Manchester Piccadilly upstairs bit

[Bletchleyite]

I'm currently sat up in the upstairs bit at Piccadilly, and it is remarkable just how utterly filthy the roof structure and anti-pigeon netting is - including above food units, which must surely pose a health hazard.

Why was this not designed to be removed and cleaned periodically? It appears it has never been done given how thick the filth is.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

I'm currently sat up in the upstairs bit at Piccadilly, and it is remarkable just how utterly filthy the roof structure and anti-pigeon netting is - including above food units, which must surely pose a health hazard.

Why was this not designed to be removed and cleaned periodically? It appears it has never been done given how thick the filth is.

Have you let Network Rail know about your concerns? It's their station.

 

[snowball]

Or use this page:

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/200045/food_hygiene_and_safety

 

[mallard]

Because the industry doesn't care about anything as mundane as regular non-essential maintenance of stations.

It's much more trendy to let it rot to an unacceptable state then spend some headline-grabbing amount of money on a "refurbishment" project that wouldn't be necessary if they just looked after the station properly.

 

[DarloRich]

Because the industry doesn't care about anything as mundane as regular non-essential maintenance of stations.

It's much more trendy to let it rot to an unacceptable state then spend some headline-grabbing amount of money on a "refurbishment" project that wouldn't be necessary if they just looked after the station properly.

oh dear. :roll:

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not just the railway - Stansted Airport's impressive roof is disgusting.

The main thing that bothered me was all that crap above the sushi place (which has a food preparation area with no other roof over it; if like the other units it was roofed it'd just be a cosmetic issue).

 

[mallard]

oh dear. :roll:

Please quit stalking me. If you disagree with what I've said, go ahead and explain it. As a passenger, what I've said is blatantly apparent; the vast majority of stations receive no maintenance beyond what's absolutely necessary to stop them falling into complete disrepair.

At least the modern industry actually gets around to doing their periodic "refurbishments"; BR just knocked down structures when they got too bad, including those that would have been protected historic buildings had they not been active railway stations.

 

[DarloRich]

It's not just the railway - Stansted Airport's impressive roof is disgusting.

The biggest issue is bad design. People don't think about how you easily access these places to perform simple tasks. That means you end up having to get lifting platforms/safety lines/working at height systems to access roof spaces.

This costs money and takes time to arrange and can only be done when the building is closed. This all make simple things like cleaning time consuming and very expensive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree - made harder by the fact that the pigeon netting was an afterthought...

As I've done my house up quite a lot of thought has gone into avoiding there being visible uncleanable areas. And yet public buildings fail on that.

 

[DarloRich]

I agree - made harder by the fact that the pigeon netting was an afterthought...

As I've done my house up quite a lot of thought has gone into avoiding there being visible uncleanable areas. And yet public buildings fail on that.

They tend to fail on specification, budget, required speed to build and pressure of available time. What should help is proper adherence to the most recent CDM regulations and inclusive design ideas.

Please quit stalking me. If you disagree with what I've said, go ahead and explain it. As a passenger, what I've said is blatantly apparent; the vast majority of stations receive no maintenance beyond what's absolutely necessary to stop them falling into complete disrepair.

At least the modern industry actually gets around to doing their periodic "refurbishments"; BR just knocked down structures when they got too bad, including those that would have been protected historic buildings had they not been active railway stations.

It isnt stalking you - it is responding to a typically silly rant, that has no understanding of why that issue may have arisen.

 

[Mojo]

I'm currently sat up in the upstairs bit at Piccadilly, and it is remarkable just how utterly filthy the roof structure and anti-pigeon netting is - including above food units, which must surely pose a health hazard.

Why was this not designed to be removed and cleaned periodically? It appears it has never been done given how thick the filth is.

Most stations seem to be filthy in this manner. Go up to the balcony at Kings + or Liverpool St and look at the top of the information booth/TVMs for instance.

 

[BucksBones]

Because the industry doesn't care about anything as mundane as regular non-essential maintenance of stations.

It's much more trendy to let it rot to an unacceptable state then spend some headline-grabbing amount of money on a "refurbishment" project that wouldn't be necessary if they just looked after the station properly.

This seems like a perfectly reasonable post to me. Things go to seed through lack of care and then we have to shell out on a massive refurb or replacement. You only have to look at relatively new rolling stock such as London Midland's 350/1s to see this in action; the ingrained filth is now so bad that it can't be sorted without a refurb. (Just don't look at the carpets if you want to keep your lunch down).

We never seem to grasp, as a nation, that if things are well maintained they last longer, and that scrimping on cleaning and maintenance is a false economy. The Japanese are amazing at this - much of their infrastructure, whether trains, buildings, whatever, is immaculate notwithstanding its age. One example that always occurs to me is that they have just as much 1960s -70s concrete as us, but unlike ours it looks good because they actually clean it (negating the need for cladding but I won't get started on that...)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've just reported it to Manchester City Council, let's see if anything happens.

 

[DarloRich]

This seems like a perfectly reasonable post to me. Things go to seed through lack of care and then we have to shell out on a massive refurb or replacement. You only have to look at relatively new rolling stock such as London Midland's 350/1s to see this in action; the ingrained filth is now so bad that it can't be sorted without a refurb. (Just don't look at the carpets if you want to keep your lunch down).

We never seem to grasp, as a nation, that if things are well maintained they last longer, and that scrimping on cleaning and maintenance is a false economy. The Japanese are amazing at this - much of their infrastructure, whether trains, buildings, whatever, is immaculate notwithstanding its age. One example that always occurs to me is that they have just as much 1960s -70s concrete as us, but unlike ours it looks good because they actually clean it (negating the need for cladding but I won't get started on that...)

It is worth pointing out that the Japanese railway operate under a very different funding and regulatory regime to the UK.

I have set out above some of the reasons why this kind of thing happens. It shouldn't happen but it does. If a less than perfect design is created issues will follow. Those issues end up costing a fortune and in a cash contained world it is very difficult to budget for regular high level cleaning needing specialist equipment and staff against fixing problems of an immediate safety need or repairing the track. Sadly, The real world is very different to perfect world many posters live in.

As an aside -It is also worth noting that dirt will have precisely zero impact on the life of a steel column.

I've just reported it to Manchester City Council, let's see if anything happens.

Did you tell NR?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Did you tell NR?

No, I suspect they probably know, unless they are completely thick.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If a less than perfect design is created issues will follow. Those issues end up costing a fortune and in a cash contained world it is very difficult to budget for regular high level cleaning needing specialist equipment and staff against fixing problems of an immediate safety need or repairing the track.

This is true - so why build designs like that? It's not *that* hard to design to avoid visible uncleanable areas. Cantilevered seats on trains are an example of a design that reduces such issues. Though often cleaning is exceptionally lazy, for example not brushing/vacuuming dust from easily accessible air vents.

 

[DarloRich]

This is true - so why build designs like that? It's not *that* hard to design to avoid visible uncleanable areas. Cantilevered seats on trains are an example of a design that reduces such issues. Though often cleaning is exceptionally lazy, for example not brushing/vacuuming dust from easily accessible air vents.

Often because there is a disconnect between how great something looks design wise and how much of a pita it is to look after or there is funding/timescale pressure that leads to pushing things off for another day meaning cleaning, for example, becomes someone else's problem and not part of the project.

You would be amazed how often no one thinks to speak to the poor sod who has to clean or repair something!

 

[Joseph_Locke]

You would be amazed how often no one thinks to speak to the poor sod who has to clean or repair something!

What? You mean not everyone obeys the spirit of CDM2015?

 

[DarloRich]

What? You mean not everyone obeys the spirit of CDM2015?

I couldn't possibly comment.

EDIT: Also fair to point out Manchester Piccadilly was refurbished before the introduction of CDM 2015 so the requirement to consult and design inclusively was not as prominent as it is in the current regulations. As always Ii would urge posters to read the CDM 2015 regulations. A thrilling and easy read and one guaranteed to help you sleep

 

[snowball]

Often because there is a disconnect between how great something looks design wise and how much of a pita it is to look after or there is funding/timescale pressure that leads to pushing things off for another day meaning cleaning, for example, becomes someone else's problem and not part of the project.

That's why I despise architects. In my view no building should be eligible for an architectural award until it has been in use for at least 10 years, and those who have to live in, work in, or maintain the building should have a veto.

You would be amazed how often no one thinks to speak to the poor sod who has to clean or repair something!

Alas, I wouldn't. I'd be surprised if they did.

 

[shredder1]

I'm currently sat up in the upstairs bit at Piccadilly, and it is remarkable just how utterly filthy the roof structure and anti-pigeon netting is - including above food units, which must surely pose a health hazard.

Why was this not designed to be removed and cleaned periodically? It appears it has never been done given how thick the filth is.

Haha, I`m sure you would have loved London Road then, Piccadilly`s the posh version,

 

[Sox]

I couldn't possibly comment.

EDIT: Also fair to point out Manchester Piccadilly was refurbished before the introduction of CDM 2015 so the requirement to consult and design inclusively was not as prominent as it is in the current regulations. As always Ii would urge posters to read the CDM 2015 regulations. A thrilling and easy read and one guaranteed to help you sleep

CDM 1994 Reg 13 put a clear requirement on designers to mitigate the risks involved with, inter alia, the cleaning of structures

 

[185143]

No, I suspect they probably know, unless they are completely thick.

Well...

 

[DarloRich]

CDM 1994 Reg 13 put a clear requirement on designers to mitigate the risks involved with, inter alia, the cleaning of structures

Correct: But that will be discharged by saying the site requiring cleaning can be accessed by, say, a lifting platform and a safety harness. However CDM 2015 states that the designer must now eliminate foreseeable health and safety risks to anyone affected by the project (if possible). Under the 2004 regs the designer has to pay adequate regard to such risks. The difference is subtle but important as is the increased client responsibility.

 

[PR1Berske]

I've just reported it to Manchester City Council, let's see if anything happens.

They don't run the station, NR does.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They don't run the station, NR does.

They are responsible for taking legal action regarding food safety. As Network Rail must be aware of the problem (given how obvious it is) as must the stall concerned, reporting the matter for enforcement action seems entirely appropriate.

Food premises should not have to be asked to maintain correct hygiene. Even if NR won’t solve the problem, they could and should put a roof over the top of the food units. Or if it cannot operate with proper hygiene, it should close.

 

[DarloRich]

I went up there yesterday for a look- fairly manky.

 

[skyhigh]

I also had a look as I happened to be there on Saturday, agreed that it's not great.