Luton station: Proposed new station design

[MMLLuton]

https://www.ryderarchitecture.com/projects/luton-station.htm

The concourse had become outdated and accessing the platform difficult. The refurbishment and extension of the station is designed to create a welcoming reception to the city with efficient passenger circulation routes.

A new glazed ticket hall and platform bridge deals with the growth in passenger numbers. The ticket hall provides street presence to Luton town centre and creates the opportunity for a new public square. Structural glazing is supported from a lightweight truss frame allowing ease of wayfinding and providing retail spaces. Copper louvers provide solar shading to the ticket hall and complement the existing brown brick building. The bridge creates accessible access to the platform.

Scrolling through my Facebook feed earlier and came across this from the Luton development page on Facebook. This is a new proposal of the station after the government proposal was scrapped. As someone who regularly uses Luton it would be nice to see the facility upgraded into something that looks presentable rather than the eyesore which we currently have now. I also regularly hear people complain about the lack of platform lifts and someone like my self who has a knee injury at the moment and find it difficult to bend my leg, it’s very frustrating using the platform stairs at peak times and hurting yourself because people behind you are rushing you. I have my doubts about this not going to plan as nothing built in Luton does but it would be nice to see one station on the MML look decent.

 

[mr_jrt]

Would be nice if they found a way to get at least another platform in there to increase capacity on the line.

 

[John Webb]

I'm a bit surprised that they intend the new building as a 'bolt-on' to the old. I would have thought the demolition of the old brick building would have been considered, it's not the most attractive, being a 1937 LMS erection.

 

[BelleIsle]

Would be nice if they found a way to get at least another platform in there to increase capacity on the line.

How about reinstating the old Bute Street platforms and running some services through to Dunstable? Everyone is reopening old railway lines at the moment and any town that did not would, in my opinion, be very shortsighted

 

[AlterEgo]

How about reinstating the old Bute Street platforms and running some services through to Dunstable? Everyone is reopening old railway lines at the moment and any town that did not would, in my opinion, be very shortsighted

Because the railway alignment is now a guided busway. Though I’m still sore they chose one of those white elephants over a heavy rail link.

 

[Nean]

How about reinstating the old Bute Street platforms and running some services through to Dunstable? Everyone is reopening old railway lines at the moment and any town that did not would, in my opinion, be very shortsighted

Is the trackbed to Dunstable not occupied by the guided busway at the moment?

 

[mr_jrt]

Well, yes. A rail link between Bletchley and Stevenage via Luton Airport would have been nice, but we are where we are.

 

[Supercoss]

plans to construct a new bay platform '0' at Leagrave to allow turnback moves to be taken away from Luton loop, new set of points on slow lines connecting to current tamper siding. Loss of car parking spaces offset by land grab at south end of current car park. The full length platform in consultation stage

 

[edwin_m]

plans to construct a new bay platform '0' at Leagrave to allow turnback moves to be taken away from Luton loop, new set of points on slow lines connecting to current tamper siding. Loss of car parking spaces offset by land grab at south end of current car park. The full length platform in consultation stage

If these are definite plans then a source would be nice. I'm not sure why (effectively) two extra platforms bring any benefit at Luton if other stations on the line (such as the much busier St Albans) still only have four.

 

[BelleIsle]

Is the trackbed to Dunstable not occupied by the guided busway at the moment?

And the old station by student accommodation. My point was that Luton Council should never have allowed it to happened. I know of many people in Dunstable who were not best pleased with the outcome. In places the changes have been so dramatic that they would probably ruin the economics of any plans to get the railway back.

 

[MML]

The proposed study shows a price tag of £15m for the client Network Rail.

Why can't the re-development of railway stations be undertaken by local building companies ?
Projects run by Network Rail always seem to be very expensive, delivered late and over budget. And often Network Rail will merely sub-contract a project to third party anyway, just adding to the administrative expense.
While I can understand that the building of bridges over electrified railway lines has to be co-ordinated with the railway owner and TOC's,
the building of a new ticket hall, passenger lounges, travel counters, cafes can surely be done far more economically by a local building company.

Luton deserves better facilities which can be shared with the adjoining Interchange Bus and Coach station.
There are currently no departure boards for coaches (only for local buses), so improved facilities would benefit all.
The station should have escalators, lifts and stairs improving access to all platforms to bring it up to modern standards.
A glass and brick building similar to that shown in the design would regenerate the area and bring welcome employment to a local building firm. The building could be financed by Luton Borough Council, Regional Development funds and the bridges to the platforms paid for by Network Rail themselves.
Only by working together will this project ever be realised.

 

[bramling]

https://www.ryderarchitecture.com/projects/luton-station.htm

Scrolling through my Facebook feed earlier and came across this from the Luton development page on Facebook. This is a new proposal of the station after the government proposal was scrapped. As someone who regularly uses Luton it would be nice to see the facility upgraded into something that looks presentable rather than the eyesore which we currently have now. I also regularly hear people complain about the lack of platform lifts and someone like my self who has a knee injury at the moment and find it difficult to bend my leg, it’s very frustrating using the platform stairs at peak times and hurting yourself because people behind you are rushing you. I have my doubts about this not going to plan as nothing built in Luton does but it would be nice to see one station on the MML look decent.

Since when has Luton been a city? It may be lots of things but I didn’t think it was regarded as a city (yet?).

 

[AM9]

If these are definite plans then a source would be nice. I'm not sure why (effectively) two extra platforms bring any benefit at Luton if other stations on the line (such as the much busier St Albans) still only have four.

I've long felt that St Albans needs a loop to enable EM trains to pass Thameslink trains that need to stop at the fast platforms. For instance, a third track between platforms 3 & 4 would actually release some capacity without preventing fast TL trains from using the fast lines. It would also make platform 3 safer in the morning peak.
The trouble is that there is so little space there, and virtually no options to acquire land outside the current NR estate.

Since when has Luton been a city? It may be lots of things but I didn’t think it was regarded as a city (yet?).

The brochure itself isn't really sure as it refers to "Luton Town Centre" in the second paragraph. Maybe the council has delusions of grandeur because 'Inter City' trains used to stop there and it has 'London Luton' international airport within its boundaries.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I've long felt that St Albans needs a loop to enable EM trains to pass Thameslink trains that need to stop at the fast platforms. For instance, a third track between platforms 3 & 4 would actually release some capacity without preventing fast TL trains from using the fast lines. It would also make platform 3 safer in the morning peak.
The trouble is that there is so little space there, and virtually no options to acquire land outside the current NR estate.


The brochure itself isn't really sure as it refers to "Luton Town Centre" in the second paragraph. Maybe the council has delusions of grandeur because 'Inter City' trains used to stop there and it has 'London Luton' international airport within its boundaries.

Mentioned before , I spent a freezing December morning looking at options for 5 tracking through SAC - no a runner ,without serious land take / and or demolition. Awkward curvature to begin with. Things were so much easier in 1868 ..

 

[mr_jrt]

My solution for SAC was to move the station south to London Rd. and to build more platforms there, (and perhaps also a new slow-lines-only station in the north of the city), but removing the current station's platforms should hopefully give the space needed for eased curvature and perhaps additional running lines, if required.

Failing that, it's a fast line tunnel under the city...

 

[AM9]

Mentioned before , I spent a freezing December morning looking at options for 5 tracking through SAC - no a runner ,without serious land take / and or demolition. Awkward curvature to begin with. Things were so much easier in 1868 ..

Even the curve would have been easier then as speed limits would be 60mph max. The only viable option then would be to move the fast platforms south (connected by the proposed new footbridge), then beg John Webb to donate some of the signal box strip of land.

 

[AM9]

My solution for SAC was to move the station south to London Rd. and to build more platforms there, (and perhaps also a new slow-lines-only station in the north of the city), but removing the current station's platforms should hopefully give the space needed for eased curvature and perhaps additional running lines, if required.

Failing that, it's a fast line tunnel under the city...

But the line at London Road is about 15m above ground level. A station there would require expensive outbuilding from the viaduct (and of course moving the interchange there as well.

 

[Abpj17]

Luton definitely isn't a city. But with a significant population (especially if you add on Dunstable and Houghton Regis), an airport, and a university - it's a more significant centre than many cities.

The stations are impossible for a loop. Would need to look between stations and there really isn't much space there either - with the land often sloping/not at the same level/or very built up.

We do desperately need a better town centre station. It's creaking.

The council essentially own the airport, there is more visible investment in the train centre station.

A bay platform could work at Leagrave...to the south. Although the 12-cars make that rather more difficult than before.

 

[hooverboy]

Would be nice if they found a way to get at least another platform in there to increase capacity on the line.

they could have had one, but there is now a road where it should be.

if they really want to improve services then they should do away with luton+luton airport parkway and just have one station with 6 platforms,all 12-car capable...it'll vastly improve service times as you will only have 1 pickup/setdown and will reduce line blockages.
will need a drastic sort out of car parking and road access though.

 

[DarloRich]

Luton deserves better facilities which can be shared with the adjoining Interchange Bus and Coach station.
There are currently no departure boards for coaches (only for local buses), so improved facilities would benefit all.
The station should have escalators, lifts and stairs improving access to all platforms to bring it up to modern standards.
A glass and brick building similar to that shown in the design would regenerate the area and bring welcome employment to a local building firm. The building could be financed by Luton Borough Council, Regional Development funds and the bridges to the platforms paid for by Network Rail themselves.
Only by working together will this project ever be realised.

Luton is a dump. Horrible. What I find really confusing is that it is like a northern town but 45 minutes form London. Why has the affluence passed Luton by? The station wants knocking down and rebuilding to properly serve modern life. I am not a bus fan but we should have a proper interchange with proper information and some decent bus services to and for mthe station to the res tof the town.

The proposed study shows a price tag of £15m for the client Network Rail.

Why can't the re-development of railway stations be undertaken by local building companies ?
Projects run by Network Rail always seem to be very expensive, delivered late and over budget. And often Network Rail will merely sub-contract a project to third party anyway, just adding to the administrative expense.
While I can understand that the building of bridges over electrified railway lines has to be co-ordinated with the railway owner and TOC's,
the building of a new ticket hall, passenger lounges, travel counters, cafes can surely be done far more economically by a local building company.

because, bluntly, they don't have the skills or equipment to work on the railway. They also don't have the knowledge or understanding of the regulatory framework underpinning the railway. For instance I doubt Bloggs and Co Builders of Luton ( Since 1976) have much experience of CDM beyond the domestic environment or completing a project under the Public Sector Equality Duty. I doubt they follow the same safety rules NR insist upon, I doubt they have the manpower to bid for the work and then administer the contract if they win etc etc

I will also point out that projects not run by NR are also often late & over budget. You also have no understanding of the complexities of working on a railway project and the competing and often conflicting stakeholders involved in that work. This is not the same as building an extension at your house.

 

[Aictos]

I lived in the area last year for a few months and while the layout having both buses and trains at a common interchange is good and easy to use, the station itself is awful.

Part of the station has a bridge which looks like it's never seen anyone take care of it since it was first built ie looks rundown, the layout is confusing enough with many exits, the best thing for Luton would be to rebuild with a design similar to Stevenage.

 

[John Webb]

Even the curve would have been easier then as speed limits would be 60mph max. The only viable option then would be to move the fast platforms south (connected by the proposed new footbridge), then beg John Webb to donate some of the signal box strip of land.

It isn't my land to donate (we rent from NR) - and it would render access to the box nearly impossible as well!

Blame the St Albans City fathers who around 1863 built a new city gaol - and then found out it would be the first thing those getting off the new MR station would see of the city! They gave up other land and a corner of the gaol yard to allow the MR to move the station to its current position from a straighter run of track some 0.3 miles further east........

 

[387star]

Any plans to demolish the nearby Arndale Centre as that is ghastly
Luton really isn't somewhere I would choose to visit by choice

 

[CMS]

I think a reversal facility at Leagrave is a good idea. Leagrave is the last well-used station before Bedford (Harlington/Flitwick being good peak but not so much off peak), and I think 2tph of the 4tph Bedford terminators could terminate there off peak. Extra platforms are not needed at Luton, if anything this could allow either platform 2/3 to go and one face widened. In an ideal world, perhaps the removal of a platform would allow space for the proposed people mover to the airport to start there instead and Parkway shut, therefore consolidating EMT calls and reducing journey times although increasing Luton station usage and London<>Airport journey times. I appreciate that'd be very expensive and is a no-go.

Regarding Luton station itself, signage needs to be looked at. It can often be just as quick alighting at Luton and taking the busway to the airport than to go via Parkway yet there is no plausible signage that would indicate this to you from within the station. One winding staircase per double platform poorly accommodates the flow of passengers trying to leave all at once - it's even worse at St Albans in the peaks I'd say though. Looking at the above comments, I would agree it's virtually impossible to extend/widen/move St Albans City at present.

There ought to also be a departures screen either along the path between The Mall and station (adjacent to Starbucks) or at the entrance to the staircase similarly to St Albans to avoid people going through the barriers then immediately stopping and looking up to check their platform. It can be chaos when two trains arrive at the same time.

A final comment is that hardly anyone realises that the Luton Travel Centre is located in the Starbucks and is often staffed by Arriva so can be useful, especially if unfamiliar with the area yet there is NO indication of this from the station and not much exterior signage.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I think a reversal facility at Leagrave is a good idea. Leagrave is the last well-used station before Bedford (Harlington/Flitwick being good peak but not so much off peak), and I think 2tph of the 4tph Bedford terminators could terminate there off peak. Extra platforms are not needed at Luton, if anything this could allow either platform 2/3 to go and one face widened. In an ideal world, perhaps the removal of a platform would allow space for the proposed people mover to the airport to start there instead and Parkway shut, therefore consolidating EMT calls and reducing journey times although increasing Luton station usage and London<>Airport journey times. I appreciate that'd be very expensive and is a no-go.

Regarding Luton station itself, signage needs to be looked at. It can often be just as quick alighting at Luton and taking the busway to the airport than to go via Parkway yet there is no plausible signage that would indicate this to you from within the station. One winding staircase per double platform poorly accommodates the flow of passengers trying to leave all at once - it's even worse at St Albans in the peaks I'd say though. Looking at the above comments, I would agree it's virtually impossible to extend/widen/move St Albans City at present.

There ought to also be a departures screen either along the path between The Mall and station (adjacent to Starbucks) or at the entrance to the staircase similarly to St Albans to avoid people going through the barriers then immediately stopping and looking up to check their platform. It can be chaos when two trains arrive at the same time.

A final comment is that hardly anyone realises that the Luton Travel Centre is located in the Starbucks and is often staffed by Arriva so can be useful, especially if unfamiliar with the area yet there is NO indication of this from the station and not much exterior signage.

Without infuriating the already infuriated commuters and travellers - a reversing siding could be made at Harpenden by taking a slice off the up side carpark. (and adding another platform face to give a classic centre turnback )

Such a proposal would create even more anger than already exists - one would be well steered away from such a suggestion - one of my only 2 ever assaults by passengers in a 37 year career was by one of these characters. En masse would be worrying.

 

[Aictos]

In all the time I've travelled though Luton I never realised the travel centre was based in the Starbucks there! CMS is right though the lack of signage is shocking at Luton!

 

[edwin_m]

Is a reversal facility even needed? There's one at St Albans (which as someone pointed out a while back would work much better if track circuited) and a centre platform on the slows at Luton already. I would have thought the priority was some grade separation of fast/slow crossing moves.

 

[CMS]

Without infuriating the already infuriated commuters and travellers - a reversing siding could be made at Harpenden by taking a slice off the up side carpark. (and adding another platform face to give a classic centre turnback )

Such a proposal would create even more anger than already exists - one would be well steered away from such a suggestion - one of my only 2 ever assaults by passengers in a 37 year career was by one of these characters. En masse would be worrying.

Indeed, I wouldn't want to mess with Harpenden any more than at present. Although, you could try and convince them that if trains started from Harpenden, they would at least get seats unlike now. Plus, if I remember correctly that car park has 'Premier Parking' which is fairly well patronised so it would be a difficult proposal. Leagrave would be easier.

Any assaults in the service sector are not on but I must say I was surprised that there was a recent commotion at St Albans when barriers were closed one morning and that the social media team have had such abuse given the civility of the part of the world. Then again, they still voted for an MP who has defied the local consensus frequently, even after the very dodgy expenses scandal.

Is a reversal facility even needed? There's one at St Albans (which as someone pointed out a while back would work much better if track circuited) and a centre platform on the slows at Luton already. I would have thought the priority was some grade separation of fast/slow crossing moves.

It would be in replacement of Luton, for that station's redevelopment I'd imagine, as you're right an additional one is probably a bit much. I agree grade separation should be looked at although very rarely have I ever found the current moves to aggravate delays - it always seems to be ok, more significant causes of delays being from/before the TL Core.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Indeed, I wouldn't want to mess with Harpenden any more than at present. Although, you could try and convince them that if trains started from Harpenden, they would at least get seats unlike now. Plus, if I remember correctly that car park has 'Premier Parking' which is fairly well patronised so it would be a difficult proposal. Leagrave would be easier.

Any assaults in the service sector are not on but I must say I was surprised that there was a recent commotion at St Albans when barriers were closed one morning and that the social media team have had such abuse given the civility of the part of the world. Then again, they still voted for an MP who has defied the local consensus frequently, even after the very dodgy expenses scandal.


It would be in replacement of Luton, for that station's redevelopment I'd imagine, as you're right an additional one is probably a bit much. I agree grade separation should be looked at although very rarely have I ever found the current moves to aggravate delays - it always seems to be ok, more significant causes of delays being from/before the TL Core.

Just a thought that an extension of 2 SAC terminators to HPDN would improve performance (the lack of track circuits in the existing siding is one of my "obsessions" - but despite valiant efforts I never got it approved) - but giving HPDN a nice empty starting train - especially if it could go fast - or even semi-fast would , I am sure, be appreciated.

Flitiwck is really too far out for a reversing siding - the really busy stations , as discussed endlessly before - are Luton to Elstree / Mill Hill , - the latter has built up very nicely over the years.

 

[MML]

In all the time I've travelled though Luton I never realised the travel centre was based in the Starbucks there! CMS is right though the lack of signage is shocking

The problem is the travel centre and departure displays are only for the local Arriva buses. If you are catching other services such as National Express then you have no idea, as those services don't appear on the board. A proper ticket hall and lounge would benefit both the railway station and the open wind swept interchange.