Creating an 'interchange' classification for stations

[hux385]

Would it be worth including the word "interchange" in the official name of certain stations to make it more obvious that a station has good connection opportunities? A lot of the time, people are anxious to change trains at large city stations since they are often quite confusing/intimidating (I'm thinking the likes of Birmingham New Street or Edinburgh Waverley), however, there are lots of smaller stations which have equally good connections that might be a nicer environment for passengers to change at.

I'm wondering whether a select few official "interchange" stations could be formed (perhaps then managed by NR?). These could then benefit from increased signage and staffing to increase accessibility, plus any development to station facilities might be cheaper if land is easier to use in less densly populated areas. It would also help if TOCs could be convinced to make most/all of their services call at these stations.

Here's some examples which I was thinking of...
Crewe Interchange
Doncaster Interchange
Preston Interchange
Reading Interchange

(I'm not entirely sure that Bradford Interchange would qualify under this category, maybe that could do with a new name?!)

 

[swt_passenger]

In the 2009 DfT stations report published back when Adonis was at the helm, there were 25 National Hub “A” stations listed, and 66 National Interchange “B” stations listed.

Your first examples are all in the list of “interchange B” stations, but Bradford Interchange is not, it’s a “C1”.

I suspect although not specifically signed or mentioned in public facing information, there is already such a distinction, and it does affect facilities such as staffing levels.

Ashford International
Barking
Basingstoke
Birmingham International
Birmingham Moor Street
Brighton
Bristol Parkway
Bromley South
Cambridge
Carlisle
Chester
Clapham Junction
Colchester
Coventry
Crewe
Darlington
Derby
Didcot Parkway
Doncaster
East Croydon
Ebbsfleet International
Gatwick Airport
Guildford
Haywards Heath
Huddersfield
Hull
Ipswich
Lancaster
Leicester
Liverpool Central
Liverpool South Parkway
London Waterloo East
Luton
Manchester Airport
Manchester Victoria
Milton Keynes Central
Newport (Gwent)*
Norwich
Nottingham
Oxford
Peterborough
Preston
Reading
Richmond (Greater London)
Sevenoaks
She eld
Shen eld
Southampton Central
Stansted Airport
Stockport
Stratford (London)
Surbiton
Tonbridge
Vauxhall (London)
Wake eldWestgate
WarringtonBankQuay
Watford Junction
Wigan North Western
Wimbledon
Woking
Wolverhampton

I‘m not sure if NR management would make much difference. Guildford is already NR managed but I don’t think it affected day to day operations at all.

I attached the full report in a previous discussion here:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/dft-station-category-ratings.239004/#post-5912707

 

[py_megapixel]

I don't think this would help with much. A passenger will almost always have their destination in mind, so knowing that an upcoming station has "good interchange opportunities" doesn't really help. If I'm travelling from somewhere in suburban Glasgow to somewhere in suburban Birmingham using a train that stops in Leeds, for example, the information that Leeds is a good interchange is completely useless, as the services I can change to aren't the ones I want. In some cases, it could even be misleading - for example, where two lines converge before an Interchange station, it might cause passengers to unnecessarily extend their journey by going into the Interchange and out again when they could have changed earlier. In reality, in 2023, the best way to provide information about interchanges is through journey planners providing information specific to the entered journey.

What would help, though, would be station names that help people figure out what their destination is in the first place if they're travelling to an unknown place - perhaps in the form of a standardized suffix for the main station and, where different, most central station in a settlement, like the German "Hauptbahnhof" and "Mitte".

 

[hux385]

In the 2009 DfT stations report published back when Adonis was at the helm, there were 25 National Hub “A” stations listed, and 66 National Interchange “B” stations listed.

Your first examples are all in the list of “interchange B” stations, but Bradford Interchange is not, it’s a “C1”.

This is very interesting. So I'm guessing lots of category A stations would fall under 'intimidating place to change', whereas certain category B stations could be enhanced to make connections easier? I feel that 66 stations might be a bit too many for my idea though!!

If I'm travelling from somewhere in suburban Glasgow to somewhere in suburban Birmingham using a train that stops in Leeds, for example, the information that Leeds is a good interchange is completely useless, as the services I can change to aren't the ones I want.

If I was travelling Glasgow-Brum I'd probably go via WCML (ideally getting a suburban service to Motherwell), although if going the 'long way round', somewhere like York or Doncaster would probably be a nicer place to change than Leeds if a change was required.

It's unlikely that this idea would help every single journey possible, although it could encourage better usage of underutilised routes such as Crewe-Derby?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Whatever next?

Clarbeston Road Interchange?
Craven Arms Interchange?
Crianlarich Interchange?
Dingwall Interchange?
Dovey Junction Interchange?

Presumably some minimum criteria would need to apply before a station is ever designated as an 'Interchange' station?!

 

[neontrix]

If you're spending money at smaller stations to 'increase signage and staffing to increase accessibility', you might as well spend that money making larger stations less intimidating to change at, although I'm not really sure thats an issue? Surely people would rather change at larger stations since there are more staff and facilities?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

There's already a bit of a sick joke at play with the stations we have called "X Interchange", given the almost complete lack of fare integration between modes. I'd ban any further use of the term (and add the words "Good Luck With That!" to existing Interchanges) until the powers that be sort this out.

 

[hux385]

Presumably some minimum criteria would need to apply before a station is ever designated as an 'Interchange' station?!

There's already a bit of a sick joke at play with the stations we have called "X Interchange", given the almost complete lack of fare integration between modes. I'd ban any further use of the term (and add the words "Good Luck With That!" to existing Interchanges) until the powers that be sort this out.

There definitely needs to be better standards of when the word 'interchange' is used. Even Birmingham Interchange on HS2 seems kinda rubbish for connection opportunities.

I do maintain that certain large city stations are daunting to change at (although definitely not all). I know from speaking to family/friends who are not massive railway fans, the thought of changing at an unknown city is quite scary. Maybe they just need to face their fears! But also, maybe there are some medium-sized stations that are well placed that could definitely have better advertising for their connection opportunities.

 

[duffield]

... Surely people would rather change at larger stations since there are more staff and facilities?

Changing at smaller stations can be easier (especially with luggage or disability, particularly when combined with a short connection) since it's much more likely to be a same-platform change. For example, when one of my relatives travels from Devon to Nottingham, they can typically change at any one of Cheltenham, Birmingham New Street or Derby, but only Cheltenham gives a same-platform change, so they prefer it. I can think of other similar examples for different journeys (e.g. changing to/from XC at Chesterfield rather than Sheffield, and to/from London services at Beeston rather than Nottingham).

 

[zwk500]

I'm wondering whether a select few official "interchange" stations could be formed (perhaps then managed by NR?). These could then benefit from increased signage and staffing to increase accessibility, plus any development to station facilities might be cheaper if land is easier to use in less densly populated areas. It would also help if TOCs could be convinced to make most/all of their services call at these stations.

Why does it need a suffix adding to put up some decent signage?

Here's some examples which I was thinking of...
Crewe Interchange
Doncaster Interchange
Preston Interchange
Reading Interchange

How does it help the passenger to have Interchange after the name at any of these stations, but especially Crewe, Doncaster, or Preston which are the only stations in the town and cannot easily be confused (Reading of course has 2 'sibling' stations in Reading West and Reading Green Park now, so arguably could do with a 'Central', 'General' or 'Interchange' suffix to emphasis it's nodal role over the others but that's a different thread). People will still call the station Crewe, and will still think it's daunting because the platform layout is not immediately intuitive, whatever you put on the end of it's name.
Nowadays with journey planners the importance of a name standing out in timetables is much less, and what's more important is having good wayfinding around the station - which needs no name change to be improved.

It's unlikely that this idea would help every single journey possible, although it could encourage better usage of underutilised routes such as Crewe-Derby?

Is the point to move existing interchange points to different stations or to shift traffic to completely different routes? If it's the latter you're looking at needing to recast timetables because people will only wait so long for a marginally nice interchange experience. New Street or Crewe may be daunting, but at least there's lots of trains calling there. Whereas if you wanted to focus interchanges on Tamworth you'd need to offer realistic journeys to make up for the fairly uninviting station environment (signs will only help so much if there's not a proper waiting room or coffee shop).

I think there is value in advertising an easier change of trains on certain routes to avoid certain stations, but by and large these will be isolated instances and apply to quite restricted journey corridors and it is unclear what the addition of Suffixes to major stations really improves to passenger experience.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

It seems like a good idea, but I wonder if it would just encourage more unnecessary changes. Someone from Weymouth to Stratford, who ought to run into Waterloo and get the jubilee, might get tempted into changing at Clapham for a long, long overground journey instead.

There are plenty of new interchanges which need to be built: Streatham Common, Leigham Vale, Clapham North, and others that need to be upgraded like Peckham Rye. I’d even argue that Birmingham Moor Street could be rebuilt as a replacement to New Street, perhaps.

 

[zwk500]

It seems like a good idea, but I wonder if it would just encourage more unnecessary changes. Someone from Weymouth to Stratford, who ought to run into Waterloo and get the jubilee, might get tempted into changing at Clapham for a long, long overground journey instead.

I think the London situation is a bit of an outlier, because there is proven demand (not massive, but significant) for avoiding major termini/the tube/zone 1.

There are plenty of new interchanges which need to be built: Streatham Common, Leigham Vale, Clapham North, and others that need to be upgraded like Peckham Rye.

Why Streatham Common? And Peckham Rye's just had a refurb hasn't it?

I’d even argue that Birmingham Moor Street could be rebuilt as a replacement to New Street, perhaps.

These two would complement each other, not replace. There should be a tarting up of the pedestrian connection between them and emphasis of them as one connected interchange like West Hampstead or Bank-Monument, but you'll not be able to rebuild Moor Street to provide connections towards Scotland unless the Russians decide to do a bit of urban remodelling with their nuclear arsenal.

 

[miklcct]

I think the London situation is a bit of an outlier, because there is proven demand (not massive, but significant) for avoiding major termini/the tube/zone 1.

Why Streatham Common? And Peckham Rye's just had a refurb hasn't it?

These two would complement each other, not replace. There should be a tarting up of the pedestrian connection between them and emphasis of them as one connected interchange like West Hampstead or Bank-Monument, but you'll not be able to rebuild Moor Street to provide connections towards Scotland unless the Russians decide to do a bit of urban remodelling with their nuclear arsenal.

I don't understand the point of this thread. A agree a Streatham Common interchange needs to be built for the South London Metro but, I don't see the problem with West Hampstead apart from some Thameslink trains skipping there. If the train calls there people do regularly use it.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I think the London situation is a bit of an outlier, because there is proven demand (not massive, but significant) for avoiding major termini/the tube/zone 1.

Why Streatham Common? And Peckham Rye's just had a refurb hasn't it?

These two would complement each other, not replace. There should be a tarting up of the pedestrian connection between them and emphasis of them as one connected interchange like West Hampstead or Bank-Monument, but you'll not be able to rebuild Moor Street to provide connections towards Scotland unless the Russians decide to do a bit of urban remodelling with their nuclear arsenal.

Well Streatham Common was identified as a potential interchange location in the Turning South London Orange report back in prehistory 2016. Leigham Vale is my own inclusion to “finish the job” in eliminating “interlining” on South London Metro routes. Indeed a Leigham Vale interchange was apparently looked at by NSE before privatisation killed it

 

[Western Sunset]

We could end up with something like "Cardiff Central Interchange International"...

 

[Sad Sprinter]

We could end up with something like "Cardiff Central Interchange International"...

The Welsh Government strikes me as the type to pointlessly add the international suffix to Cardiff for some kind of political gesture

 

[py_megapixel]

The Welsh Government strikes me as the type to pointlessly add the international suffix to Cardiff for some kind of political gesture

It's pretty much meaningless anyway. There are eight stations whose names contain the word "international". Of those:

• Three serve international airports (Those airports are of varying sizes, and none of them actually use the word "international" in their own name)
• One serves a ferry terminal
• One has frequent international train services
• Two used to have occasional international train services but don't any more
• One is on a line which carries international train services, but none stop there

If I were in charge, Birmingham International and Prestwick International Airport would be renamed "Birmingham Airport" and "Glasgow Prestwick Airport" respectively; Rhoose Cardiff International Airport would become something like "Rhoose for Cardiff Airport"; Harwich International would become "Harwich Port"; Stratford International would become something like "Stratford North" or even "Olympic Park", and Ashford and Ebbsfleet would lose their international suffixes until international services resume.

 

[SargeNpton]

The Welsh Government strikes me as the type to pointlessly add the international suffix to Cardiff for some kind of political gesture

More likely to want to show only the Welsh-language version of the station name over the entrance, and in all publicity.

 

[xotGD]

Bradford Interchange (not an Interchange)

 

[zwk500]

The Welsh Government strikes me as the type to pointlessly add the international suffix to Cardiff for some kind of political gesture

That kind of gesture doesn't really fit with the recent (and very laudable) political priority to support the Welsh languages.

If I were in charge, Birmingham International and Prestwick International Airport would be renamed "Birmingham Airport" and "Glasgow Prestwick Airport" respectively;

Birmingham International also serves the NEC and Arena, who may object if it was renamed solely to Airport.

Stratford International would become something like "Stratford North" or even "Olympic Park",

Stratford should retain its suffix to remind us of the follies of chopping and changing plans without asking the company who would be running the trains. Stratford regional should be Stratford Olympic, if Stratford Int is being renamed I would suggest Stratford Javelin or Stratford SouthEastern to annoy all the geographic pedants.

and Ashford and Ebbsfleet would lose their international suffixes until international services resume.

This would be a remarkable waste of money, especially given the recent petition got 30,000 signatures. It costs several million to rename a station.

 

[urbophile]

There definitely needs to be better standards of when the word 'interchange' is used. Even Birmingham Interchange on HS2 seems kinda rubbish for connection opportunities.

I do maintain that certain large city stations are daunting to change at (although definitely not all). I know from speaking to family/friends who are not massive railway fans, the thought of changing at an unknown city is quite scary. Maybe they just need to face their fears! But also, maybe there are some medium-sized stations that are well placed that could definitely have better advertising for their connection opportunities.

I wonder how many such people frequently conquer such fears when it comes to airports? Air travel is a much more daunting experience but it doesn't seem to put many people off.

 

[Bartsimho]

It's pretty much meaningless anyway. There are eight stations whose names contain the word "international". Of those:

• Three serve international airports (Those airports are of varying sizes, and none of them actually use the word "international" in their own name)
• One serves a ferry terminal
• One has frequent international train services
• Two used to have occasional international train services but don't any more
• One is on a line which carries international train services, but none stop there

I think many of those International ones should be changed.

Birmingham International becomes Birmingham Interchange upon opening of the HS2 Station and it is connected for ticketing purposes.
Your ideas for Rhoose Cardiff and Prestwick make sense as well as well as Harwich International becoming Harwich Port.
Stratford International becoming Stratford Temple Mills.
Ebbsfleet and Ashford can just drop the International from their name.
Only St Pancras deserves the International label for the rail station being the only one with International trains.

As for all the places which could be called interchange I think several places could have it. As for the argument about airports there is no other choice so you either change or don't travel at all. Doncaster and Rugby or you call them Junction

 

[SargeNpton]

Bradford Interchange (not an Interchange)

I believe it was so named for the convenient interchange between trains and buses, with a new bus station being built next door to the railway station.

 

[JamesT]

Birmingham International becomes Birmingham Interchange upon opening of the HS2 Station and it is connected for ticketing purposes.

I don’t believe the HS2 station will affect the name of the existing station. https://www.hs2.org.uk/building-hs2/stations/interchange/

The station will be linked to the NEC, Birmingham International Station and Birmingham Airport via an Automated People Mover

To me that reads that the stations will be treated as separate entities.