St Pancras High Level Concourse - How Did it Ever Get Past Planning?

[HSTEd]

My only real complaint is that the listed status on the main trainshed meant the new portion had to look totally different, in other words, ugly.

Pity we couldn't have an arched train shed in the traditional style, maybe painted a different colour or whatnot to differentiate it.

 

[Ianno87]

I fine the northern ticket office to be a reasonable way in to the Underground from STP, and not too far from the EMT and Javelin trains, plus the otherwise rather inconveniently located Thameslink platforms

I'd be interested to know your better idea for locating the Thameslink platforms, given they serve a sub-surface railway with a sharp curve immediately to the south, and the Canal Tunnels connection immediately to the north.

 

[Ianno87]

My only real complaint is that the listed status on the main trainshed meant the new portion had to look totally different, in other words, ugly.

Pity we couldn't have an arched train shed in the traditional style, maybe painted a different colour or whatnot to differentiate it.

I would almost certainly imagime that there are protect sightlines to the original shed from the north (e.g. Hampstead Heath).

 

[Flying Phil]

I'd be interested to know your better idea for locating the Thameslink platforms, given they serve a sub-surface railway with a sharp curve immediately to the south, and the Canal Tunnels connection immediately to the north.

I seem to remember that we were lucky to even get those platforms, as the money for the project was running out, leaving just an empty "box" for the Thameslink lines. In fact could this thread really be about the fact that the MML/STP/railways are getting too busy!

 

[edwin_m]

I can't remember the specifics, and can't find a planning application on Camden's website, but it definitely featured in plans I saw.

Given the facility wasn't expected to be used regularly and they'd hopefully have advance warning, it may have been as simple as having temporary fencing they could deploy between 5 and 6.

The international platforms are built to European dimensions so a UK train would have too great a stepping distance. And if a UK platform was built then it would be too close to the track for 374s or other Euro-sized trains to use that platform. Some kind of demountable platform would be needed.

 

[yorksrob]

The international platforms are built to European dimensions so a UK train would have too great a stepping distance. And if a UK platform was built then it would be too close to the track for 374s or other Euro-sized trains to use that platform. Some kind of demountable platform would be needed.

Ah thanks. It seems like it would be a lot of work !

 

[DanTrain]

I can't help feeling that STP needs some centralised concourse space, like under the clock at Waterloo. This has been consumed by a shopping mall, so there's no obvious place to wait (or much info on train times ect) other than in a scrum in front of the barriers.

 

[Bald Rick]

I can't help feeling that STP needs some centralised concourse space, like under the clock at Waterloo. This has been consumed by a shopping mall, so there's no obvious place to wait (or much info on train times ect) other than in a scrum in front of the barriers.

Having dispersed concourse space is deliberate, to keep international travelers (typically with long dwells and luggage) seperate from the commuters (with neither) and the mixed bag that is EMT with roughly a 50/50 split of each type.

 

[jon0844]

Surely any public transport system that has to 'design in' space for many hundreds of passengers to just stand around for lengthy periods on a regular basis has fundamentally failed. (I am obviously not talking about occasional events like Glastonbury crowds at Castle Cary.)

The frequency and reliability of services both in and out of an interchange should allow most users to make relatively continuous progress.

There will always be a proportion of passengers who will be around for longer and these need to be both catered for and 'managed' to ensure that there is no continuous 20-deep scrum around the barriers.

General terminal planning at airports (separation of arrivals and departures) and major stations has developed to use multi-level formats with facilities designed to encourage at least a significant share of people to 'stay out of the way until the right juncture'. The availability and clarity of information is a major part of this art.

In general terms I think that St Pancras achieves this very well. As a regular user I will often mooch across to King's Cross for a bit of variety of coffee houses, bars and shops too. With Real Time Trains on my phone I neither stand around aimlessly nor miss my train.

I understand why airports and now train stations are doing this, to maximise retail opportunities. It's why airport security has been speeded up so much, and not because airports wanted to help us out!

People don't rush to the plane the same as they did when low cost airlines had a free for all on seating. On trains, there's still a fear of losing your seat, luggage space or even having your reserved seat taken. Whatever you do, you're unlikely to change that behaviour and designers need to take into account human nature, and study passenger behaviour.

I was there before it opened to do the user testing for Eurostar, and our feedback would have contributed to a few changes - including better signage. Initially St Pancras, like Heathrow Terminal 5, had minimal signs and people got massively confused. BAA at the time even produced little maps to hand out, proving they had failed spectacularly.

More open space isn't so much to encourage more people to linger around, but more to cope with the numbers already there during disruption OR when TL trains are terminating upstairs too. Last Sunday was a mess, although I went through when they hadn't closed the gates and waited on the platform because there was no need to clean a 700 on arrival or put out reservation tickets.

You are right that many people are thankfully clued up, know where they're going and when. They have travelled before so aren't scared they'll miss their train/seat etc. These people aren't the problem as they're not up there now and wouldn't be then. It's just that things are too cramped today.

 

[DanTrain]

Having dispersed concourse space is deliberate, to keep international travelers (typically with long dwells and luggage) seperate from the commuters (with neither) and the mixed bag that is EMT with roughly a 50/50 split of each type.

In which case (and that seems like a fair solution) EMT needs to be given a proper concouse space with things such as seats, currently the only place to wait is by the gates, with little other options elsewhere in the station without spending money in a shop/café.

 

[jon0844]

In which case (and that seems like a fair solution) EMT needs to be given a proper concouse space with things such as seats, currently the only place to wait is by the gates, with little other options elsewhere in the station without spending money in a shop/café.

There are very few seats throughout the station. It is all about making you go shopping or sit down to eat in a restaurant/coffee shop.

Arguably the better place to hang around is upstairs, albeit not at the platform end but rather nearer the statue and clock at the southern end - then walk up when required.

 

[DanTrain]

There are very few seats throughout the station. It is all about making you go shopping or sit down to eat in a restaurant/coffee shop.

Arguably the better place to hang around is upstairs, albeit not at the platform end but rather nearer the statue and clock at the southern end - then walk up when required.

Whislt I see the commercial sense, this attidude is, in my view, unacceptable for a station, a place almost defined by waiting for things. Oh well, there's capitalism for you

 

[swt_passenger]

My only real complaint is that the listed status on the main trainshed meant the new portion had to look totally different, in other words, ugly.

Pity we couldn't have an arched train shed in the traditional style, maybe painted a different colour or whatnot to differentiate it.

As suggested earlier, the planning agreements explicitly ruled out a traditional arched train shed with any resemblance to the original.
It was also intended that the extension should be almost invisible when viewed from within the Barlow train shed, that presumably led to the 'thin' flat roof.

I saved an article from the Arup staff magazine, written in 2004, attached below. Worth a read given the overall context of this thread...

 

[takno]

Whislt I see the commercial sense, this attidude is, in my view, unacceptable for a station, a place almost defined by waiting for things. Oh well, there's capitalism for you

They put in masses of seating at New Street and all anybody seems to do is complain about the platforms they've insisted on going down to 10 minutes early.

The main problems at St Pancras seems to be the use of barriers at a site which is completely inappropriate for them. You have tight turnarounds, trains with advance purchase tickets and non walk-up frequencies, a lack of space for enough barriers and no space either side. Based on that you shouldn't have barriers full-stop. It's a pity the station was designed without properly accounting for this problem, but the barriers policy should reflect reality and not how the DfT wishes stations were.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Back on the front line I turned up at St Pancras this evening around 1630. Walking through from the Metropolitan Line I noted that the various seating blocks in the 'shopping arcade' were around 50% full at most.

Going up the escalators to the EMT 'concourse' it was immediately obvious that there was some disruption. Several inbound services were late and the 1629 to Nottingham had not been 'boarded' and a trainload of passengers were milling around. However, the seats in the area were less than 25% occupied. There were spare seats in and around AMT, Fratelli, The Curious Pig and the EMT First Class Lounge. Queues for service in these establishments and WHSmith reached a heady one-deep.

The 1629 was given a platform at 1637. I wandered downstairs and noted many more empty seats around the main undercroft. Visited the facilities (free), picked up an Evening Standard (free), popped into Boots to enrich the capitalists to the tune of £1 for a pack of sandwiches (plus loyalty card points). Mooched back upstairs to see the 1657 Sheffield being boarded smoothly ten minutes before departure.

It's really not that bad!

 

[yorksrob]

I must admit, I do like using St Pancras.

 

[Mikey C]

I'd be interested to know your better idea for locating the Thameslink platforms, given they serve a sub-surface railway with a sharp curve immediately to the south, and the Canal Tunnels connection immediately to the north.

I never suggested they shouldn't have been there, merely that the northern entrance to the tube station was comparatively convenient for the Thameslink platforms, in comparison to the original entrance to the tube station which is a long way away...

 

[3141]

The use of St Pancras does generally involve a fair amount of walking but this shouldn't be problem to anyone unless you are disabled or perhaps an OAP. Given the need to accommodate Eurostar services, the southern end of the MML and high speed services to Kent I don't see how there were any alternatives to the existing design. And it's a huge improvement on the old dreary St Pancras.

As an OAP who doesn't have a problem walking I still dislike the distances you have to walk at Kings Cross/St. Pancras, and I dislike the absence of a travellator in the long passages that take you from the new entrances at the east end of the Piccadilly Line platforms to the Northern ticket hall. There are problems for people with heavy luggage and in a large family group. Unfortunately, these features are the result of the use of one Underground station for (at least) two entirely different mainline terminals, and we're seeing the same problem where new interchanges are established or where major works to combat overcrowding in stations are carried out. It's interesting that when the Victoria Line was built LT made a lot of the fact that cross-platform interchange (which they later renamed "same-level interchange") was provided at the majority of the stations. That makes a big contrast with the Jubilee Line interchanges at London Bridge with the Northern and at Waterloo with the Bakerloo and Northern. Some of the Crossrail interchanges are going to be much worse, DLR to Waterloo and City and the Central at Bank are fairly awful, and people are going to get a lot more exercise in the layout planned for the Bank reconstruction.

However, these issues are largely unavoidable in view of the amount of subterranean structures in London, and the KX/St.P. situation is one example, as other posters have pointed out. Realigning existing routes to provide cross-platform interchange is expensive where the routes are roughly parallel and impractical where they cross one another. I shall be interchanging from the Victoria Line to the South Eastern at St. Pancras tomorrow, and am already practising gritting my teeth.

 

[edwin_m]

The problem with the Tube is that the three lines cross each other roughly under the forecourt of Kings Cross so the booking hall in that area has reasonably quick access to all of them. They are also in three different directions, so would have had to go a long way out of their way to provide parallel platforms for same-level interchange, and not even the Victoria line builders tried it here.

The northern ticket hall needed to access the opposite end of each platform, to provide emergency exit and to help distribute passengers along the platform and train. So it was fairly much inevitable that it would need long distances to get to each line. At quiet times of day, as posted on here before, when heading for EMT at St Pancras it's quicker to ignore the signs and exit to the north side of Euston Road, entering St Pancras by the Eurostar entrance or maybe even the steps and arch direct to the high level.

 

[jon0844]

Got the 2015 St Pancras to Nottingham train today and there was next to no queues upstairs for the trains. We did go through when the gates were open to wait by the platform, and shortly before the train was due in they shut the gateline.

The train came in, we waited on the platform still for them to go through to clean, then when the gates were opened we stepped on and to our seats. Many people were running, and I think the gates were opened at around 2006/7. Train left 2014. There did seem to be a sense of panic, despite that being plenty of time.

 

[whhistle]

As suggested earlier, the planning agreements explicitly ruled out a traditional arched train shed with any resemblance to the original.

Posting before reading the document, but why was this the agreement?

Surely an extension to the original... perhaps with some sort of windowed gap, would have looked really great, instead of the obvious extension and a low roof, boring, flat. I understand the need to preserve the original and all that, hence have a gap. But it's like adding a glass building on to the side of Big Ben... especially when there are restrictions when building houses and making them fit in to surroundings if in certain areas.

I saved the documentry about it all when it was on the BBC. The architect seemed almost proud of what he had created. I wouldn't be proud.

 

[RichmondCommu]

In which case (and that seems like a fair solution) EMT needs to be given a proper concouse space with things such as seats, currently the only place to wait is by the gates, with little other options elsewhere in the station without spending money in a shop/café.

There are seats close to where the barriers are, it's just the fact that there are not enough of them.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Surely an extension to the original... perhaps with some sort of windowed gap, would have looked really great, instead of the obvious extension and a low roof, boring, flat. I understand the need to preserve the original and all that, hence have a gap. But it's like adding a glass building on to the side of Big Ben... especially when there are restrictions when building houses and making them fit in to surroundings if in certain areas.

As others have already explained your idea would ruin the view of the original train shed.

 

[whhistle]

As others have already explained your idea would ruin the view of the original train shed.

Ruin the look from where?
Outside looking at the roof would be the same as what's already there, just much longer.
From inside, you'd see a huge train shed.. but simply more of what's already there.
So how would it ruin anything?

 

[RichmondCommu]

From where? Outside looking at the roof would be the same as what's already there, just much longer. From inside, a huge train shed.. but simply more of what's already there.
So how would it ruin anything?

Because if you looked at the original train shed head on from the outside you wouldn't be able to see it.

 

[Ianno87]

Because if you looked at the original train shed head on from the outside you wouldn't be able to see it.

You get some great views of it passing on a North London Line train east of Camden Road. And its probably visible from places like Hampstead Heath, that lave legally protected sightlines to major landmarks.

Did you know (for example) the protected sightline from Primrose Hill to St Paul's cathedral passes directly over Euston station?

 

[RichmondCommu]

You get some great views of it passing on a North London Line train east of Camden Road. And its probably visible from places like Hampstead Heath, that lave legally protected sightlines to major landmarks.

Did you know (for example) the protected sightline from Primrose Hill to St Paul's cathedral passes directly over Euston station?

It certainly is visible from Hampstead Heath

 

[whhistle]

Because if you looked at the original train shed head on from the outside you wouldn't be able to see it.

I understand, but if you simply built an extension to the Barlow shed on to the end, you'd see "the same" barlow shed, just closer. So in fig 15 of the attached document, the end of the shed would just be much further away, creating one large train shed, instead of something that is clearly added on.

Interestingly, the document attached earlier simply says: "There was never any particular symmetry between Barlow’s great arch and St Pancras Chambers - the combination works by juxtaposition rather than by integration. So it was agreed that there should be no attempt at pastiche; the extension would be a new and unashamedly modern structure to the north of Barlow's trainshed"

I get the new roof should appear like it's not there, but whatever angle you look at it, from any location, you can see it.

 

[Dr Hoo]

But the Barlow train shed is nowhere near wide enough for the 'extra' platforms. Simply extending it would never have been a practical solution, even if it were aesthetically acceptable.

How would it work?

 

[Taunton]

So it was agreed that there should be no attempt at pastiche; the extension would be a new and unashamedly modern structure

This is architects' gobbledegook for "I don't care how grand the exisiting building is, I'm going to do it in MY style so the credit will not be given to someone who lived 150 years ago, but to ME.

Did someone say 'Carbuncle'?