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

[yorksrob]

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.

They could presumably do something with the undercroft without ruining everything else.

 

[DarloRich]

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

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.

According to the publicity around the CP6 determination that is incorrect. NR have been given a "challenge" of finding around £1bn of extra funding. That is where this kind of idea comes from.

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”.​

There is a clue in that paragraph!! This isn't a short term thing and is clearly at a very early stage of development if it is beyond a "brain wave"

​

 

[MarkyT]

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

“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.
​

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.

I remember discussions about this when I worked for RT/NR in signal engineering at Waterloo over ten years ago. The main aim was clearing out the undercroft and providing a new ground level concourse with additional accesses to the platforms above. One option mentioned was a raft across part of the station, perhaps the lower numbered main slow platforms, and with taxis moved over to the former International side so an air rights development could also incorporate the land occupied by Station Approach (where taxis queue up for the main rank today) and Spur Road, as well as the General Offices. With such a new development and alternative passenger access from below, it might also be possible to lengthen the slow platforms to 12 car at the buffer stop end by going across the current concourse and partly through the General Offices building. I'd not like to see a raft extending over the whole station but a partial development that retained the majority of the original overall roof and the Grimshaw roof over the former International platforms might be a good compromise.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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.

Regarding long distance passengers... I agree with you to the extent that that it would certainly be an increase in numbers of long distance trains. But I guess the question is, to what extent would that be counterbalanced by those trains half-emptying out at Clapham Junction with people transferring to Crossrail2 there? Depending on numbers could that even lead to a decrease in numbers of long-distance passengers at Waterloo?

 

[DarloRich]

I remember discussions about this when I worked for RT/NR in signal engineering at Waterloo over ten years ago. The main aim was clearing out the undercroft and providing a new ground level concourse with additional accesses to the platforms above. One option mentioned was a raft across part of the station, perhaps the lower numbered main slow platforms, and with taxis moved over to the former International side so an air rights development could also incorporate the land occupied by Station Approach (where taxis queue up for the main rank today) and Spur Road, as well as the General Offices. With such a new development and alternative passenger access from below, it might also be possible to lengthen the slow platforms to 12 car at the buffer stop end by going across the current concourse and partly through the General Offices building. I'd not like to see a raft extending over the whole station but a partial development that retained the majority of the original overall roof and the Grimshaw roof over the former International platforms might be a good compromise.

and i cant believe a realistic suggestion would go further than that.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

As an aside... personally I love the main concourse at Waterloo.

On the other hand... the former international platforms... I've never been on them, but from the outside, the roof over them looks like one of the ugliest station roofs I've seen. If they built something over just those platforms that involved demolishing that, I wouldn't be remotely sorry

 

[dorsetdesiro]

In regards to Waterloo,

They've already built that gallery for extra retail space few years ago, so the main concourse should be left well alone.

I thought it was rumoured a narrow multi-level shopping mall is to be built beside & underneath the ex-international platforms, no?

 

[MarkyT]

As an aside... personally I love the main concourse at Waterloo.

On the other hand... the former international platforms... I've never been on them, but from the outside, the roof over them looks like one of the ugliest station roofs I've seen. If they built something over just those platforms that involved demolishing that, I wouldn't be remotely sorry

Tastes differ. I like the long sinuous International roof, and such an extensive single span overall structure like this is a very rare thing to have been provided new in modern times. I understand they had problems early on with the glazing though. Presumably that has since been fixed.

 

[yorksrob]

As an aside... personally I love the main concourse at Waterloo.

It is a wonderful station. It manages to be both very functional and easy to navigate, whilst being extremely graceful.

There is a clue in that paragraph!! This isn't a short term thing and is clearly at a very early stage of development if it is beyond a "brain wave"
​

Oh yes, I hear they're going to replace Stonehenge with a multi-storey car park, but not until 2045, so not to worry.​

 

[The Ham]

Oh yes, I hear they're going to replace Stonehenge with a multi-storey car park, but not until 2045, so not to worry.

First off, why would you replace an ancient art work which sat in the middle of a roundabout* with a car park?

Secondly, given that it's concepts which are being considered at this point there's likely to (especially given the current trend for such things) to be lots of consultations on the scheme options.

I would also suggest that it could even be, given the prestigious nature of the project, a scheme where there's an architectural competition to determine a suitable concept.

* Well that's my favourite theory about it's original use.

 

[DarloRich]

Oh yes, I hear they're going to replace Stonehenge with a multi-storey car park, but not until 2045, so not to worry.

Honestly, you need to dial the hyperbole back a bit. It looks silly.

 

[yorksrob]

First off, why would you replace an ancient art work which sat in the middle of a roundabout* with a car park?

Secondly, given that it's concepts which are being considered at this point there's likely to (especially given the current trend for such things) to be lots of consultations on the scheme options.

I would also suggest that it could even be, given the prestigious nature of the project, a scheme where there's an architectural competition to determine a suitable concept.

* Well that's my favourite theory about it's original use.

Honestly, you need to dial the hyperbole back a bit. It looks silly.

At the end of the day, you can have as many competitions as you want, but if you raft over the platform area, it doesn't matter how iconic your building is, the platform is still going to end up a dank hole. Look at Birmingham New Street. Iconic new building costing billions and the platform area is still a dank hole.

And I was merely using the Stonehenge example to illustrate the folly of disregarding a bad idea just because it appears a while off. I am afterall, merely taking NR's own words about wanting to raft over the platform area at face value, and from other posts on here, this doesn't seem to be the first time that they have fantasised about it.

 

[swt_passenger]

I thought it was rumoured a narrow multi-level shopping mall is to be built beside & underneath the ex-international platforms, no?

It’s far more than a rumour. The planning application has been in for nearly 2 years, and was approved June 2017. But in principle it doesn’t impact negatively on the existing station, it also provides additional ground level entrances, to the Bakerloo/Northern ticket hall level, and additional access routes directly to/from the ‘international’ platforms beyond the existing gate line.
However it doesn’t extend outside the existing building footprint as far as I recall (I haven’t looked it up again though).

I’ll add the planning application reference here when I find it:

Lambeth planning site reference number:
“16/02973/FUL” | Change of use of existing Waterloo International Terminal (WIT) to a mix of Class A1-A5 (retail) uses and Class D2

https://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/online-applications/
(You cannot link directly to applications.)

 

[The Ham]

At the end of the day, you can have as many competitions as you want, but if you raft over the platform area, it doesn't matter how iconic your building is, the platform is still going to end up a dank hole. Look at Birmingham New Street. Iconic new building costing billions and the platform area is still a dank hole.

And I was merely using the Stonehenge example to illustrate the folly of disregarding a bad idea just because it appears a while off. I am afterall, merely taking NR's own words about wanting to raft over the platform area at face value, and from other posts on here, this doesn't seem to be the first time that they have fantasised about it.

Waterloo would be something like a raft half as wide again to that at Birmingham at the narrowest end with little or no space to support it at the edges. That's going to make it fairly complex to build.

Some options would probably require platform space which would impact on capacity, which would likely rule it out at the London end, it could be viable at the county end where there's less passenger flows.

Now look at the area of Waterloo compared to the buildings around it and most of the larger buildings have great big light wells through the middle of them. Why? Due to the fact that issue don't like living, working or shopping 50m away from windows.

Therefore even if the whole area was offered chances are there's going to be still some fairly generous light wells. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some requirement for an outside plaza with retail with frontage canopies around, with light wells through, to provide an outdoor or semi outdoor area with train information available for people to shop/wait.

As an architectural practice putting forward a world class design you certainly wouldn't want your name associated with creating a black hole for the trains to arrive into what is currently the busiest station in the UK. Especially given that you could find that a lot of potential clients may travel through that station.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

At the end of the day, you can have as many competitions as you want, but if you raft over the platform area, it doesn't matter how iconic your building is, the platform is still going to end up a dank hole. Look at Birmingham New Street. Iconic new building costing billions and the platform area is still a dank hole.

Charing Cross doesn't seem too bad to me, although I take your point that having platforms and concourses open to sunlight is usually a lot more pleasant.

 

[yorksrob]

Charing Cross doesn't seem too bad to me, although I take your point that having platforms and concourses open to sunlight is usually a lot more pleasant.

Yes, I'm quite fond of Charing Cross, however that probably has as much to do with personal nostalgia as anything else.

The limited extent of the platform area probably would have limited the appeal of the replacement trainshed (the original arched one collapsed), certainly compared to the sweeping expanse of Waterloo main, however the charmingly ornate Charing Cross Hotel certainly rescues it architecturally.

 

[yorksrob]

Waterloo would be something like a raft half as wide again to that at Birmingham at the narrowest end with little or no space to support it at the edges. That's going to make it fairly complex to build.

Some options would probably require platform space which would impact on capacity, which would likely rule it out at the London end, it could be viable at the county end where there's less passenger flows.

Now look at the area of Waterloo compared to the buildings around it and most of the larger buildings have great big light wells through the middle of them. Why? Due to the fact that issue don't like living, working or shopping 50m away from windows.

Therefore even if the whole area was offered chances are there's going to be still some fairly generous light wells. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some requirement for an outside plaza with retail with frontage canopies around, with light wells through, to provide an outdoor or semi outdoor area with train information available for people to shop/wait.

As an architectural practice putting forward a world class design you certainly wouldn't want your name associated with creating a black hole for the trains to arrive into what is currently the busiest station in the UK. Especially given that you could find that a lot of potential clients may travel through that station.

I fear it still wouldn't be as good the current light and airy roof.

 

[The Ham]

I fear it still wouldn't be as good the current light and airy roof.

That wasn't the point you were making, you were saying that it would become like New Street, and I was explaining why it probably wouldn't.

For a lot of people for a lot of the year it wouldn't make much difference (it being dark or nearly dark on the way in and way home from work). Also given the limited amount of time spent on the platforms or waiting on a train to leave/get off it probably wouldn't be all that noticeable if it was a bit darker due to some development over the top of some of the platform space.

 

[Tio Terry]

I know the problems that Waterloo has from a Civils perspective quite well, having first worked within the station in 1971.

Rafting over it is not impossible but has a lot of problems that will be expensive to solve.

Waterloo is built on brick arches which are nowhere near able to support a concrete raft let alone what they seem to be planning above that. To get adequate support they will have to drive piled foundations through the top of the arches and down in to the ground below so that the raft is not supported by the existing structures. Not an easy task within a working station. The supporting column widths will reduce the effective platform widths which will have an effect on passenger flows - already a problem - and at the country end of the platforms there is already a non-conformance granted for width, that could possibly present a further problem if more supports are required.

When the mezzanine floor was added there were significant problems in getting adequate support for it, there are places you can stand on it and feel the vibrations from the Jubilee line quite easily as the trains pass, there's not a lot of room beneath Waterloo to find adequate space to build piled foundations for something as big and heavy as it appears to be planned, there's a lot of underground railway there. The old road to platform 10 and the boat trains has been closed to road traffic for some time because of the fragility of the concourse support, it's quite regular to see cracks appearing in the concourse floor and for repairs to be necessary because of movement of the concourse, you cant just go and pile anywhere you want without it affecting other areas.

There is already a shopping Mall planned for the sub platform level of the former International station. That stupid roof needs to go as soon as possible, it has never worked properly, it has always had a problem with glass panels disintegrating and falling, it's a design issue. There have been several panels fall during the current works, they are now fitting "nappies" (the designers description, not mine) under the glass to catch them when they fall. If it gets to have 4 inches of snow on it (yes, I know that would be unusual in central London, but our weather patterns are changing) then you need to close it or send someone up there to remove the snow. It's good from an aesthetic point of view but totally impracticable from an operating railway perspective.

I've not considered things like natural light or lighting, or acoustics and the ability to provide clear announcements without causing problems to the railways neighbours. The detail designs will need to consider PRM as well as normal passenger footfall and access to LU in particular.

As I said, not impossible but very expensive and not a quick and easy job to get a return from. There must be easier and quicker paying jobs like East Croydon, Wimbledon, Epsom, Ilford, Slough and loads of others that deserve consideration before Waterloo.

 

[The Ham]

I know the problems that Waterloo has from a Civils perspective quite well, having first worked within the station in 1971.

Rafting over it is not impossible but has a lot of problems that will be expensive to solve.

Waterloo is built on brick arches which are nowhere near able to support a concrete raft let alone what they seem to be planning above that. To get adequate support they will have to drive piled foundations through the top of the arches and down in to the ground below so that the raft is not supported by the existing structures. Not an easy task within a working station. The supporting column widths will reduce the effective platform widths which will have an effect on passenger flows - already a problem - and at the country end of the platforms there is already a non-conformance granted for width, that could possibly present a further problem if more supports are required.

When the mezzanine floor was added there were significant problems in getting adequate support for it, there are places you can stand on it and feel the vibrations from the Jubilee line quite easily as the trains pass, there's not a lot of room beneath Waterloo to find adequate space to build piled foundations for something as big and heavy as it appears to be planned, there's a lot of underground railway there. The old road to platform 10 and the boat trains has been closed to road traffic for some time because of the fragility of the concourse support, it's quite regular to see cracks appearing in the concourse floor and for repairs to be necessary because of movement of the concourse, you cant just go and pile anywhere you want without it affecting other areas.

There is already a shopping Mall planned for the sub platform level of the former International station. That stupid roof needs to go as soon as possible, it has never worked properly, it has always had a problem with glass panels disintegrating and falling, it's a design issue. There have been several panels fall during the current works, they are now fitting "nappies" (the designers description, not mine) under the glass to catch them when they fall. If it gets to have 4 inches of snow on it (yes, I know that would be unusual in central London, but our weather patterns are changing) then you need to close it or send someone up there to remove the snow. It's good from an aesthetic point of view but totally impracticable from an operating railway perspective.

I've not considered things like natural light or lighting, or acoustics and the ability to provide clear announcements without causing problems to the railways neighbours. The detail designs will need to consider PRM as well as normal passenger footfall and access to LU in particular.

As I said, not impossible but very expensive and not a quick and easy job to get a return from. There must be easier and quicker paying jobs like East Croydon, Wimbledon, Epsom, Ilford, Slough and loads of others that deserve consideration before Waterloo.

It's good to see some personal experience which confirms some of the general thoughts which I hinted at further up thread.

 

[yorksrob]

That wasn't the point you were making, you were saying that it would become like New Street, and I was explaining why it probably wouldn't.

For a lot of people for a lot of the year it wouldn't make much difference (it being dark or nearly dark on the way in and way home from work). Also given the limited amount of time spent on the platforms or waiting on a train to leave/get off it probably wouldn't be all that noticeable if it was a bit darker due to some development over the top of some of the platform space.

Birmingham New Street is a new development. How come they didn't include any down lighting to the platform area in there ?

 

[edwin_m]

Birmingham New Street is a new development. How come they didn't include any down lighting to the platform area in there ?

Probably because the important factor was to create circulation space and a big hole in the concourse would have destroyed that. They managed to get a lot of light into the concourse, and I noticed last time I was there a very small transparent bit in the floor so there must be a bit of light getting through to the platforms somewhere...

 

[The Ham]

Birmingham New Street is a new development. How come they didn't include any down lighting to the platform area in there ?

Maybe because they weren't changing the raft and the cost of doing so would be fairly high. Also how much light could you get to how many platforms?

With a new build you can design this in from day one which reduces the costs and makes it easier to do.

 

[yorksrob]

Which the line doesn't really justify, as most journeys are just as well done using the ECML or WCML as a connection from the existing service given the level of demand.

Maybe because they weren't changing the raft and the cost of doing so would be fairly high. Also how much light could you get to how many platforms?

With a new build you can design this in from day one which reduces the costs and makes it easier to do.

And the temptation is to maximise "land space" which means less light to the platforms.

 

[randyrippley]

If people are so worried, then try to get the place listed.
Surely there must be a local London pressure group who polices planning issues?

 

[The Ham]

And the temptation is to maximise "land space" which means less light to the platforms.

Other than New Street can you give examples of (ideally recent) developments which resulted in significantly darker platforms.

I can give one that didn't really have a noticeable effect, that being the bridge over Reading station. It has maximised pedestrian flow and retail outlets and even if it had been several stories higher hasn't had a noticeable impact on platform lighting levels. In fact for the lowest numbered through platform (I think 7) it feels lighter than it was.

It's also worth noting that it's been suggested that Waterloo will be a bit of an engineering problem to place a full raft over (hinted at by me and confirmed by Tio Terry). As such although it's something that could happen I would expect that it's likely to happen between Crossrail 2 opening and a major recast of the SWML services. As it would allow parts of the station to be closed to allow significant rebuilding without impacting on services.

Even then the desire to increase services would likely limit the works to a few years.

As others have suggested a total rebuild of the lower numbered platforms with a low level concourse running the length of the platforms and the platforms extended into the existing concourse. This would enable multiple access points to these platforms along their length reducing the capacity constraint of the escalators up next to McDonald's. As many passengers would just continue on at grade before going up to their required platform. Whilst those heading to the mid numbered platforms could do so via a couple of escalators running perpendicular to the platforms (like those to Waterloo East). As others have suggested this could allow the taxis to be provided for at a lower level freeing up the land between the station and the properties on Lower Marsh Road (up to 20m wide) to provide space for a high rise development without oversailing any of the platforms.

If time allows then this would be repeated along the width of the station with there ending up being three levels. An much expanded level under the platforms (linking the two underground barrier areas), a more compact existing main concourse and then the current mezzanine area and link to Waterloo East.

In doing so it would remove the week point in the construction, that being the brink arches and allow a properly engineered structure which could then allow some extra development over posts of the station. However if these are limited to the North East and North West (the International platforms and the existing concourse areas) then the impact on lighting levels are likely to be unaffected. Even by building over Cab Road to the South East the lighting levels aren't likely to be reduced by much for much of the day and/or for much of the station.

However if there was a two or three storey glass atrium occupying the current Cab Road level to the top of the existing station roof which removed the solid flank wall of the station it could even allow more light into the station area. This area could be occupied with cafes/food court with significant seating and waiting areas. As well as areas of planting and water features to help regulate temperatures during the summer as well as providing a pleasant area to wait or just somewhere where people could meet to do business.

Rising above this, and the other mostly non platform development areas, could then be several storeys of development. Potential a mix of office, residential, lesure and hotel.

By limiting the areas of shadow to areas mostly away from the platforms the station would keep much of its current light and airy feel. It could do this whilst still providing a significant area of development without needing the significat cost of a massive raft over the whole station area. Even if such a raft was able to be provided without impacting on passenger flows, you couldn't build on all of it as the buildings would be far too wide.

Once buildings start to be more than 10m deep and the lack of natural light can start to become a problem depending on which way the windows face and how high the ceilings are. With most buildings being less than 20m deep and those that are more tend to have big cores (stairs and lifts) occupying much of the middle which don't need natural light as you spend so little time there and/or large lightwells to provide natural light into the centre of the building.

 

[yorksrob]

Other than New Street can you give examples of (ideally recent) developments which resulted in significantly darker platforms.

I can give one that didn't really have a noticeable effect, that being the bridge over Reading station. It has maximised pedestrian flow and retail outlets and even if it had been several stories higher hasn't had a noticeable impact on platform lighting levels. In fact for the lowest numbered through platform (I think 7) it feels lighter than it was.

It's also worth noting that it's been suggested that Waterloo will be a bit of an engineering problem to place a full raft over (hinted at by me and confirmed by Tio Terry). As such although it's something that could happen I would expect that it's likely to happen between Crossrail 2 opening and a major recast of the SWML services. As it would allow parts of the station to be closed to allow significant rebuilding without impacting on services.

Even then the desire to increase services would likely limit the works to a few years.

As others have suggested a total rebuild of the lower numbered platforms with a low level concourse running the length of the platforms and the platforms extended into the existing concourse. This would enable multiple access points to these platforms along their length reducing the capacity constraint of the escalators up next to McDonald's. As many passengers would just continue on at grade before going up to their required platform. Whilst those heading to the mid numbered platforms could do so via a couple of escalators running perpendicular to the platforms (like those to Waterloo East). As others have suggested this could allow the taxis to be provided for at a lower level freeing up the land between the station and the properties on Lower Marsh Road (up to 20m wide) to provide space for a high rise development without oversailing any of the platforms.

If time allows then this would be repeated along the width of the station with there ending up being three levels. An much expanded level under the platforms (linking the two underground barrier areas), a more compact existing main concourse and then the current mezzanine area and link to Waterloo East.

In doing so it would remove the week point in the construction, that being the brink arches and allow a properly engineered structure which could then allow some extra development over posts of the station. However if these are limited to the North East and North West (the International platforms and the existing concourse areas) then the impact on lighting levels are likely to be unaffected. Even by building over Cab Road to the South East the lighting levels aren't likely to be reduced by much for much of the day and/or for much of the station.

However if there was a two or three storey glass atrium occupying the current Cab Road level to the top of the existing station roof which removed the solid flank wall of the station it could even allow more light into the station area. This area could be occupied with cafes/food court with significant seating and waiting areas. As well as areas of planting and water features to help regulate temperatures during the summer as well as providing a pleasant area to wait or just somewhere where people could meet to do business.

Rising above this, and the other mostly non platform development areas, could then be several storeys of development. Potential a mix of office, residential, lesure and hotel.

By limiting the areas of shadow to areas mostly away from the platforms the station would keep much of its current light and airy feel. It could do this whilst still providing a significant area of development without needing the significat cost of a massive raft over the whole station area. Even if such a raft was able to be provided without impacting on passenger flows, you couldn't build on all of it as the buildings would be far too wide.

Once buildings start to be more than 10m deep and the lack of natural light can start to become a problem depending on which way the windows face and how high the ceilings are. With most buildings being less than 20m deep and those that are more tend to have big cores (stairs and lifts) occupying much of the middle which don't need natural light as you spend so little time there and/or large lightwells to provide natural light into the centre of the building.

Manchester Victoria, London Victoria, Liverpool Street, Charing Cross, Cannon Street (and yes, I do regard these as Modern).

I'm not particularly a fan of the new Reading architecturally, although this was at least driven by an operational requirement to expand platform capacity.

Both Reading and London Bridge have quite light platform areas, but neither of them have large retail/housing/office complexes built over them, so I don't consider them to be in any way comparative to what seems to be proposed here (and at London Victoria).

With regard to Waterloo, I don't have a problem with better using the undercroft area, particularly to channel any growth in passenger numbers. However, I don't think we should underestimate how important the existing platform area is in making the station functional and easy to use. It enables one to do whatever one needs to do before the journey and get to whatever platform one needs to get to easily, without running a gauntlet of stairwells and narrow escallators (I run such a gauntlet every day at Leeds, and Waterloo is a dream to use by comparison).

 

[DarloRich]

Birmingham New Street is a new development. How come they didn't include any down lighting to the platform area in there ?

I would say that new street was a refurbishment rather than a new development.

Manchester Victoria, London Victoria, Liverpool Street, Charing Cross, Cannon Street (and yes, I do regard these as Modern).

when were those conversions undertaken?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

With regard to Waterloo, I don't have a problem with better using the undercroft area, particularly to channel any growth in passenger numbers. However, I don't think we should underestimate how important the existing platform area is in making the station functional and easy to use. It enables one to do whatever one needs to do before the journey and get to whatever platform one needs to get to easily, without running a gauntlet of stairwells and narrow escallators (I run such a gauntlet every day at Leeds, and Waterloo is a dream to use by comparison).

You've never tried changing trains from Waterloo East to Waterloo at a busy period?

Yes, there are no stairwells and only one standard-size escalator involved, but it feels like miles to walk (especially because I usually want to be at the front of the train leaving Waterloo Main), much of it fairly unpleasant passageways and ramps.

If there's one bit that could really do with improvement at Waterloo, it's basically everything beyond the Waterloo East ticket barriers on the mezzanine area.

(I've not been to Leeds recently though so have no idea how that experience compares with Leeds)

 

[yorksrob]

I would say that new street was a refurbishment rather than a new development.

when were those conversions undertaken?

1980's and 90's.

I'd say that New Street was a pretty comprehensive redevelopment, given that the existing building was completely replaced.