocking access from one direction entirely or a convoluted system of bridges within the constraint of the existing buildings that were being used to build it from (e.g. the B end bridge is in a converted former multi storey car park, while the atrium is in the middle of the old shopping centre building). One bridge, the only other viable option, would not have been big enough within those constraints.

You could have knocked it all down and built from scratch I suppose, but that would have cost lots more and been far more disruptive while going on.

I suppose you could have had the entrance from the Bullring side run round the side of a set of central gates, but it would have been less convenient to use that way.

 

[ashkeba]

Having to constantly retrieve your ticket is a complete PITA, especially for those laden with luggage.

Now try it with luggage and a walking stick!

Then use the B end if it bothers you.

The barriers aren't closed half the time anyway.

A station where interchanging passengers are told to walk to another platform/segment and often go to a different platform number to that shown on screens (12B for 12A, for example) is a bad interchange station no matter how many workarounds people give or how many posters include them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A station where interchanging passengers are told to walk to another platform/segment and often go to a different platform number to that shown on screens (12B for 12A, for example) is a bad interchange station no matter how many workarounds people give or how many posters include them.

How about putting big arrows with "CHANGING TRAINS? THIS WAY ->" all along the walls so it's in your face immediately you get off?

 

[WesternBiker]

Nuremberg. I think it has platforms numbered into the 20s, with some split A-F, and three straightforward tunnels linking them, one for A and B, one for C and D, one for E and F. The main oddity is that someone decided to add a short track next to platform 1 and number it platform 30 instead of 0.

Notably, they have not put any glass walls and barriers halfway across only the A end connector, unlike Birmingham!

I'd agree with Nuremberg. Very easy to use - and shows the benefit of having street-level subways (with elevated platforms). The absence of ticket barriers also helps of course, as if you can explore freely (should you want to). The only criticism I have of busy German stations is the time-based timetable posters can look quite intimidating - the UK's destination-based versions on platforms make it easier to find the next train.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This discussion about New Street reminds of of this book: Don't Make Me Think. It's a classic book about website design that ought to be well known to most website designers. The book's main premise is that people, by their nature, are always in a hurry. They will almost always pick the first thing that looks like a solution to their problem. They won't read every single detail on a webpage. And therefore, a well designed web site won't expect them to: A well-designed web site will - just by how it's been laid out and visually designed - naturally lead people to click on the thing that best does what they want to do.

It seems to me those principles apply equally to stations (and to almost any public building for that matter - with the difference that, compared to websites, it's much harder and phenomenally expensive to redesign buildings, so you'd better get it right first time). A good design intuitively leads people to where they need to go, without expecting them to read lots of posters first. It's pretty clear from the discussion here (and from my own experience of confusedly wandering round Birmingham New Street station, almost missing a train because I couldn't figure out where to go) that New Street massively fails that test. The tragedy of the New Street concourse etc. is that it wasn't built in the 19th century - it was built within the last 10 years off of a largely clean slate, at a time when 'don't-make-me-think' good design principles were very well known - and somehow the designers still managed to completely ignore passenger-usability.

 

[BayPaul]

This discussion about New Street reminds of of this book: Don't Make Me Think. It's a classic book about website design that ought to be well known to most website designers. The book's main premise is that people, by their nature, are always in a hurry. They will almost always pick the first thing that looks like a solution to their problem. They won't read every single detail on a webpage. And therefore, a well designed web site won't expect them to: A well-designed web site will - just by how it's been laid out and visually designed - naturally lead people to click on the thing that does what they want to do.

It seems to me those principles apply equally to stations (and to almost any public building for that matter - with the difference that, compared to websites, it's much harder and phenomenally expensive to redesign buildings, so you'd better get it right first time). A good design intuitively leads people to where they need to go, without expecting them to read lots of posters first. It's pretty clear from the discussion here (and from my own experience of confusedly wandering round Birmingham New Street station, almost missing a train because I couldn't figure out where to go) that New Street massively fails that test. The tragedy of the New Street concourse etc. is that it wasn't built in the 19th century - it was built within the last 10 years off of a largely clean slate, at a time when 'don't-make-me-think' good design principles were very well known - and somehow the designers still managed to completely ignore passenger-usability.

Yes, this exactly!

 

[WesternBiker]

How about putting big arrows with "CHANGING TRAINS? THIS WAY ->" all along the walls so it's in your face immediately you get off?

In effect, that is exactly what large airports do, with their "Connecting Flights" signage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It seems to me those principles apply equally to stations (and to almost any public building for that matter - with the difference that, compared to websites, it's much harder and phenomenally expensive to redesign buildings, so you'd better get it right first time). A good design intuitively leads people to where they need to go, without expecting them to read lots of posters first. It's pretty clear from the discussion here (and from my own experience of confusedly wandering round Birmingham New Street station, almost missing a train because I couldn't figure out where to go) that New Street massively fails that test. The tragedy of the New Street concourse etc. is that it wasn't built in the 19th century - it was built within the last 10 years off of a largely clean slate, at a time when 'don't-make-me-think' good design principles were very well known - and somehow the designers still managed to completely ignore passenger-usability.

No, it wasn't. It was constrained by the buildings being conversions of three existing connected buildings (the old station which makes up the A end, the multistorey car park that makes up the B end and the shopping centre on top that is still a shopping centre albeit with a big hole cut in the top and bottom of the supporting raft in the middle of it), and by needing to remain a fully operational station throughout the several-year construction process.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but there are reasons it is why it is. It would have been far more disruptive to rip it all out entirely and start again.

Looking at the plan, however, I wonder if it might be feasible to connect the two A bits together and remove some shops to make the access to the Bullring side "round the side" rather than "through the middle"? I'm not totally sure without standing there looking at it. It might be that the structure is in the way of doing that.

 

[Dr Hoo]

- Two platforms is a simple, predictable layout and those signs render further passenger information unnecessary. Even the numbers are arguably redundant. At BHM the poster exists to explain (rather than to semi-replace) the numbering system. The true multi-platform analogy to the Hope Valley line signs would be something like those posters at Stratford that associate platform numbers to destinations.

The poster kindly illustrated by CentralTrainer makes no substantive mention of the numbering system.

It is fundamentally written information displayed on a vertical surface to assist passengers navigating the station, just like an 'Over the bridge' sign at a two-platform station.

Ever since the 'world beating' original design of the 1850s by E A Cowper (who was part of the glass company in Smethwick that also produced the Crystal Palace and who worked with the revolutionary designer Joseph Paxton) there has been one bridge to give access to and interchange between all platforms. As I have noted before, this concept was perpetuated in the 1960s rebuild and again in the current structure.

So far as I am aware there was never any intention that the additional stairs, lifts and escalators at the A end would be promoted as an interchange facility (despite quite a few people on here referring to things like "the A-end bridge" even though it looks nothing like a bridge). Their primary role is as exits/entrances from/to the station for people ending or (re-)starting a journey in Birmingham. Nevertheless, as Bletchleyite and other have kindly joined me in confirming, it is actually also pretty straightforward to undertake a 'two-barrier' interchange at that end and I have observed the staff to generally be very helpful.

Having again reviewed this entire thread (as it applies to Birmingham New Street) I am most staggered at the number of people who seem to have repeated difficulty. I can understand that someone might follow a crowd of exiting passengers up some 'A stairs' on a first encounter but having had the opportunity of receiving some helpful advice along the lines of, "you'll find it much easier if you interchange at the B bridge in future", still seem to be able to "get lost", "always get totally confused", etc. the next time that they arrive.

 

[ashkeba]

How about putting big arrows with "CHANGING TRAINS? THIS WAY ->" all along the walls so it's in your face immediately you get off?

"Connecting Trains" arrow signs would be more help than that poster but would still leave a lot of passengers in the red lounge looking for platforms ending A shown on the departure board and thinking they must cross two barrier lines to get there, unless other signs are also changed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

"Connecting Trains" arrow signs would be more help than that poster but would still leave a lot of passengers in the red lounge looking for platforms ending A shown on the departure board and thinking they must cross two barrier lines to get there, unless other signs are also changed.

It's quite hard to find pictures of inside the "red lounge" bridge but here is one:

New St "B end"/red lounge bridge showing signage - from "Show me the journey" website

That clearly shows that the B end has signage and displays for both the A and B platforms (you can see the PIS screen on the right showing a departure from 3B, but the 3A screen being blank as no train is there). Thus anyone who does change platforms via the B end bridge will not be confused in the way you mention.

 

[CentralTrainer]

How about putting big arrows with "CHANGING TRAINS? THIS WAY ->" all along the walls so it's in your face immediately you get off?

You’d still get the zealots stamping their little feet that either the signage is too big, the font is all wrong or it doesn’t take you to the next platform whilst holding your hand.

 

[xotGD]

nothing is stopping you changing platforms via the A end

Yes there is. A great big glass wall that stops you reaching your platform.

Why would the average bod, finding themselves in that situation, then assume that they would need to exit the station and then re-enter just to reach the platform they can see just a few yards in front of them?

 

[Dr_Paul]

The most complicated station I’ve experienced in Stratford (London). Platform numbering all over the place and very confusing layout.

I agree -- I've found Stratford completely confusing.

Wimbledon is awful. Only one narrow set of stairs from each pair of platforms, and huge numbers interchanging between SWR, Tube, tram and Thameslink.

Yes -- I think there is good reason for a footbridge across the town end of Wimbledon for an LT/SW/Thameslink/Tram interchange. Whether this is feasible is another matter.

Waterloo to Waterloo East is pretty awful, especially considering the number of people making the change and the crowd of people milling about at the top of the ramps down to the Waterloo East platforms, wondering which platform their train is going from.

I've long thought that about Waterloo, but I'm not sure what can be done about this connection. As Waterloo Road precludes a subway going under the Charing Cross lines, one can only really go over them.

And of course St P is now about 5 separate stations (once you take the different batches of Underground lines into account), and I know many new visitors find it difficult to "get their head round".

Not 'alf, and not just for new visitors! I was helping a French pal with her luggage from the Piccadilly Line to the Eurostar station; we got in a lift and found ourselves still a long way underground in an obscure deserted corridor, and had to find our way up from there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes there is. A great big glass wall that stops you reaching your platform.

Why would the average bod, finding themselves in that situation, then assume that they would need to exit the station and then re-enter just to reach the platform they can see just a few yards in front of them?

They would read the signs pointing to other platforms and pass the gateline, as you do when changing trains at e.g. Manchester Piccadilly. Or if confused they would ask the staff on the gateline.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Yes there is. A great big glass wall that stops you reaching your platform.

Why would the average bod, finding themselves in that situation, then assume that they would need to exit the station and then re-enter just to reach the platform they can see just a few yards in front of them?

[In relation to Birmingham New Street.]

This all 'assumes' that you've made the (repeated?) 'mistake' of coming up at the A end anyway.

You will not be 'exiting the station'; you will be undertaking a barrier-to-barrier interchange as is often unavoidable at many other stations, such as Brighton, Cardiff Central, Edinburgh Waverley, Liverpool South Parkway, etc.

There is no need to do any more 'assuming'; just follow the signs or better still ask the helpful staff and never have the same problem again.

[Bletchleyite has beaten me to it in substance.]

 

[Ken H]

[In relation to Birmingham New Street.]

This all 'assumes' that you've made the (repeated?) 'mistake' of coming up at the A end anyway.

You not be 'exiting the station'; you will be undertaking a barrier-to-barrier interchange as is often unavoidable at many other stations, such as Brighton, Cardiff Central, Edinburgh Waverley, Liverpool South Parkway, etc.

There is no need to do any more 'assuming'; just follow the signs or better still ask the helpful staff and never have the same problem again.

[Bletchleyite has beaten me to it in substance.]

or just avoid the pace and go by car. People will miss one connection then will never go that way by train again.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I've long thought that about Waterloo, but I'm not sure what can be done about this connection. As Waterloo Road precludes a subway going under the Charing Cross lines, one can only really go over them.

You'd basically have to build a concourse area above the tracks to replace the corridors that exist there at present. I'm sure there's nothing in principle stopping you doing that, and it would certainly make Waterloo East a lot more convenient (especially if it included an entrance on Cornwall Road), but it'd be expensive, and as far as I'm aware it's not something that anyone is thinking about. But that's probably subject for another thread.

 

[Bletchleyite]

or just avoid the pace and go by car. People will miss one connection then will never go that way by train again.

It is really not that bad.

 

[Dr Hoo]

or just avoid the pace and go by car. People will miss one connection then will never go that way by train again.

No need to exaggerate.

The published interchange time of 12 minutes at New Street is generally adequate to cope with any normal rate of walking and allowing for use of lifts, including a couple of gratuitous barrier passes if you insist.

And if people are able to change instead at (say) Wolverhampton, Coventry or University that's probably better for everyone.

 

[ashkeba]

Looking at the plan, however, I wonder if it might be feasible to connect the two A bits together and remove some shops to make the access to the Bullring side "round the side" rather than "through the middle"? I'm not totally sure without standing there looking at it. It might be that the structure is in the way of doing that.

There is already access to the Bullring side around both sides. The link tunnel on the north side and the exit signed "Taxis" on the south. These could be wider if shops were moved. I think no shop need be lost, but some may be less attractive if no longer right next to an exit route.

The gap in the A end corridor seems primarily to make space for one more (empty?) shop unit on the side of the gap and to make the three(?) internal shop units in the Bullring-facing entrance hall a bit more attractive. Probably that means more rent payment.

That clearly shows that the B end has signage and displays for both the A and B platforms (you can see the PIS screen on the right showing a departure from 3B, but the 3A screen being blank as no train is there). Thus anyone who does change platforms via the B end bridge will not be confused in the way you mention.

That is even worse than I thought: the platform signs show neither A not B and so do not match the departure boards or the maps and posters. You would need to know the station does not have real A/B platforms of the sort common elsewhere that I think I have seen in the UK, maybe Leeds? And as mentioned before, there is not much red there.

No amount of simple contradiction will alter that it is an awful interchange, possible UK worst.

Not 'alf, and not just for new visitors! I was helping a French pal with her luggage from the Piccadilly Line to the Eurostar station; we got in a lift and found ourselves still a long way underground in an obscure deserted corridor, and had to find our way up from there.

That is a special case where I think from the deep tube to the Eurostar at St Pancras the signs actively misdirect you to a very long and quiet route because it increases station peak capacity. Some of the signed interchanges are arguable. For example Southeastern and Thameslink are closer to the north underground ticket hall than the original deep one. But not Eurostar.

 

[trebor79]

There is already access to the Bullring side around both sides. The link tunnel on the north side and the exit signed "Taxis" on the south. These could be wider if shops were moved. I think no shop need be lost, but some may be less attractive if no longer right next to an exit route.

The gap in the A end corridor seems primarily to make space for one more (empty?) shop unit on the side of the gap and to make the three(?) internal shop units in the Bullring-facing entrance hall a bit more attractive. Probably that means more rent payment.


That is even worse than I thought: the platform signs show neither A not B and so do not match the departure boards or the maps and posters. You would need to know the station does not have real A/B platforms of the sort common elsewhere that I think I have seen in the UK, maybe Leeds? And as mentioned before, there is not much red there.

No amount of simple contradiction will alter that it is an awful interchange, possible UK worst.

Agreed. You've reminded me that the one time I had to change trains there it wasn't at all cleat which was the A and B end of the platform, and as the train was a few minutes late but announced as arriving I spent a frantic couple of minutes pacing up and down wondering if I was on completely the wrong diesel fume filled platform.
Dreadful.

That is a special case where I think from the deep tube to the Eurostar at St Pancras the signs actively misdirect you to a very long and quiet route because it increases station peak capacity. Some of the signed interchanges are arguable. For example Southeastern and Thameslink are closer to the north underground ticket hall than the original deep one. But not Eurostar.

Same with exiting to Kings Cross or the street, although in that case a very long and very busy walk. Ignore all signs for the exit and follow the interchange route for the Circle line, which brings you up the original escalators to the old ticket hall, turn left and up the stairs to the street. Saves a lot of time and sweating.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is even worse than I thought: the platform signs show neither A not B and so do not match the departure boards or the maps and posters. You would need to know the station does not have real A/B platforms of the sort common elsewhere that I think I have seen in the UK, maybe Leeds?

There are very few stations where 10A and 10B (or whatever) are totally separate platforms which aren't just part of the main platform, to the point I can't even think of a single one. There are two I can think of where C is like that - New St 4C and Preston 3C/4C (the latter are I believe going to be removed as part of HS2 work, to be replaced by the Res platform being reinstated, probably numbered 0). In all cases I know of they are reached via the main numbered platform.

Leeds is the same as New St - 10A, B, C and D are just subdivisions of 10 (the 10 is figurative, I forget if it even has a 10).

It really doesn't cause mass confusion at New St. If you're looking for 10B, you go to 10 and then notice that it's subdivided. This is very common practice.

I really can't see how you do better - this is the standard way of marking long platforms typically used in two or more separate bits and is used in lots of places. Maybe a bit more signage - "TRAINS SHOWING AS 10A THIS WAY -->" etc?

 

[Dr Hoo]

[In relation to King's Cross St Pancras Underground Station and St Pancras International.]

Not 'alf, and not just for new visitors! I was helping a French pal with her luggage from the Piccadilly Line to the Eurostar station; we got in a lift and found ourselves still a long way underground in an obscure deserted corridor, and had to find our way up from there.

Having done a similar transfer last Saturday this does not seem unduly odd.

So far as I am aware there is only one lift from the Piccadilly Line and this takes you to the main 'Northern' interchange subway that links the Northern Ticket Hall with the Northern Line (Bank Branch) [No lift this end], Piccadilly Line [Lift] and Victoria Line [Lift]. This is absolutely NOT an "obscure deserted corridor" by the Piccadilly Line (although it does peter out a bit beyond the Victoria if the old link to the former Pentonville Road/original Thameslink is in use).

The interchange subway takes you to the foot of the 4 x escalator bank to the Northern Ticket Hall with an adjacent lift to that level.

You will then exit the Underground ticket barriers, pass through the under-street subway to St Pancras and then take a third lift to the main St Pancras 'street' level, on which the Eurostar entrance is located.

Given the obvious benefits of keeping passengers with heavy or awkward luggage and in need of assistance off escalators this is definitely the 'intended' route.

As I have noted up thread, the existence of no fewer than four subterranean levels and two 'main line' levels inevitably means multiple lifts, escalators, steps or ramps given the various lateral offsets between the individual facilities.

The basic laws of physics, geometry and geography always make themselves felt.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed. You've reminded me that the one time I had to change trains there it wasn't at all cleat which was the A and B end of the platform, and as the train was a few minutes late but announced as arriving I spent a frantic couple of minutes pacing up and down wondering if I was on completely the wrong diesel fume filled platform.

If a train is in A or B rather than the full platform this is clearly shown on the platform displays which bit you are in. There is also fixed signage.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Same with exiting to Kings Cross or the street, although in that case a very long and very busy walk. Ignore all signs for the exit and follow the interchange route for the Circle line, which brings you up the original escalators to the old ticket hall, turn left and up the stairs to the street. Saves a lot of time and sweating.

Except that this doesn't have a lift from the Piccadilly Line (which was the whole point)!

 

[trebor79]

If a train is in A or B rather than the full platform this is clearly shown on the platform displays which bit you are in. There is also fixed signage.

TBF I was tired and probably a bit consumed with other thoughts at the time.
It's still an awful station.

Except that this doesn't have a lift from the Piccadilly Line (which was the whole point)!

Ah, yes there is that minor detail

 

[Dr Hoo]

There is already access to the Bullring side around both sides. The link tunnel on the north side and the exit signed "Taxis" on the south. These could be wider if shops were moved. I think no shop need be lost, but some may be less attractive if no longer right next to an exit route.

The gap in the A end corridor seems primarily to make space for one more (empty?) shop unit on the side of the gap and to make the three(?) internal shop units in the Bullring-facing entrance hall a bit more attractive. Probably that means more rent payment.

Honestly! I am starting to think that some people have never actually been to the current New Street.

From any reasonable civic design perspective the current access between the concourse/A end and the Bull Ring is the principal 'gateway' to the station. Significant effort and expense was devoted to bridging over a further part of the tracks to produce a piazza that leads directly to one of the main entrances to the Bull Ring. (It also provides access to the All Bar One that some people seem unable to find.)

The idea that the narrow link tunnel would be the main entrance or that people should dog-leg via the taxi rank exit simply to allow the A end to be connected would really be the tail wagging the dog.

The link tunnel doesn't lead directly to any Bull Ring entrance. It does, however, provide a way of getting from the Grand Central tram stop to the Bull Ring and is also useful if the station has to be closed, e.g. because of a fire alarm, security alert or at night. The tunnel serves these limited purposes adequately.

This just isn't about the rent from a couple of shops/kiosks.

 

[greyman42]

Surely though that's true of any station!

I tried that at Gatwick and still ended up on the wrong platform.

I changed from the Underground to National Rail at Vauxhall recently. The problem there was that the information boards in the concourse area only show the final destinations of the trains, so if you are getting of at an intermediate station and do not know the final destination, you can end up having a bit of a wander about.