What constitutes good station design?

[Clip]

it's been a known retail trait for donkeys years that aisles are made diagonal to make to stay in the shop longer, I'm just saying this is a slight modification to the practice, that's all

I simply havent been in a shop nor supermarket where the aisles are diagonal - can you show some examples please?

 

[Peter C]

I don't have a particular problem with heathrow T5/T2, that is pretty well designed, so all the retail is straight after security, and there's plenty of escalators down to the gate level,
but T3 is a sodding nightmare, as is stansted, as is gatwick,as is luton(which wasn't that bad until 6 months ago!)..they are all jumbled up messes where you are going to get hopelessly obstructed by aimless ambling tourists with no sense of time/direction on a windey,windey yellow brick road to oz,when you have about 5 minutes to catch a plane before the gate closes.

you need a ball of string to go through those mazes like theseus and the minotaur.

I've never been to Heathrow, so I'll take your word for it!
There is a thing in design where you deliberately put shops around people in the hope of them buying stuff.
Here is a sort of good explanation for this:

-Peter

 

[Peter C]

There used to be kiosks for WH Smith and the like on the concourse. Perfectly acceptable when passenger numbers weren't as high, but rather in the way nowadays.



It seems fine when I look at it.

Oh OK. Like in the steam days - WHSmith was big thing there. I think WHSmith only started selling paperback books in the smaller forms because of train travel.

-Peter

 

[Dr Hoo]

I hope that contributors can come up with some general principles of good or desirable design practice, rather than just more lists of niggles about particular stations.

As with all good lists of aims and criteria there will inevitably be tensions and trade-offs. The priorities of different types of traveller vary widely on many dimensions - commuter, business, leisure, tourist; arriving/departing/interchanging; recently fed or hungry after a long journey already; already ticketed or without; fit or with impaired mobility; travelling solo or aiming to meet somebody; and so on.

Then there are more general factors like affordability, availability of land to alter the footprint, security, need to be able to accommodate major public events nearby, resilience if a material proportion of services are disrupted and constraints of listed buildings.

This is all before you try and future-proof it in terms of possible general growth, new infrastructure corridors (such as HS2, Crossrail 2 or a new city tram system), new forms of ticket retailing/authority to travel and revenue protection.

And yes, there is the retail opportunity (or need). From a purely selfish perspective, living in a rural area, shops at major stations are really useful. I will often make the most of a break of journey at Sheffield, Manchester Piccadilly and even further away like Birmingham New Street or St Pancras to stock up on items that I can’t get locally.

It isn’t going to be possible to please everybody all of the time. And particularly at major stations handling tens of thousands of people per day you simply can’t have everything next to everything else and no space for people to move about.

 

[yorksrob]

Oh OK. Like in the steam days - WHSmith was big thing there. I think WHSmith only started selling paperback books in the smaller forms because of train travel.

-Peter

Indeed, but a lot later than steam days. There were kiosks on the concourse 5-10 years ago.

 

[AlbertBeale]

The original Euston rebuild design was good if a little spartan (no seating) before they filled up the concourse with retail units. You could see where everything was when entering from the road or from the Tube.

The original concept at Liverpool Street (and Kings Cross) of separate arrival and departure roads didn't survive the growth in traffic, and extension of the station. The restoration of the idea at Kings Cross is good in theory but I haven't used the station since so I don't know how it is working in practice.

The separate arrivals and departures routes at Kings Cross is a mess. Initially, after the restructuring, if you tried to enter the (obvious) front of the station from the road/buses, there weren't just signs saying it was the exit, but a barrier line stopping you from cutting through to the departures area that way. That was so silly that they had to put a kink in the gate/barrier line so you could get "legally" from the covered space along the front of the exit gates through to the departures area. It's an obvious "desire line" and loads of people go in that way despite signs saying you should go out and loop round the back of the underground access steps and in the "proper" way. [There is a possible physical way through from the front of the exit barriers to the outside of the "official way in", without going out and round the underground access in the weather - but it's sealed off!] In any case, the gates are open for a lot of the time, so the exit concourse inside the gates is a common cut-through to/from the departures area and the street in front of the station. I have no idea what would happen if the gates were put back into use while making that shortcut (rather than making the wiggle they've introduced at the end of the gate line), I guess you'd be hassled for not having a ticket. (It's never happened to me yet, though.)

Another issue for arrivals is trying to meet someone there. If you arrive on a train and don't know the place, your only obvious route (leaving aside the separate suburban platforms) is to go straight out of the gates, a few paces under/across the "arcade" and out into the street and the weather. Whilst someone meeting you is going to be across to the west side, out of sight in the "departures" area - not only because there's nowhere civilised to wait at the official "arrivals" barrier, but (incredibly) there's no arrivals information visible at the arrivals barriers... you can only check arrivals from the departure area!

The original idea for people catching a train seemed to be that people in the departures area would, after entertaining themselves in the shops, take the escalator - which is well tucked away - to the upper level (with more shops!!) and then go round that walkway, though a passageway through the wall of the main train shed, where there are a couple of ticket gates, and on to an overbridge, and then go down onto the relevant platform. Nice on a planner's design perhaps, but counter-intuitive, sending you on a circuitous route, away from where you can see at least some of the platforms (from the southern end of the departures area). Whenever I've been at Kings Cross (which is virtually next door to where I've worked for years, so I'm around the place all the time - mostly not for train travel purposes!) I've seen almost no-one use that high-level access to the footbridge down to the platforms. People go via the gates at the southern end of the departures concourse, heading across the front of all the platforms until they get to the right one, intersecting all the arriving passengers at right angles.

When the design was first public, some of us pointed out it wasn't sensible in terms of actual human behaviour - to no effect of course, apart from the kink in the gateline which was only introduced after they'd realised that the people who told them so were right all along.

 

[Bertie the bus]

The thing that I always bring up when St Pancras is mentioned is the 10ft tall touchscreen information points by each entrance. Almost nobody uses them Why not?

I would suggest if you need to access information screens to navigate a railway station then, by definition, that station hasn't been designed well.

As far as new stations are concerned I think Liverpool South Parkway is a pretty good effort. Wide stairways and gangways and a pleasant, spacious and bright central atrium. A decent amount of shelter on the platforms too.

 

[themiller]

What is a railway station for? It's for getting travellers from the entrance onto the train easily and safely. Too often, stations are built using existing infrastructure. This constrains an architect or designer to reuse something which is not necessarily suitable for the future requirements. For an ideal station, it must be where the demand is. It must fulfil the future function and be capable of future expansion. For navigation through the station, there must be clear, uncluttered pathways which are well signed and the ability to direct passengers to the right part of the right train at the right time. It must be light, airy and protect passengers from the elements - and that includes from heat as well as cold. It must be easily maintainable with sufficient capacity to accommodate disruption. Most of all, it must be designed to function before the designer's ego is given any leeway to define its form.
I find that terminal stations are, generally, not well designed but some through stations are close to perfect. Paddington, e.g., has a concourse which is too small with facilities such as toilets hidden in a dark corner instead of having several smaller facilities distributed around the concourse. Passengers have to congregate in one place which leads to dense crowds which are ideal for criminals such as terrorists and pick-pockets. Stations seem to be designed for the convenience of staff and operated very much in that way. There is a presumption in this country that all passengers are dishonest and are channelled through restricted entrances and exits instead of being open so that crowds can disperse quickly and intending travellers can get to their platforms efficiently. One of the best that I've used is that at Frankfurt Flughafen (airport) which is a reasonably busy through station. There are no vending facilities on the platforms which are open and wide. The shops and ticket/enquiry offices are on the floor above and are arranged around the walls thus keeping the centre open for circulation and access to and from escalators to the platforms.
Operationally, I've noticed that, at some terminal stations, trains are locked shut whilst passengers wait on the platform instead of being open to act as a writing room and giving a quieter, less cluttered appearance.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

How about (as a start

1. No perpetuation of the Euston Stampede (at terminal stations)
2. logical pairing of island platforms to remove stampedes via subways and bridges during re-platforming
3. A standard minimum of facilities (toilet, waiting, refreshment, information) on every island
4. Consideration of walking times in the era of 400m long trains

 

[swt_passenger]

The separate arrivals and departures routes at Kings Cross is a mess. Initially, after the restructuring, if you tried to enter the (obvious) front of the station from the road/buses, there weren't just signs saying it was the exit, but a barrier line stopping you from cutting through to the departures area that way. That was so silly that they had to put a kink in the gate/barrier line so you could get "legally" from the covered space along the front of the exit gates through to the departures area. It's an obvious "desire line" and loads of people go in that way despite signs saying you should go out and loop round the back of the underground access steps and in the "proper" way. [There is a possible physical way through from the front of the exit barriers to the outside of the "official way in", without going out and round the underground access in the weather - but it's sealed off!] In any case, the gates are open for a lot of the time, so the exit concourse inside the gates is a common cut-through to/from the departures area and the street in front of the station. I have no idea what would happen if the gates were put back into use while making that shortcut (rather than making the wiggle they've introduced at the end of the gate line), I guess you'd be hassled for not having a ticket. (It's never happened to me yet, though.)

Another issue for arrivals is trying to meet someone there. If you arrive on a train and don't know the place, your only obvious route (leaving aside the separate suburban platforms) is to go straight out of the gates, a few paces under/across the "arcade" and out into the street and the weather. Whilst someone meeting you is going to be across to the west side, out of sight in the "departures" area - not only because there's nowhere civilised to wait at the official "arrivals" barrier, but (incredibly) there's no arrivals information visible at the arrivals barriers... you can only check arrivals from the departure area!

The original idea for people catching a train seemed to be that people in the departures area would, after entertaining themselves in the shops, take the escalator - which is well tucked away - to the upper level (with more shops!!) and then go round that walkway, though a passageway through the wall of the main train shed, where there are a couple of ticket gates, and on to an overbridge, and then go down onto the relevant platform. Nice on a planner's design perhaps, but counter-intuitive, sending you on a circuitous route, away from where you can see at least some of the platforms (from the southern end of the departures area). Whenever I've been at Kings Cross (which is virtually next door to where I've worked for years, so I'm around the place all the time - mostly not for train travel purposes!) I've seen almost no-one use that high-level access to the footbridge down to the platforms. People go via the gates at the southern end of the departures concourse, heading across the front of all the platforms until they get to the right one, intersecting all the arriving passengers at right angles.

When the design was first public, some of us pointed out it wasn't sensible in terms of actual human behaviour - to no effect of course, apart from the kink in the gateline which was only introduced after they'd realised that the people who told them so were right all along.

The passenger flow modelling was available on line years ago, and it was never the case that all departures were going to be via the upper level. This seems to be one of those railway myths perpetuated solely so that people can have a good complaint...

 

[urbophile]

I agree about Waterloo. Considering its size and footfall it works well and looks like a proper station. (London Waterloo of course. The Merseyside one also looks like a proper station albeit much smaller)

Liverpool Central (the Northern Line platform at least) must be one of the most hopeless designs ever. Admittedly it is an adaptation of its former use as the Wirral Line terminus, which might have been dark and dingy but worked well enough and catered for only a fraction of today's passenger numbers. But one downward and two upward escalators, plus one flight of stairs and a lift, all at one end of the narrow island platform, make congestion inevitable. Most of the seating is at that end of the platform too, even though three coach trains – the majority – tend to stop further down where there are fewer seats. The recent refurb smartened it up cosmetically but didn't do anything to address the basic design faults.

Most of the comments on this thread are concerned with design efficiency and not architectural elegance. Probably that's what the OP intended. But the latter is important too and the best stations achieve both.

 

[Ken H]

a station should suck people off the street, get them in to a train and away with minimum fuss
it should work for people who have never been there before.
and the operating of the trains should work

Trains should go from near the barrier if possible. So at Skipton, for instance, as many trains should go from Plat 2 to save people trailing through the subway. Especially off peak. But all the Leeds's go from 1, beyond the canopy, and the Bradfords from 4 meaning a trail through the subway.

And there should be a decent canopy to keep people dry when its wet at large stations. Blackpool North is a complete joke in this respect.

and there should be a minimum facility chart based on usage. A large station should have ATM, cafe/bar, toilets and a newsagent/book store as minimum.
All stations should have a network map (Like the one in the old timetable book), a current timetable for the line(s) and some idea where buses and taxis can be found.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The thing that I always bring up when St Pancras is mentioned is the 10ft tall touchscreen information points by each entrance. Almost nobody uses them Why not?

As someone who commuted through St Pancras for nearly 20 years, including all stages of the re-building, I would suggest that the answer is three-fold:

1. As the ‘top bit’ neatly lists forthcoming departures in time order, across all operators, many people just glance at them as they pass and are thus ‘using’ the points without having to hack through the keyboard;
2. Notwithstanding the understandable interest in the needs of ‘confused tourists’ and other infrequent users I suspect that the great majority of passengers are actually familiar with the station and know where the bit that they need is (if only because there is a good chance that they arrived there earlier); and
3. Those who have a mindset that appreciates electronic screens (which doesn’t include everyone) have probably got an app on their phones or are logged into some sort of tracker that has advised them to ‘head for Platform #’ and they are already following signs.

 

[Peter C]

Indeed, but a lot later than steam days. There were kiosks on the concourse 5-10 years ago.

Oh - interesting! Thanks.

-Peter

 

[hooverboy]

As someone who commuted through St Pancras for nearly 20 years, including all stages of the re-building, I would suggest that the answer is three-fold:

1. As the ‘top bit’ neatly lists forthcoming departures in time order, across all operators, many people just glance at them as they pass and are thus ‘using’ the points without having to hack through the keyboard;
2. Notwithstanding the understandable interest in the needs of ‘confused tourists’ and other infrequent users I suspect that the great majority of passengers are actually familiar with the station and know where bit that they need is (if only because there is a good chance that they arrived there earlier); and
3. Those who have a mindset that appreciates electronic screens (which doesn’t include everyone) have probably got an app on their phones or are logged into some sort of tracker that has advised them to ‘head for Platform #’ and they are already following signs.

dunno.
I have done the "baguette and some roquefort" line like the proclaimers suggested
take a look at the railtrack,from st pancras to gare de nord!

 

[hooverboy]

really want to get hopelessly drunk and just see what happens!

 

[ijmad]

I think New Abbey Wood is dreadful. Even though you're on the same level as the platforms you have to go up a huge flight of stairs then then down to get to them. Crossrail will terminate on its own island platform meaning everyone will need to use the staircases and lifts. With a bit more thought at least one of the terminal platforms could have been built for cross-platform interchange with Southeastern, maybe even both (in different directions).

Another example of a bad station is Canada Water. This is the busiest two platform station on the entire UK network and there's only one escalator to serve passengers who want to change to the Jubilee Line.

 

[swt_passenger]

Abbey Wood originally had the Crossrail tracks in the middle, but it was redesigned the way it is now with a view to two things, access to the new depot at Plumstead without conflicting with Southeastern, and the ability to allow future extension to the east with its own tracks.

 

[ijmad]

Abbey Wood originally had the Crossrail tracks in the middle, but it was redesigned the way it is now with a view to two things, access to the new depot at Plumstead without conflicting with Southeastern, and the ability to allow future extension to the east with its own tracks.

I realise this, but I think it's a weak excuse given how long it's likely to be before we actually see this extension. Plus, I'm not sure what would have stopped an Eastern extension continuing to run along a pair of tracks in the middle. That surely gives more flexibility to merge with other services or terminate at centre sidings.

 

[DanTrain]

On particular gripe I have is how the big number signs Network Rail tends to put at the entrances to each platform can be misleading. For example if arriving in Birmingham New Street from the tram stop and heading for platform 6, you see a big 6 ahead of you and to the left, but if you aim for this you find there is a glass screen in the way. The correct route to 6 is to go straight on past Pret and the other eatery (Yo! Sushi I think) then turn left through the barriers into the Yellow Lounge. There are signs to indicate this, but they are far less prominent and once people have seen the entrance to the platform they want they're unlikely to pay attention to any other signs. That side of the "6" sign, and similar misleading ones (there's probably the same situation heading from John Lewis to 5) should be removed and the general platform signage made more prominent. I think this would go a long way to resolving the annoyance caused by the layout changes at New Street. The recent platform alterations at Waverley appear to have created a similar situation.

New Street is bad generally, there are so many sets of barriers that getting from A to B normally requires going via C, D and E, which tends to not be very obvious...I have also hit glass barriers whilst trying to get to a platform at New Street!

The separate arrivals and departures routes at Kings Cross is a mess. Initially, after the restructuring, if you tried to enter the (obvious) front of the station from the road/buses, there weren't just signs saying it was the exit, but a barrier line stopping you from cutting through to the departures area that way. That was so silly that they had to put a kink in the gate/barrier line so you could get "legally" from the covered space along the front of the exit gates through to the departures area. It's an obvious "desire line" and loads of people go in that way despite signs saying you should go out and loop round the back of the underground access steps and in the "proper" way. [There is a possible physical way through from the front of the exit barriers to the outside of the "official way in", without going out and round the underground access in the weather - but it's sealed off!] In any case, the gates are open for a lot of the time, so the exit concourse inside the gates is a common cut-through to/from the departures area and the street in front of the station. I have no idea what would happen if the gates were put back into use while making that shortcut (rather than making the wiggle they've introduced at the end of the gate line), I guess you'd be hassled for not having a ticket. (It's never happened to me yet, though.)

Another issue for arrivals is trying to meet someone there. If you arrive on a train and don't know the place, your only obvious route (leaving aside the separate suburban platforms) is to go straight out of the gates, a few paces under/across the "arcade" and out into the street and the weather. Whilst someone meeting you is going to be across to the west side, out of sight in the "departures" area - not only because there's nowhere civilised to wait at the official "arrivals" barrier, but (incredibly) there's no arrivals information visible at the arrivals barriers... you can only check arrivals from the departure area!

The original idea for people catching a train seemed to be that people in the departures area would, after entertaining themselves in the shops, take the escalator - which is well tucked away - to the upper level (with more shops!!) and then go round that walkway, though a passageway through the wall of the main train shed, where there are a couple of ticket gates, and on to an overbridge, and then go down onto the relevant platform. Nice on a planner's design perhaps, but counter-intuitive, sending you on a circuitous route, away from where you can see at least some of the platforms (from the southern end of the departures area). Whenever I've been at Kings Cross (which is virtually next door to where I've worked for years, so I'm around the place all the time - mostly not for train travel purposes!) I've seen almost no-one use that high-level access to the footbridge down to the platforms. People go via the gates at the southern end of the departures concourse, heading across the front of all the platforms until they get to the right one, intersecting all the arriving passengers at right angles.

When the design was first public, some of us pointed out it wasn't sensible in terms of actual human behaviour - to no effect of course, apart from the kink in the gateline which was only introduced after they'd realised that the people who told them so were right all along.

Agreed! When I was last there the barriers were open so we arrived the obvious way and then had to go hunting for the platform information...would be so much easier if they just had some departures information in the main entrance (the obvious one) and not just round the side. I appreciate this system may work better in rush hour however!

 

[AlbertBeale]

What is a railway station for? It's for getting travellers from the entrance onto the train easily and safely. Too often, stations are built using existing infrastructure. This constrains an architect or designer to reuse something which is not necessarily suitable for the future requirements. For an ideal station, it must be where the demand is. It must fulfil the future function and be capable of future expansion. For navigation through the station, there must be clear, uncluttered pathways which are well signed and the ability to direct passengers to the right part of the right train at the right time. It must be light, airy and protect passengers from the elements - and that includes from heat as well as cold. It must be easily maintainable with sufficient capacity to accommodate disruption. Most of all, it must be designed to function before the designer's ego is given any leeway to define its form.

This seems to cover a lot of the ground in terms of what's needed...

How about (as a start

1. No perpetuation of the Euston Stampede (at terminal stations)
2. logical pairing of island platforms to remove stampedes via subways and bridges during re-platforming
3. A standard minimum of facilities (toilet, waiting, refreshment, information) on every island
4. Consideration of walking times in the era of 400m long trains

And this seems a good approach too!

 

[AlbertBeale]

The passenger flow modelling was available on line years ago, and it was never the case that all departures were going to be via the upper level. This seems to be one of those railway myths perpetuated solely so that people can have a good complaint...

It might never have been the case that all departures were going to be via the upper level, but when the new design opened, there was publicity encouraging that as the thing to do, some of the staff seemed to think that was what most people should do, and a lot of infrastructure was put in place to do that (building that upper level and so on); but it's non-intuitive, longer, and - predictably - people don't go that way. I'd say the idea of that upper route to the platforms was misconceived in the first place.

Did the passenger modelling predict that the exit barrier would have to be changed because it blocked the most obvious (from the main road in front of the station, from the bus stops, and from a main underground exit) way to try to get onto the station?

Did any passenger modelling note that there's nowhere to meet people who're arriving, where you can simultaneously see the arrivals information?

I don't know what's a myth and what isn't, but I do know what's been my actual experience.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Most of the comments on this thread are concerned with design efficiency and not architectural elegance. Probably that's what the OP intended. But the latter is important too and the best stations achieve both.

I'm all for architectural elegance where possible; but (providing a design avoids being too ugly), I'd say it should always come second to functionality.

 

[AlbertBeale]

a station should suck people off the street, get them in to a train and away with minimum fuss
it should work for people who have never been there before.
and the operating of the trains should work

Trains should go from near the barrier if possible. So at Skipton, for instance, as many trains should go from Plat 2 to save people trailing through the subway. Especially off peak. But all the Leeds's go from 1, beyond the canopy, and the Bradfords from 4 meaning a trail through the subway.

And there should be a decent canopy to keep people dry when its wet at large stations. Blackpool North is a complete joke in this respect.

and there should be a minimum facility chart based on usage. A large station should have ATM, cafe/bar, toilets and a newsagent/book store as minimum.
All stations should have a network map (Like the one in the old timetable book), a current timetable for the line(s) and some idea where buses and taxis can be found.

And this sounds sensible too.

I think this thread - in between gripes about things which are wrong, which are inevitable, and useful in that they help us to work out what is good - is building up a useful list of things that should be positively aimed for.

 

[hwl]

The separate arrivals and departures routes at Kings Cross is a mess. Initially, after the restructuring, if you tried to enter the (obvious) front of the station from the road/buses, there weren't just signs saying it was the exit, but a barrier line stopping you from cutting through to the departures area that way. That was so silly that they had to put a kink in the gate/barrier line so you could get "legally" from the covered space along the front of the exit gates through to the departures area. It's an obvious "desire line" and loads of people go in that way despite signs saying you should go out and loop round the back of the underground access steps and in the "proper" way. [There is a possible physical way through from the front of the exit barriers to the outside of the "official way in", without going out and round the underground access in the weather - but it's sealed off!] In any case, the gates are open for a lot of the time, so the exit concourse inside the gates is a common cut-through to/from the departures area and the street in front of the station. I have no idea what would happen if the gates were put back into use while making that shortcut (rather than making the wiggle they've introduced at the end of the gate line), I guess you'd be hassled for not having a ticket. (It's never happened to me yet, though.)

Another issue for arrivals is trying to meet someone there. If you arrive on a train and don't know the place, your only obvious route (leaving aside the separate suburban platforms) is to go straight out of the gates, a few paces under/across the "arcade" and out into the street and the weather. Whilst someone meeting you is going to be across to the west side, out of sight in the "departures" area - not only because there's nowhere civilised to wait at the official "arrivals" barrier, but (incredibly) there's no arrivals information visible at the arrivals barriers... you can only check arrivals from the departure area!

The original idea for people catching a train seemed to be that people in the departures area would, after entertaining themselves in the shops, take the escalator - which is well tucked away - to the upper level (with more shops!!) and then go round that walkway, though a passageway through the wall of the main train shed, where there are a couple of ticket gates, and on to an overbridge, and then go down onto the relevant platform. Nice on a planner's design perhaps, but counter-intuitive, sending you on a circuitous route, away from where you can see at least some of the platforms (from the southern end of the departures area). Whenever I've been at Kings Cross (which is virtually next door to where I've worked for years, so I'm around the place all the time - mostly not for train travel purposes!) I've seen almost no-one use that high-level access to the footbridge down to the platforms. People go via the gates at the southern end of the departures concourse, heading across the front of all the platforms until they get to the right one, intersecting all the arriving passengers at right angles.

When the design was first public, some of us pointed out it wasn't sensible in terms of actual human behaviour - to no effect of course, apart from the kink in the gateline which was only introduced after they'd realised that the people who told them so were right all along.

The Kings Cross Scheme was so long in gestation approvals and planning stage that stage that access to accurate train running information on mobiles wasn't originally part of the thinking i.e. being able to cut out needing to use the concourse didn't feature.
There was also a bit of rigid "we have to stick to the approved operating plan to begin with".

If you stand on the "departures" concourse and look at the arrival information you'll find you are at the designated meeting point!

The were severe limitation on English Heritage would agree to.

As others have said the upper level was only ever design to handle a small percentage of passengers arriving (very) early for long distance services primarily those unfamiliar with the station and get them out of everyone else's way! The publicity was designed to nudge people as it would be an up hill struggle.

I also notice that you haven't mentioned safety directly yourself, try self-assessing everything you want or complain about for safety first (rather than as post after thought) - it will radically change you view point if you do it properly. See Ianno87's posts for example.

St Pancras is owned by HS1 who really care about retail rents rather than commuters.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think New Abbey Wood is dreadful. Even though you're on the same level as the platforms you have to go up a huge flight of stairs then then down to get to them.

I assume you mean to get from outside the station to the platforms - you have to go up and over because the only station entrance is on the flyover, and there are no platforms on the outsides of the tracsk. But that's if you're walking from the local roads (Wilton Road or Felixstowe Road). If you're arriving by bus on the flyover, then the current design is better for you.

Abbey Wood originally had the Crossrail tracks in the middle, but it was redesigned the way it is now with a view to two things, access to the new depot at Plumstead without conflicting with Southeastern, and the ability to allow future extension to the east with its own tracks.

I think saving money was also a big factor - the design changed when the incoming coalition Government reviewed Crossrail in 2010 as part of its money-saving exercise.

I realise this, but I think it's a weak excuse given how long it's likely to be before we actually see this extension. Plus, I'm not sure what would have stopped an Eastern extension continuing to run along a pair of tracks in the middle. That surely gives more flexibility to merge with other services or terminate at centre sidings.

I don't think anything would have stopped Crossrail being extended if it was between the SouthEastern tracks, but it would have become a much bigger building job to do so - you'd have to pretty much completely demolish and rebuild the entire SouthEastern railway and stations between Abbey Wood and Dartford to be able to do it.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I think I agree with whoever suggested that meeting the Equalities Act should come first: as someone able-bodied, a station that is easy for people with disabilities will be easy for me too - lifts, platforms as near to level with the trains, toilets and so on.

I'd then put intuitive design next: a station should be easy to use for someone who has never been there before. This perhaps suggests a degree of standardisation so you will always find ticket buying facilities in the same sort of place for example. And as above making sure that all the trains to a given destination go from the same platform or group of platforms.

Our accessible, intuitive station should be simple to use. But signage should be simple and comprehensive - easy to see, and no walkways which leave you stranded half way along a route without the information you need.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

How about (as a start

1. No perpetuation of the Euston Stampede (at terminal stations)
2. logical pairing of island platforms to remove stampedes via subways and bridges during re-platforming
3. A standard minimum of facilities (toilet, waiting, refreshment, information) on every island
4. Consideration of walking times in the era of 400m long trains

That's definitely a good start (although I'm not sure if you need toilets on every island... I'd have thought at many stations, one set of toilets on the concourse should be enough, as long as the concourse is easily accessible from every platform and inside the ticket barriers if the station design has people waiting inside the barriers (London Bridge, looking at you), and the toilets are big enough to meet demand (Looking at Stratford here...)

For consideration of walking times, I would say that best practice should be that if platforms are longer than about 120 m or so, then the station/platform entrance should ideally be halfway along the platforms, not at one end of the platforms - to minimise walking along the platforms. And stop boards should be placed to ensure trains stop near the entrance to the platforms. (Abbey Wood westbound is an awful example in this regard. Ditto Woolwich Arsenal Eastbound: In both cases, almost all trains stop at the far end of the platform from the platform entrance, so you always have some distance to walk even after you've arrived on the platform). And make sure that there are station entrances facing all the main routes from which people are likely to approach the station. In particular, if geography mandates that the entrance is at one end of the station, and people are likely to approach from the opposite direction, then make sure there is a smaller entrance at the far end of the platforms.

What I'd also want to add are standards for navigability. I would say good practice there ought to be for platforms to always be numbered consecutively in geographical order - so you go up 1, 2, 3, etc. as you walk across the station. And all platforms should be accessible from either a single concourse or (if the concourse is to the side of the station) a single overbridge or underpass that spans the entire width of the station.

 

[DarloRich]

As i suspected this thread has simply degenerated into a list of moans from people who consider themselves experts. They seem to want stations that only conform to their views which seem routed in the past. It seems that they are unable to cope with change or the modern world. Perhaps this is why so many posters here seem unable to deal with modernized stations that are easy for normals to use and which are popular with people providing good facilities and opportunities for refreshment.

The separate arrivals and departures routes at Kings Cross is a mess. Initially, after the restructuring, if you tried to enter the (obvious) front of the station from the road/buses, there weren't just signs saying it was the exit, but a barrier line stopping you from cutting through to the departures area that way. That was so silly that they had to put a kink in the gate/barrier line so you could get "legally" from the covered space along the front of the exit gates through to the departures area. It's an obvious "desire line" and loads of people go in that way despite signs saying you should go out and loop round the back of the underground access steps and in the "proper" way. [There is a possible physical way through from the front of the exit barriers to the outside of the "official way in", without going out and round the underground access in the weather - but it's sealed off!] In any case, the gates are open for a lot of the time, so the exit concourse inside the gates is a common cut-through to/from the departures area and the street in front of the station. I have no idea what would happen if the gates were put back into use while making that shortcut (rather than making the wiggle they've introduced at the end of the gate line), I guess you'd be hassled for not having a ticket. (It's never happened to me yet, though.)

Another issue for arrivals is trying to meet someone there. If you arrive on a train and don't know the place, your only obvious route (leaving aside the separate suburban platforms) is to go straight out of the gates, a few paces under/across the "arcade" and out into the street and the weather. Whilst someone meeting you is going to be across to the west side, out of sight in the "departures" area - not only because there's nowhere civilised to wait at the official "arrivals" barrier, but (incredibly) there's no arrivals information visible at the arrivals barriers... you can only check arrivals from the departure area!

The original idea for people catching a train seemed to be that people in the departures area would, after entertaining themselves in the shops, take the escalator - which is well tucked away - to the upper level (with more shops!!) and then go round that walkway, though a passageway through the wall of the main train shed, where there are a couple of ticket gates, and on to an overbridge, and then go down onto the relevant platform. Nice on a planner's design perhaps, but counter-intuitive, sending you on a circuitous route, away from where you can see at least some of the platforms (from the southern end of the departures area). Whenever I've been at Kings Cross (which is virtually next door to where I've worked for years, so I'm around the place all the time - mostly not for train travel purposes!) I've seen almost no-one use that high-level access to the footbridge down to the platforms. People go via the gates at the southern end of the departures concourse, heading across the front of all the platforms until they get to the right one, intersecting all the arriving passengers at right angles.

When the design was first public, some of us pointed out it wasn't sensible in terms of actual human behaviour - to no effect of course, apart from the kink in the gateline which was only introduced after they'd realised that the people who told them so were right all along.

What is a railway station for? It's for getting travellers from the entrance onto the train easily and safely. Too often, stations are built using existing infrastructure. This constrains an architect or designer to reuse something which is not necessarily suitable for the future requirements. For an ideal station, it must be where the demand is. It must fulfil the future function and be capable of future expansion. For navigation through the station, there must be clear, uncluttered pathways which are well signed and the ability to direct passengers to the right part of the right train at the right time. It must be light, airy and protect passengers from the elements - and that includes from heat as well as cold. It must be easily maintainable with sufficient capacity to accommodate disruption. Most of all, it must be designed to function before the designer's ego is given any leeway to define its form.
I find that terminal stations are, generally, not well designed but some through stations are close to perfect. Paddington, e.g., has a concourse which is too small with facilities such as toilets hidden in a dark corner instead of having several smaller facilities distributed around the concourse. Passengers have to congregate in one place which leads to dense crowds which are ideal for criminals such as terrorists and pick-pockets. Stations seem to be designed for the convenience of staff and operated very much in that way. There is a presumption in this country that all passengers are dishonest and are channelled through restricted entrances and exits instead of being open so that crowds can disperse quickly and intending travellers can get to their platforms efficiently. One of the best that I've used is that at Frankfurt Flughafen (airport) which is a reasonably busy through station. There are no vending facilities on the platforms which are open and wide. The shops and ticket/enquiry offices are on the floor above and are arranged around the walls thus keeping the centre open for circulation and access to and from escalators to the platforms.
Operationally, I've noticed that, at some terminal stations, trains are locked shut whilst passengers wait on the platform instead of being open to act as a writing room and giving a quieter, less cluttered appearance.

the two posts above illustrate my point.

It might never have been the case that all departures were going to be via the upper level, but when the new design opened, there was publicity encouraging that as the thing to do, some of the staff seemed to think that was what most people should do, and a lot of infrastructure was put in place to do that (building that upper level and so on); but it's non-intuitive, longer, and - predictably - people don't go that way. I'd say the idea of that upper route to the platforms was misconceived in the first place.

An yet the sensible passenger sits on the upper level, waits for the platform to be announced and nips down the corridor over the bridge and onto the platform ahead of the crush.

The passenger flow modelling was available on line years ago, and it was never the case that all departures were going to be via the upper level. This seems to be one of those railway myths perpetuated solely so that people can have a good complaint...

why should the truth be an issue?

New Street is bad generally, there are so many sets of barriers that getting from A to B normally requires going via C, D and E, which tends to not be very obvious...I have also hit glass barriers whilst trying to get to a platform at New Street!

Funny that my mum, not a regular train, user can navigate new Street without issue and thinks it is great station yet the so called "experts" here cant. Why is that?

And this sounds sensible too.

I think this thread - in between gripes about things which are wrong, which are inevitable, and useful in that they help us to work out what is good - is building up a useful list of things that should be positively aimed for.

I don't. What should be positively aimed for is what is required to met the terms of the Equalities Act and make sure that everyone can use a station. What this thread shows is that posters here don't really understand what normal people want from a modern station. Is isnt somewhere to sit and jot down numbers.

 

[Peter C]

As i suspected this thread has simply degenerated into a list of moans from people who consider themselves experts. They seem to want stations that only conform to their views which seem routed in the past. It seems that they are unable to cope with change or the modern world. Perhaps this is why so many posters here seem unable to deal with modernized stations that are easy for normals to use and which are popular with people providing good facilities and opportunities for refreshment.


[...]




I don't. What should be positively aimed for is what is required to met the terms of the Equalities Act and make sure that everyone can use a station. What this thread shows is that posters here don't really understand what normal people want from a modern station. Is isnt somewhere to sit and jot down numbers.

Um... I think the original post here asked people for their examples of good and bad station design. We are all entitled to our opinions and if they don't conform to your ideas then you don't have the right to have a go at other people.
Modern stations are all smoke and mirrors; why do we need a big glass mess for Oxford*, when the current station buildings work well? Yes, they may have some flaws (such as being built in the 1980s and the colours are a bit NSE), but every aspect of the station is easy to navigate.
*Example.

A station should be designed to follow the Equalities Act, yes, but building a large glass thing at Oxford or Kidderminster won't help anyone. Surely someone with poor sight would prefer the red and blue of the current Oxford, which can easily be identified, as opposed to the bland and colourless station building which has been proposed? Modern art around a station, whilst it may look pretty, is a waste of space when that space could be designed to hold a ticket machine or two.

Please name a modern station which, in your own experience, is easy to get around. Birmingham Snow Hill is a good example of a station which, when designed, was planned to be the best thing since sliced bread, but is now just a mess and people who just want to get to the platform for their train can't.

I think you'll find that people on here probably know more than "normals". People who have posted on this thread obviously have an interest in the subject and have therefore almost 100% of the time spent a long time looking into the subject. Please note that, as I said at the beginning of this post, your ideas are not the same as everyone else's. We all meet people in the world who don't share the same ideas as us and very few of us feel the need to moan and moan about them all because we're all different.

-Peter