Illogical and haphazard stations

[BeijingDave]

When I was younger, these were my favourite stations to go to:
1. Manchester Victoria
2. Perth (depot and carriage sidings highly visible from the platforms)
3. Chester

These stations are not 'well-organised' or architecturally coherent (unlike, for instance, Coventry) and routinely called 'dumps' on here, but actually as a younger enthusiast, these were my favourite places to be - an assortment of patched together bits, often a legacy of being joint stations, with different angles and bits of architecture that could form the backdrop to all sorts of different passenger and goods photos.

What are your favourite stations like this? Any photos appreciated, especially if from the Western or Eastern regions because they're the ones I've least travelled on.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Shrewsbury is a bit of an odd one, with most services using the island platform rather than the one attached to the main building which one might assume would be the main platform for services heading north. Then there's the two disused bays which make the station look half derelict.

Both Wakefield stations are a bit peculiar too. Kirkgate with the faded glamour and the island platform with the silly brick wall... then there's Westgate with the contrast between the new building from the 2010s and what's left of the old 1950s buildings.

 

[Falcon1200]

I would certainly agree about Perth, with the by far most imposing part of the station being the least busy, ie the Highland Line platforms. Although prior to the closure of the route via Forfar these also served Aberdeen.

It can be argued that Stratford (London) is very much disorganised, with through platforms, through platforms used for terminating trains, oddly numbered platforms (10A?), bay platforms for light rail, and platforms at right angles for the Underground and light rail. But that is very much a result of geography, and its own success, and it is a fascinating place for the railway enthusiast. Plus there is Stratford International, which is a separate station altogether, and not International in any sense!

 

[zwk500]

3. Chester

These stations are not 'well-organised' or architecturally coherent

Chester is being slightly hard done by here. The platforms each service use are largely intuitive, and the junction layouts are constrained by the space available.

I agree with Stratford, and would also suggest Crewe - the platforms are staggered across nearly double the length and some routes have a very limited choice of platforms while others can see trains in the same direction leave from totally different Islands.

 

[trebor79]

Bristol Temple Meads is a good example. The current station actually started as a single platform joining two completely separate terminu stations. Over time the through station grew and the two terminus stations fell into disuse.

Stratford is awful.

 

[Ken H]

Leeds. It was 3 stations when I was a kid. But one (Central) has gone.
But the LMS station with its fine 1930s concourse and the 'New' station tacked on to the south.
The late 60's saw a ne station on the through lines and the LMS facitities degraded. The platforms became the parcels station and its art deco concourse became a car park.
Better now, but they need a passenger route from the North Concourse to by platform 1. Would be a nice short cut.

 

[Shimbleshanks]

I always get hopelessly lost in Edinburgh Waverley.

 

[mrcheek]

I rather like Worcester Foregate Street. A simple two-platform affair, except that instead of having an Up and Down platform, they have a GWR and a West Midlands platform

 

[Dai Corner]

Cardiff Central has platform 0 outside the main gateline and almost separate Main Line and Valleys sides, only platform 4 being accessible by both sets of services.

 

[LickeyIncliner]

I always get hopelessly lost in Edinburgh Waverley.

I sympathise - the platform numbering is perfectly logical on a plan (1 to 20, starting with the most northerly and going round clockwise), but access to the platforms isn't nearly as simple. I'm not sure it can really be simplified, but signposting to make it really clear for example that for platforms 8-10 you need to go up the escalator from the main concourse, whilst for 7 and 11 you need to go around the escalator, would help. (And if that example is incorrect, it just proves my point!)

 

[Mikey C]

The 1980s rebuild definitely made it a much more practical station, but before then Liverpool Street was certainly more interesting.

The modern St Pancras, for all its grandeur, is arguably not very logical, feeling like 4 separate stations all under one roof, with the MML and SE platforms like an afterthought, and the Thameslink platforms also separate.

 

[Anonymous10]

Worse in my experience is Temple Meads I avoid changing there at all costs

 

[ricoblade]

I sympathise - the platform numbering is perfectly logical on a plan (1 to 20, starting with the most northerly and going round clockwise), but access to the platforms isn't nearly as simple. I'm not sure it can really be simplified, but signposting to make it really clear for example that for platforms 8-10 you need to go up the escalator from the main concourse, whilst for 7 and 11 you need to go around the escalator, would help. (And if that example is incorrect, it just proves my point!)

Agreed - I've used Waverley a few times recently after a gap of decades, transferring to/from the ECML to/from the Glasgow Queen Street service, and the signage to the platform number you are looking for is confusing to say the least around those stairs, esacalators and lifts in the middle of the station.

 

[LickeyIncliner]

The 1980s rebuild definitely made it a much more practical station, but before then Liverpool Street was certainly more interesting.

The modern St Pancras, for all its grandeur, is arguably not very logical, feeling like 4 separate stations all under one roof, with the MML and SE platforms like an afterthought, and the Thameslink platforms also separate.

Arguably four stations under one roof is very logical for the passenger, if the four stations are for quite distinct groups of services, which is the case at St P. (If Edinburgh Waverley could be rearranged in that way it would make it less confusing - see #7 and #10 above.) I grant there is some loss of operational flexibility compared with an all-in-one station - and that the actual arrangement at St P does leave MML and SE passengers feeling like poor relations!

 

[zwk500]

Arguably four stations under one roof is very logical for the passenger, if the four stations are for quite distinct groups of services, which is the case at St P. (If Edinburgh Waverley could be rearranged in that way it would make it less confusing - see #7 and #10 above.) I grant there is some loss of operational flexibility compared with an all-in-one station - and that the actual arrangement at St P does leave MML and SE passengers feeling like poor relations!

It could have been logical for the passenger, if they hadn't decided to hide each station behind a shopping centre!

 

[JohnRegular]

Bristol Temple Meads is a good example. The current station actually started as a single platform joining two completely separate terminu stations. Over time the through station grew and the two terminus stations fell into disuse.

Worse in my experience is Temple Meads I avoid changing there at all costs

Temple Meads certainly has a bit of a 'cobbled together' feel not unlike Perth. It's also strange (from a passenger perspective) that the 'flagship' London trains generally use the platforms that are the most remote, most narrow and have the fewest facilities.

However, it is at least sensibly laid out and relatively easy to navigate compared to some other examples in this thread.

 

[satisnek]

I rather like Worcester Foregate Street. A simple two-platform affair, except that instead of having an Up and Down platform, they have a GWR and a West Midlands platform

If only it was that logical! In practice, WMR services which reverse at Shrub Hill have to use Platform 1 (it's a capacity thing, when New Street and Snow Hill services are running to/from Droitwich in succession), so it can get a bit confusing!

I would say that both St. Pancras and Marylebone fit the definition because they expanded without the land being available to simply make them wider.

Northampton is a strange one. Previously a conventional station building and forecourt alongside the Up platform with a footbridge over to the Down side, you now have to walk up into the station building then down to any platform!

And finally, fond memories of the old Manchester Victoria - indeed, when I very first went there the old Exchange station was still standing, although closed for a decade. It was quite logical as built - LNWR trains ran through the centre roads of Victoria to call at Exchange while LYR trains ran along the north side of Exchange. But then the two companies became part of the LMS who joined the stations together, resulting in what must have been the most bizarre station layout in the UK!

 

[Dai Corner]

Temple Meads certainly has a bit of a 'cobbled together' feel not unlike Perth. It's also strange (from a passenger perspective) that the 'flagship' London trains generally use the platforms that are the most remote, most narrow and have the fewest facilities.

However, it is at least sensibly laid out and relatively easy to navigate compared to some other examples in this thread.

The Paddington trains, especially the Bristolian and other prestigious ones, used to be put into P3, the one next to the main entrance, back in the day. Nowadays, operational efficiency and the need to accommodate more frequent services means theyre usually banished to 13 or 15 to avoid crossing the entire throat.

The platform numbering might seem strange, but it's easy if you remember Up trains go from odd-numbered platforms and Down from even-numbered.

 

[Starmill]

The subway at Carlisle, and associated side entrance, give off this vibe a lot. Very odd down there, not least because people often don't seem to know it even exists. The entrance is so inconspicuous you'd be forgiven for wondering if you'd gone into part of the station you shouldn't.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

Cardiff Central has platform 0 outside the main gateline and almost separate Main Line and Valleys sides, only platform 4 being accessible by both sets of services.

That's partly because it was at one time two stations; the GWR's Cardiff General and Cardiff Riverside, also owned by the GWR but mainly used by the Barry Railway.

 

[Ken H]

Wrexham General/Wrecsam Cyffredinol Was 2 stations (general and Exchange but now one station, but the 'Exchange' bit still seems separate.

 

[BeijingDave]

Temple Meads certainly has a bit of a 'cobbled together' feel not unlike Perth. It's also strange (from a passenger perspective) that the 'flagship' London trains generally use the platforms that are the most remote, most narrow and have the fewest facilities.

However, it is at least sensibly laid out and relatively easy to navigate compared to some other examples in this thread.

I love Temple Meads, probably for the same reasons I love the others mentioned.

 

[greyman42]

The subway at Carlisle, and associated side entrance, give off this vibe a lot. Very odd down there, not least because people often don't seem to know it even exists. The entrance is so inconspicuous you'd be forgiven for wondering if you'd gone into part of the station you shouldn't.

I have used the station many times and had no idea there was a subway!

 

[Tester]

The subway at Carlisle, and associated side entrance, give off this vibe a lot. Very odd down there, not least because people often don't seem to know it even exists. The entrance is so inconspicuous you'd be forgiven for wondering if you'd gone into part of the station you shouldn't.

As indeed I didn't - and I've been there many times over fifty odd years!

I must have a look.

 

[Starmill]

As indeed I didn't - and I've been there many times over fifty odd years!

I must have a look.

I think that the stairs to it were locked behind hoarding some years back but it's still accessible from the lifts and side entrance.

 

[Ken H]

I have used the station many times and had no idea there was a subway!

Yeah. Where is it?

 

[greyman42]

I think that the stairs to it were locked behind hoarding some years back but it's still accessible from the lifts and side entrance.

It needs to be sign posted as a colleague of mine recently had to struggle over the bridge with someone in a wheelchair.

 

[wilbers]

The subway at Carlisle, and associated side entrance, give off this vibe a lot. Very odd down there, not least because people often don't seem to know it even exists. The entrance is so inconspicuous you'd be forgiven for wondering if you'd gone into part of the station you shouldn't.

I only found it existed by reading it on here about 18 months ago. Don't think I'd want to rely on using the side entrance as an entrance, but I have now used it once as an exit when I parked at the Viaduct car park - most of the time I'd be starting from a different station (Penrith or Langwathby being the main two), but that was the one time I used a newspaper offer for the Northern day rover ticket (went to Hartlepool that day).

 

[bramling]

The 1980s rebuild definitely made it a much more practical station, but before then Liverpool Street was certainly more interesting.

The modern St Pancras, for all its grandeur, is arguably not very logical, feeling like 4 separate stations all under one roof, with the MML and SE platforms like an afterthought, and the Thameslink platforms also separate.

Agreed St Pancras is horrible to use. Just getting from one part of the station to another is awkward. The concourses are too small, and the positioning of the escalators often results in having to walk extra distance. Then there’s the issue that flows are conflicting, not helped by large areas being given over to retail.

I always feel the whole thing could have been a lot better. EMR in particular feels like an afterthought, Southeastern not much better, and Thameslink is positioned seemingly for the benefit of Eurostar users, and rather less practically for anything else. At least one direct entrance/exit onto the street would have been useful.

 

[wilbers]

Shrewsbury is a bit of an odd one, with most services using the island platform rather than the one attached to the main building which one might assume would be the main platform for services heading north. Then there's the two disused bays which make the station look half derelict.

Both Wakefield stations are a bit peculiar too. Kirkgate with the faded glamour and the island platform with the silly brick wall... then there's Westgate with the contrast between the new building from the 2010s and what's left of the old 1950s buildings.

I've just been to the 2 Wakefield stations last week for the first time. Arrived at Westgate, and left from Kirkgate - train from Kirkgate back to Leeds went the opposite direction to what I thought it would - didn't go back in Westgate direction.