Solar Panels Ruining the Roofs of London's Train Stations?

tbuxton42 · 24 Nov 2016

Hi,

I'm a student at City, University of London working on a radio project about Sadiq Khan's plans to install solar panels on the roofs of TfL buildings such as underground and overground stations next year.

If you are opposed to this in the sense that it could ruin some of the architecture of London's oldest railway stations, then please get in touch, as I'd be really keen to interview you outside one of those stations for just a few minutes to get your thoughts.

Let me know and thanks in advance for reading this post.

Best regards,
Tom Buxton

RailUK Forums

jopsuk · 24 Nov 2016

Are there any illustrations or are you expecting people to make generalised uniformed comments based on straight up prejudice? After all, have the solar panels ruined the roof line of Kings Cross?

ASharpe · 24 Nov 2016

I'd rather see solar panels taking up space on building roofs than see arable land used instead.

AM9 · 24 Nov 2016

asharpe said:
I'd rather see solar panels taking up space on building roofs than see arable land used instead.

I'd rather see solar panels on man-made building roofs than any unnecessary coal, oil or gas-powered power station wherever they are imposed on local communities.

wingsoveryorks · 24 Nov 2016

I have two solar panels on the roof of my house. I didn't put them there, they were put there when the house was built six year ago. What can I say? They have done nothing for my fuel bills. All I can say is that I can turn the shower thermostat down a little more in summer.

Solar panels are the biggest con of our time. One day the cat will be out of the bag, and everyone will wake up and realise it was vanity to massage the ego's of the eco warriors, but at what price?

Glenmutchkin · 24 Nov 2016

Surely you mean Railway Stations.

Add. To be fair you do use this terminology later in your post but why get it wrong in the headline?

yorksrob · 24 Nov 2016

Personally, if it helps to keep a trainshed there and generating income, rather than being demolished in favour of a shopping centre/office block, then I'm for it.

hexagon789 · 24 Nov 2016

I'm with Glenmutchkin on this, the term is always Railway Station. One of my biggest gripes is the increasing use of Train Station in lieu of Railway Station.

NotATrainspott · 24 Nov 2016

Tesla has just announced solar panels which replace and emulate slate or terracotta roof tiles. Their solar panels are going to be of comparable price to traditional roof coverings when produced in bulk, even before you consider the value of the electricity they'll generate. These will make 'traditional' photovoltaic solar panels which sit on top of existing roofs basically obsolete. Therefore, it seems quite improbable that we won't see solar panels on top of stations and basically every sort of building in future. There is also work being done into transparent solar panels, which could then be an option for the many large glass roofs that exist across the rail network. However, NR seem keen to replace glass with ETFE or modern plastics on most station rebuilds (e.g. Stirling or Carlisle) while leaving glass for only the highest end stations (e.g. Waverley, Glasgow Central, King's Cross), so it's slightly more doubtful that we'll see photovoltaic glass roofs.

GB · 24 Nov 2016

hexagon789 said:
I'm with Glenmutchkin on this, the term is always Railway Station. One of my biggest gripes is the increasing use of Train Station in lieu of Railway Station.

This old chestnut again.

I think you will find technically either term is suitable.

AM9 · 24 Nov 2016

wingsoveryorks said:
... Solar panels are the biggest con of our time. ...

Sure, just like climate change is a myth.

randyrippley · 24 Nov 2016

GB said:
This old chestnut again.

I think you will find technically either term is suitable.

Pendantically surely it SHOULD be a train station, as trains stop there, just as buses stop at a bus station and police stop at a police station.
Rails (or railways) don't move and stop, trains do.

As to solar panels on station roofs, most of the time you're not going to see them, so who cares? And if the design incorporates some kind of bird repellant feature which discourages pigeons and seagulls from crapping on the roof, so much the better.
If the installation is cost effective and actually does produce cheap power (yes I know thats debatable) then go for it. In my view you could go further and add a few wind turbines: the roof of Euston, would be ideal. Pity they weren't part of the St Pancras extension.

broadgage · 24 Nov 2016

I am in favour of solar panels wherever suitable. I see nothing unsuitable in railway station roofs.

A great deal of UK electricity is generated by burning natural gas, much of this gas is imported, thereby depleting foreign currency reserves, and furthermore is imported from or via unstable countries.

The UK has very limited natural gas storage to cater for any interruption to imports. To make matters worse, much of our already paltry gas storage is broken.

The use of solar panels to generate electricity is therefor advantageous in several ways.
Firstly, every GWH of electricity generated from sunlight is two or three GWH of gas not burnt and therefore still in storage for future needs.

Secondly, the burning of gas produces carbon dioxide and adds to global warming. Every GWH from PV is less gas or other fossil fuel burnt and therefore a lesser addition to global warming.

Thirdly, being reliant on gas imports puts us at the mercy of foreign powers and terrorists who can reduce the supply at will. Solar power produced within our borders is immune to such problems.

And finally, natural gas is liable to increase in price as supplies deplete and we have to out-bid other countries for dwindling supplies.
A solar panel installed today will produce electricity for decades at a fixed price.

PV modules are worth fitting almost anywhere, but London is a particularly desirable location due to great demand for air conditioning. Electricity produced in London is in effect worth more as it reduces transmission losses.

bb21 · 24 Nov 2016

I haven't deleted any existing posts but can we please take this "railway station" vs "train station" discussion elsewhere?

It's incredibly boring and has been done to death before.

Bantamzen · 24 Nov 2016

broadgage said:
I am in favour of solar panels wherever suitable. I see nothing unsuitable in railway station roofs.

A great deal of UK electricity is generated by burning natural gas, much of this gas is imported, thereby depleting foreign currency reserves, and furthermore is imported from or via unstable countries.

The UK has very limited natural gas storage to cater for any interruption to imports. To make matters worse, much of our already paltry gas storage is broken.

The use of solar panels to generate electricity is therefor advantageous in several ways.
Firstly, every GWH of electricity generated from sunlight is two or three GWH of gas not burnt and therefore still in storage for future needs.

Secondly, the burning of gas produces carbon dioxide and adds to global warming. Every GWH from PV is less gas or other fossil fuel burnt and therefore a lesser addition to global warming.

Thirdly, being reliant on gas imports puts us at the mercy of foreign powers and terrorists who can reduce the supply at will. Solar power produced within our borders is immune to such problems.

And finally, natural gas is liable to increase in price as supplies deplete and we have to out-bid other countries for dwindling supplies.
A solar panel installed today will produce electricity for decades at a fixed price.

PV modules are worth fitting almost anywhere, but London is a particularly desirable location due to great demand for air conditioning. Electricity produced in London is in effect worth more as it reduces transmission losses.

This, and then some.

route:oxford · 24 Nov 2016

bb21 said:
I haven't deleted any existing posts but can we please take this "railway station" vs "train station" discussion elsewhere?

It's incredibly boring and has been done to death before.

If we are talking historic buildings, let's move onto roofs vs rooves...

edwin_m · 24 Nov 2016

Getting back to the original question, I think it all depends on which stations are chosen and how they are treated. A blanket condemnation or indeed a blanket approval just isn't appropriate.

In a new/rebuilt station such as Blackfriars I can see no problem with integrating them into the design. With heritage stations it will obviously be a case for sensitive treatment, either putting them well out of sight or making them look the part as suggested by a poster above. What would probably be wrong is the sort of cheap-looking bolt-on installation that has appeared on many houses.

Chrisgr31 · 24 Nov 2016

We have solar panels on our house, they seem to pay for themselves, but then are not on the current tariff

randyrippley · 24 Nov 2016

Just rereading the original post, and the key point is "on the roofs of TfL buildings such as underground and overground stations......."
So in fact the intended targets are not the London terminii, but rather the tube and commuter stations dotted around the network. Few of those now have any real architectural merit, and the truth is many have been knocked around and resited so much during provision of new lift or escalator shafts that little of the original station remains.
It might be worth preserving one or two of the "better" buildings, but the truth is you cannot afford to keep several hundred working locations preserved in aspic. Those buildings need to earn their keep, and power generation is as good a way of generating revenue as anything else.

Llanigraham · 24 Nov 2016

wingsoveryorks said:
I have two solar panels on the roof of my house. I didn't put them there, they were put there when the house was built six year ago. What can I say? They have done nothing for my fuel bills. All I can say is that I can turn the shower thermostat down a little more in summer.

Solar panels are the biggest con of our time. One day the cat will be out of the bag, and everyone will wake up and realise it was vanity to massage the ego's of the eco warriors, but at what price?

So they have done something, haven't they?
And I've got 4kw of solar electric panels on my roof and they have reduced my electric bills.

Personally i can see no problem in sticking solar panels on the roofs of stations. Most people won't even know they are there. And they are much better there tan across fields.

RichmondCommu · 25 Nov 2016

Glenmutchkin said:
Surely you mean Railway Stations.

Add. To be fair you do use this terminology later in your post but why get it wrong in the headline?

Does it really matter? Would you flag it up if someone said Train Station whilst you were having a drink in a pub?

I really despair of this forum sometimes. So many interesting things to discuss / share and yet we have members moaning that someone has said "Train Station".

Trog · 25 Nov 2016

It depends how it is done, done well most people will never notice they are there, done badly and the reaction will be urrghh. Also will need some thought as to wind loading etc. particularly if the roof does not slope in a suitable direction and the panels can not lay flat.

Not 100% sure if it is currently economic either, although being large scale will help but most domestic installations are only worth doing because the electricity they produce is bought at a price higher than it is worth. Which basically becomes a tax on the poorer sections of society who can not afford the outlay, which is then paid to richer people with a hobby PV installation on their roof.

Although from what I read the price of the panels is coming down all the time so it might be a good idea to start thinking about how we are going to do this. As once it becomes a clear money maker businesses will start putting them up overnight, and it would be good to have a sensible set of standards and rules ready.

DarloRich · 25 Nov 2016

tbuxton42 said:
Hi,

I'm a student at City, University of London working on a radio project about Sadiq Khan's plans to install solar panels on the roofs of TfL buildings such as underground and overground stations next year.

If you are opposed to this in the sense that it could ruin some of the architecture of London's oldest railway stations, then please get in touch, as I'd be really keen to interview you outside one of those stations for just a few minutes to get your thoughts.

Let me know and thanks in advance for reading this post.

Best regards,
Tom Buxton

I am not against it at all. Kings Cross has solar panels all over the place and they are not noticeable.

Barclay · 25 Nov 2016

Historic England (formerly English Heritage) has good guidance on the compatibility of solar panels with historic buildings. See https://content.historicengland.org...the-historic-environment/microgeneration.pdf/

Essentially solar panels are ok, if they're a designed response. IE At Kings Cross although the solar cells are highly visible they are in rhythmic banks along the train shed clerestory, and respond to the rhythmic repetitious character of the train shed's architecture. This is very different to plonking a solar installation onto a roof that looks like someone's left a sunbed up there.

There are several Grade I listed churches that benefit from discreet solar installations, including St James's Piccadilly and as of last week, Gloucester Cathedral.

Flying Phil · 25 Nov 2016

wingsoveryorks said:
I have two solar panels on the roof of my house. I didn't put them there, they were put there when the house was built six year ago. What can I say? They have done nothing for my fuel bills. All I can say is that I can turn the shower thermostat down a little more in summer.

Solar panels are the biggest con of our time. One day the cat will be out of the bag, and everyone will wake up and realise it was vanity to massage the ego's of the eco warriors, but at what price?

Presumably these are Solar Water Heating panels? I think PV cells are what are being discussed on this thread and if they are properly integrated in the roof/building design then I too think they are very good.

furnessvale · 25 Nov 2016

Llanigraham said:
So they have done something, haven't they?
And I've got 4kw of solar electric panels on my roof and they have reduced my electric bills.

Personally i can see no problem in sticking solar panels on the roofs of stations. Most people won't even know they are there. And they are much better there tan across fields.

I have a solar panel on the roof of my boat. It cost £150 and saves 1-2 hours of engine running charging of batteries i.e. about £1 a day in gas oil.

6 months, it's paid for itself.

If station roofs are doing anything like that it is a no brainer.

paul1609 · 25 Nov 2016

I looked in to a project to install 150 KW of solar panels on to the roof of my heritage railways carriage storage shed. It didn't really wash its face and the feed in tariffs have reduced significantly since then.
Basically an export only scheme was only viable if you could get free finance. Savings on the Railways electricity bills were fairly negligible since by far the majority of the electricity consumption is from Nov to Feb when generation is at its lowest. Many Solar power schemes were based on the fact that energy prices were going to rocket. Most of the estimates were that electricity prices were going to increase by 3% pa. I think that we would have been in to about year 5 of the scheme by now and our electric unit costs are actually lower than they were then.
Im not anti renewable energy and certainly believe that global warming exists but having studied solar power in some depth I'd agree that its not the way forward with the current level of the technology.

Phil. · 25 Nov 2016

AM9 said:
Sure, just like climate change is a myth.

Climate change isn't a myth. Over millennia the climate has and will change. The myth is that we humans can affect it.
Greenland covered in trees (that's why it's called Greenland).
Vineyards around Lincoln.
Ice fairs being held on the Thames.
The British isles under a kilometre of ice and snow.
The Sahara Desert green and flourishing with wildlife.

All this occurred without human intervention.

JamesRowden · 25 Nov 2016

Phil. said:
Climate change isn't a myth. Over millennia the climate has and will change. The myth is that we humans can affect it.
Greenland covered in trees (that's why it's called Greenland).
Vineyards around Lincoln.
Ice fairs being held on the Thames.
The British isles under a kilometre of ice and snow.
The Sahara Desert green and flourishing with wildlife.

All this occurred without human intervention.

Your evidence does not prove that humans don't affect the environment. It only shows that the environment is not constant without human intervention. The production of greenhouse gases raises the temperature of the planet. Animals produce such gases by breathing. Plants reduce greenhouse gas via photosynthesis. If humans can work together to manage the greenhouse gases then we can potentially control the environment to make it better for us.

NSEFAN · 25 Nov 2016

Phil said:
Climate change isn't a myth. Over millennia the climate has and will change. The myth is that we humans can affect it.
Greenland covered in trees (that's why it's called Greenland).
Vineyards around Lincoln.
Ice fairs being held on the Thames.
The British isles under a kilometre of ice and snow.
The Sahara Desert green and flourishing with wildlife.

All this occurred without human intervention.

Whilst the climate changes naturally over time, it's probably not a good idea to accelerate the process by digging up methane and carbon dioxide and pumping it back into the air, given how potent these are as greenhouse gases.

On the question of solar cells on station roofs, I have no problem with it. Once it becomes more economical to store excess solar energy in batteries for local consumption, rather than re-injecting back into the grid, I think that we may see a greater take-up of solar cells on buildings as a way of reducing transient demand on the grid.

Solar Panels Ruining the Roofs of London's Train Stations?

New Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Emeritus Moderator

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member