Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Should major interchanges be designed with larger footbridge areas that enable passengers to wait before going to the platform? A partial example here is Reading, whilst Birmingham New Street is along the wide bridge lines if we ignore the gatelines and weird split in half at the A end.
The advantages here being:
Any last-minute alterations are much more easily accommodated when people do not have to get back to the narrow bridge and then cross.
Enlarged bridges also provide a space to put more concessions, toilets, etc., so that there is no need to clutter each island platform.
Enlarged bridges should be warmer than waiting on platforms
Obviously there is a large cost, but as part of a renewal the introduction of larger bridges surely makes sense?
(Bridge can be replaced by subway in cases where the platforms are on viaducts above the ground)
Leeds is a decent example, though it still gets congested due to the very narrow staircases and all the staircases and escalators being on the same side.
If you were doing the rebuild now, covering the whole central area of the through platforms with a mezzanine concourse would be a better idea. The roof is that mucky that barely any daylight gets through anyway.
That sounds far more difficult to build, and would seat far fewer people. Who’d still use the current waiting rooms? What do you mean surely makes sense? There aren’t many stations of that size due for major rebuild.
I think its only feasible at very large stations as otherwise the cost of building a much bigger bridge just doesn't make sense.
Even somewhere like Reading, it's clear the new footbridge is so large to ensure that there is plenty of space for people to move around, not because it can provide more space to wait.
I think its only feasible at very large stations as otherwise the cost of building a much bigger bridge just doesn't make sense.
Even somewhere like Reading, it's clear the new footbridge is so large to ensure that there is plenty of space for people to move around, not because it can provide more space to wait.
That sounds far more difficult to build, and would seat far fewer people. Who’d still use the current waiting rooms? What do you mean surely makes sense? There aren’t many stations of that size due for major rebuild.
You are right to say fewer would use existing waiting rooms, but then there is not exactly an abundance of space in waiting rooms that would suddenly become redundant. More people wait outside. I am not sure that is a particularly compelling argument either way.
In terms of making sense, I am summarising my bullet points. I think that the arguments in favour of providing a place to wait and circulate before going to the platform serve many uses.
It may be that there are not many due for a rebuild, but equally, it may be there are advantages that create an incentive to rebuild.
As noted by @61653 HTAFC , for the idea to work the access to and from the platforms also needs to be appropriate and that is an aspect that Leeds does not quite get right. Single escalators in each direction would be sufficient, but Leeds does not have even that (from memory). In all cases a lift (or ideally two) is a given irrespective of the type of bridge used.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think its only feasible at very large stations as otherwise the cost of building a much bigger bridge just doesn't make sense.
Even somewhere like Reading, it's clear the new footbridge is so large to ensure that there is plenty of space for people to move around, not because it can provide more space to wait.
I think Bristol Parkway is a candidate for such a space as the platforms are narrow.
Not much danger of platform alteration there, but even the stagger on each island means that there is movement when a train changes face and people need to realign with their carriages (e.g. 1 is located further to the London end than 2)
As noted by @61653 HTAFC , for the idea to work the access to and from the platforms also needs to be appropriate and that is an aspect that Leeds does not quite get right. Single escalators in each direction would be sufficient, but Leeds does not have even that (from memory). In all cases a lift (or ideally two) is a given irrespective of the type of bridge used.
Leeds has a single escalator up from each island platform to the bridge, with a single lift to and from each island. Passengers descending must use the narrow stairs or lift. Ideally there would be a down escalator and/or a wider staircase along with two lifts rather than one... but some of the islands are quite narrow particularly in the areas around the bridge. It's a shame the other bridge at the north/east end wasn't upgraded to something of a similar standard to the 'main' bridge which replaced the subway.
Leeds has a single escalator up from each island platform to the bridge, with a single lift to and from each island. Passengers descending must use the narrow stairs or lift. Ideally there would be a down escalator and/or a wider staircase along with two lifts rather than one... but some of the islands are quite narrow particularly in the areas around the bridge. It's a shame the other bridge at the north/east end wasn't upgraded to something of a similar standard to the 'main' bridge which replaced the subway.
Very true. But given the upgrade project took place from 1999-2002 it's hardly surprising that a more complete project wasn't undertaken. That was still the era of desperately trying to make the whole quasi-privatisation model work at all. At least Leeds' western approach got the extra capacity that was so urgently needed (and had been for years). If only Castlefield/Stour Valley(W Mids)/{insert other congestion hotspot of your choice} could get similar relief.
… and wet and windswept in bad weather. The footbridge is often used as an unofficial waiting area - despite the fact that since the withdrawal of the terminators there’s rarely any doubt which of the two platforms a train will leave from. Which face of the platform- now that’s a different kettle of fish!!!!
If you were doing the rebuild now, covering the whole central area of the through platforms with a mezzanine concourse would be a better idea. The roof is that mucky that barely any daylight gets through anyway.
Agree with the general idea but hard no on this bit. It might not be the brightest station but turning it into something of the likes of Manchester Victoria or Birmingham New Street would be a terrible idea.
Haymarket is a decent example of this and it works quite well, although the extra waiting space is not needed by that many people in quite the way described above because (a) platform alterations are extremely rare given the layout of the station and (b) most passengers are regular commuters arriving very shortly before their train.
Leeds is a pretty good layout, considering the constraints of serving several island platforms. Perhaps if 13 were extended outward, a wider bank of escalators to 12-15 could be provided.
Keeping people waiting on the bridge means you need more capacity on the stairs/lifts/escalators (pricey), or you get congestion and delays/people missing trains.
Manchester Piccadilly has the 'lounge' on the footbridge leading to Platforms 13/14. It gets very congested, with folk standing and gawping at the departure board (which is in the wrong place) whilst others are trying to rush through to their train. It needs a rebuild (with additional platforms 15/16) but little chance now.
Manchester Piccadilly has the 'lounge' on the footbridge leading to Platforms 13/14. It gets very congested, with folk standing and gawping at the departure board (which is in the wrong place) whilst others are trying to rush through to their train. It needs a rebuild (with additional platforms 15/16) but little chance now.
I think the Piccadilly example is quite a bad one. It is not great waiting there and there is an inevitable feeling that there is an advantage to going to the platform. because of the scrum to get onto trains using 13/14.
Were the space less of a corridor it would be better.
Piccadilly has a waiting area for most passengers before the barriers in the main shed, terminals have the advantage of their "bridge" being flat land.
I do wonder sometimes whether terminals would benefit from larger areas further down the platforms so people were more encouraged to spread out along the platforms. Even with late announcements of which platform a specific train was going from it would still be possible for people to reach the front of the train in good time.
Leeds is a pretty good layout, considering the constraints of serving several island platforms. Perhaps if 13 were extended outward, a wider bank of escalators to 12-15 could be provided.
It'd have been easier if the bridge was in line with the cafe on the 12-15 island, and a little wider than the one that was built- as this could have escalators and staircases on both sides. Additional access from the concourse and from platforms 0-8 could then be provided by going through the WHSmith unit which is larger than it needs to be. This would also spread the gateline scrum out a bit more.
A good point, such bridges do not need to be consigned to large stations. The principle of providing waiting areas with easy access to platforms applies wheresoever there is more than one platform.
I do note that Port Talbot Parkway has waiting areas on the bridge. Image from the Network Rail Media Centre
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
