Network Rail planning to destroy Waterloo and (London) Victoria Stations

[yorksrob]

I've just been reading a very worrying interview in Rail Magazine with Network Rail's stations Director. Apparently they want to build a raft over Waterloo station with shops and housing, no doubt destroying the light and airey trainshed that makes the station such a pleasant gateway to the Capital. The interview states rather ominously that only the Victory arch is listed, which immediately brings to mind 1960's/70's style state sponsored vandalism for everything else.

The passage also mentions building a raft over Victoria station, and since the Brighton side has already been treated inthis way, this can only mean the distruction of the beautiful arched trainshed on the Chatham side.

Sir John Betjeman must be spinning in his grave.

 

[Chris125]

The passage also mentions building a raft over Victoria station, and since the Brighton side has already been treated inthis way, this can only mean the distruction of the beautiful arched trainshed on the Chatham side.

The 'Kent' trainshed is Grade II listed, so shouldn't be at any risk.

 

[mmh]

The 'Kent' trainshed is Grade II listed, so shouldn't be at any risk.

The London Bridge trainshed was also grade 2 listed.

 

[goblinuser]

The London Bridge trainshed was also grade 2 listed.

Did London Bridge have its train shed demolished and replaced by individual canopies on each platform?

 

[yorksrob]

London Bridge is an interesting point. At least there, there was a need to reconfigure the platforms. I can see no such operational reason for these proposed changes and it seems to be a grab for developer cash.

 

[a_c_skinner]

This is always the problem with rail in the UK, the tension between conservation and modernisation. There is a limit to the number of Victorian trainsheds we need to preserve. It is greater than one, but probably in single figures.

 

[yorksrob]

But what will be gained by the rail traveller from this "progress" ?

The opportunity to buy more tat (as though there wasn't enough already) and a significantly degraded travelling environment.

 

[The_Train]

If you believe the news, no-one buys in shops anymore and no-one buys houses in London so what's the point? (Apart from the wedge of money NR will obtain from developers of course)

 

[NSEFAN]

I've just been reading a very worrying interview in Rail Magazine with Network Rail's stations Director. Apparently they want to build a raft over Waterloo station with shops and housing, no doubt destroying the light and airey trainshed that makes the station such a pleasant gateway to the Capital. The interview states rather ominously that only the Victory arch is listed, which immediately brings to mind 1960's/70's style state sponsored vandalism for everything else.

The passage also mentions building a raft over Victoria station, and since the Brighton side has already been treated inthis way, this can only mean the distruction of the beautiful arched trainshed on the Chatham side.

Sir John Betjeman must be spinning in his grave.

Is this a case of "we are considering this an option" or "we very much want to do this" ? It seems a bit daft given the money recently spent on doing up the trainshed at Victoria. Nonetheless it's hardly surprising that it's being looked at, given Network Rail is a bottomless pit of money and is desperately short.

Edit: I suppose at both Victoria and Waterloo, you could build on top of the section outside the trainshed roof, similar to the situation at Liverpool Street. This may be easier, as it avoids the hassle of demolishing the trainshed roof whilst trains are in operation.

 

[DarloRich]

I've just been reading a very worrying interview in Rail Magazine with Network Rail's stations Director. Apparently they want to build a raft over Waterloo station with shops and housing, no doubt destroying the light and airey trainshed that makes the station such a pleasant gateway to the Capital. The interview states rather ominously that only the Victory arch is listed, which immediately brings to mind 1960's/70's style state sponsored vandalism for everything else.

The passage also mentions building a raft over Victoria station, and since the Brighton side has already been treated inthis way, this can only mean the distruction of the beautiful arched trainshed on the Chatham side.

Sir John Betjeman must be spinning in his grave.

Shall we try and dial the hyperbole back from 11?

If you believe the news, no-one buys in shops anymore and no-one buys houses in London so what's the point? (Apart from the wedge of money NR will obtain from developers of course)

Although station retail figures are good and improving.

 

[yorksrob]

Is this a case of "we are considering this an option" or "we very much want to do this" ? It seems a bit daft given the money recently spent on doing up the trainshed at Victoria. Nonetheless it's hardly surprising that it's being looked at, given Network Rail is a bottomless pit of money and is desperately short.

From the article it looked like a long term future ambition, but still extremely worrying.

If NR are that desperate for money, I'd rather they built over the approaches (there must be plenty of land potential there) than ruin the stations.

 

[yorksrob]

Shall we try and dial the hyperbole back from 11?
.

I don't see why. The interview clearly pointed towards wholesale destruction of two major stations, which are, in effect, London's shop window.

 

[DarloRich]

I don't see why. The interview clearly pointed towards wholesale destruction of two major stations, which are, in effect, London's shop window.

no it didn't. It talked about developing potential retail options at 2 major terminals without giving any details. Please try to keep clam.

 

[yorksrob]

no it didn't. It talked about developing potential retail options at 2 major terminals without giving any details. Please try to keep clam.

It clearly mentioned building a raft over both, and pointedly commented that only the Victory arch at Waterloo is listed. If that doesn't set alarm bells ringing, I don't know what would.

 

[DarloRich]

It clearly mentioned building a raft over both, and pointedly commented that only the Victory arch at Waterloo is listed. If that doesn't set alarm bells ringing, I don't know what would.

I suspect the proposals at Waterloo relate to the extension of the existing mezzanine level at Waterloo to the International terminal area. I very much doubt it means the kind of complete raft over the entire station are that you seem to be projecting. I wouldn't say that balcony destroys the entire station.

 

[E759]

Did London Bridge have its train shed demolished and replaced by individual canopies on each platform?

Yes, also access to the undercroft added creating pinch points slowing down passenger flows not needing to see the delights of Tooley Street.

 

[yorksrob]

I suspect the proposals at Waterloo relate to the extension of the existing mezzanine level at Waterloo to the International terminal area. I very much doubt it means the kind of complete raft over the entire station are that you seem to be projecting. I wouldn't say that balcony destroys the entire station.

If they do refer to an extension of the mezzanine, then that would indeed be perfectly acceptible. However, they didn't mention that and spoke about a raft with shops and housing, which suggests to me something much bigger. I also dread to think what they've got in mind for Victoria, given that the less inspiring "airspace" has already been used up.

 

[DarloRich]

If they do refer to an extension of the mezzanine, then that would indeed be perfectly acceptible. However, they didn't mention that and spoke about a raft with shops and housing, which suggests to me something much bigger. I also dread to think what they've got in mind for Victoria, given that the less inspiring "airspace" has already been used up.

Or, perhaps, that raft existing raft gets removed and replaced with something better.

 

[yorksrob]

Or, perhaps, that raft existing raft gets removed and replaced with something better.

Perhaps, but that doesn't explain Waterloo. Anyway, if what they are considering is more modest, they should say so and set our minds at rest. The interview didn't suggest anything modest.

 

[The Ham]

I would suggest that building a structure all the way across the platforms would result in such a large building that virtually no one had any light.

I would expect that what is more likely is a series of towers or a single large but narrow building. The latter of which would be in keeping with just expanding upwards over the passenger concourse akin to the mezzanine.

Either way there's plenty of opportunity to keep light flooding into the platforms. Although there could be some more shaded areas.

A building or buildings over the entry to the platforms at the county end would only darken the station at the end where significantly fewer passengers would be using the platforms.

 

[LeeLivery]

I very much doubt they'd ever get planning permission for such a stupid idea. Natural light is the "in" thing, London Bridge is much nicer these days with the increased light. Build flats on Network Rail's MDU near London Blackfriars instead.

What they should do with London Waterloo is restore the frontage. It's filthy. Improve Waterloo East and its footbridge to the main station while they're at it.

 

[DarloRich]

Perhaps, but that doesn't explain Waterloo. Anyway, if what they are considering is more modest, they should say so and set our minds at rest. The interview didn't suggest anything modest.

there is a desire to extend the mezzanine area and use the former customs areas in the international station for retail space.

they should say so and set our minds at rest. The interview didn't suggest anything modest.

or you could just chill out a bit instead of expecting the nuclear option. The proposal at Victoria seems to be a desire to build over the approach tracks. New Civil Engineer has an article on that subject whihc shows renders with the station untouched:

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...ctoria-over-site-development/10030692.article

WSP recently released a report titled Out of Thin Air, on building over railways. It includes a scheme to build over the tracks at the southern end of Victoria statio

But what will be gained by the rail traveller from this "progress" ?

The opportunity to buy more tat (as though there wasn't enough already) and a significantly degraded travelling environment.

More money to spend on maintaining and upgrading the railway?

 

[HSTEd]

More money to spend on maintaining and upgrading the railway?

They will get £x from this development.
Next year the NR grant will be reduced by £x.

 

[47271]

there is a desire to extend the mezzanine area and use the former customs areas in the international station for retail space.

If this is what's being considered, then great.

Others may disagree with this, but the type of mezzanine level that's been appearing in NR's time if anything enhances appreciation of station architecture, as well as providing additional facilities. To my mind you get a better impression of Waterloo now than before the mezzanine went in. King's Cross is different because the mezzanine is part of the new section, but it still works well with the outside wall of the original building. Even Euston works better and feels more spacious for having had its upstairs put in over the last couple of years.

What we don't want is a 1980s style Charing Cross or Victoria west side type of monstrosity which plonks an enormous office block, or flats, over the main trainshed area and makes a previously good environment more like that experienced at Birmingham New Street.

 

[Chris125]

there is a desire to extend the mezzanine area and use the former customs areas in the international station for retail space.

For now, but looking ahead the following NCE article clearly suggests something much more comprehensive: Deck over Waterloo, says Network Rail boss

Speaking at a conference in London on UK station development, Network Rail stations director Norrie Courts said the current works to expand Waterloo would only solve its capacity problems for 15 to 20 years and more work would need to be done to extend its life.​

But in the long term, although the plan was in its infancy, he said he wanted to see a massive deck built over the station to increase the development opportunities, and the station below “cleaned out”.

“I think it’s a deck over and a clean out down below,” he said. “Do a London Bridge type scheme and clear out all the arches and create an at grade concourse so you can walk all the way through to the Thames to the north through to Lower Marsh on the south east side.”

Coming up with an engineering solution which “allows us to go in and work our way across the station” while also allowing for the placing of the structure to support the deck above would be a challenge, he said. Work on developing a masterplan for the long term vision is due to start soon.

To redevelop the station, the only part he stressed must stay was the war memorial on the Victory Arch, however he said the rest of the building was not listed.

Issues such as the density of a future development above the station would be another challenge, he said.​

IIRC Network Rail were looking at this before the recession, when (unsuccessful) attempts were made to get the whole station listed - the practicality of this must be questionable however.

 

[yorksrob]

there is a desire to extend the mezzanine area and use the former customs areas in the international station for retail space.



or you could just chill out a bit instead of expecting the nuclear option. The proposal at Victoria seems to be a desire to build over the approach tracks. New Civil Engineer has an article on that subject whihc shows renders with the station untouched:

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...ctoria-over-site-development/10030692.article





More money to spend on maintaining and upgrading the railway?

More money to be appropriated by central Government. It's not as though NR would be allowed to get a nice steady income stream out of it as we know they'd be forced to flog any such enterprise off.

 

[yorksrob]

For now, but looking ahead the following NCE article clearly suggests something much more comprehensive: Deck over Waterloo, says Network Rail boss

Speaking at a conference in London on UK station development, Network Rail stations director Norrie Courts said the current works to expand Waterloo would only solve its capacity problems for 15 to 20 years and more work would need to be done to extend its life.​

But in the long term, although the plan was in its infancy, he said he wanted to see a massive deck built over the station to increase the development opportunities, and the station below “cleaned out”.

“I think it’s a deck over and a clean out down below,” he said. “Do a London Bridge type scheme and clear out all the arches and create an at grade concourse so you can walk all the way through to the Thames to the north through to Lower Marsh on the south east side.”

Coming up with an engineering solution which “allows us to go in and work our way across the station” while also allowing for the placing of the structure to support the deck above would be a challenge, he said. Work on developing a masterplan for the long term vision is due to start soon.

To redevelop the station, the only part he stressed must stay was the war memorial on the Victory Arch, however he said the rest of the building was not listed.

Issues such as the density of a future development above the station would be another challenge, he said.​

IIRC Network Rail were looking at this before the recession, when (unsuccessful) attempts were made to get the whole station listed - the practicality of this must be questionable however.

Many thanks for posting.

It's interesting that NR are citing capacity as a justification for this, yet without more platforms this will only be achieved by getting people on and off of the existing platforms more quickly. This could be achieved far more sympathetically by having a footbridge or subway access at the opposite end of the platforms.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

For now, but looking ahead the following NCE article clearly suggests something much more comprehensive: Deck over Waterloo, says Network Rail boss

Speaking at a conference in London on UK station development, Network Rail stations director Norrie Courts said the current works to expand Waterloo would only solve its capacity problems for 15 to 20 years and more work would need to be done to extend its life.​

But in the long term, although the plan was in its infancy, he said he wanted to see a massive deck built over the station to increase the development opportunities, and the station below “cleaned out”.

“I think it’s a deck over and a clean out down below,” he said. “Do a London Bridge type scheme and clear out all the arches and create an at grade concourse so you can walk all the way through to the Thames to the north through to Lower Marsh on the south east side.”​

Isn't Crossrail2 likely to remove a good proportion of passengers from Waterloo? Especially if works are done at Clapham Junction to allow all fast trains to stop there.

 

[yorksrob]

Isn't Crossrail2 likely to remove a good proportion of passengers from Waterloo? Especially if works are done at Clapham Junction to allow all fast trains to stop there.

Quite, which suggests to me the capacity argument is a red herring.

 

[The Ham]

Isn't Crossrail2 likely to remove a good proportion of passengers from Waterloo? Especially if works are done at Clapham Junction to allow all fast trains to stop there.

Yes and no.

It would remove a fair few of the metro passengers, but not all of them.

It would also allow for an increase in longer distance passengers.

I would guess that although passenger numbers would fall it's still likely to be fairly high. However it could well be that with more longer distance travelers the extra space could be useful.

It's one thing to jump on a train with a 10 minute wait for a 20 minute journey, it's quite different to join a train after waiting 15 minutes for an hour long journey. The latter would likely require different facilities and more space.