I have to agree that I prefer the "new" Euston to the old, even though it is a shame that the arch was disposed of.
That said, it is a refurbishment of an existing listed structure at Hellifield, last refurbished 20 years ago. It can't be demolished, so repair and refurbish is the way forward.
I suppose instead of spending all that money on the Forth Rail Bridge they should have just done a quick job on it because of all those other routes which need wider bridges, say Darwen - Bolton.
I'm sorry Grumpy, but restoration and maintenance, even in an organisation like network rail comes from separate allocations than capital improvements like adding shelters at tin pot marginal stations like yours.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make with the reference to the Forth rail bridge. That is clearly a critical operational structure, key to services to Fife and beyond and there is no choice but to spend whatever is necessary in order to keep it functioning.
I understand completely that "restoration and maintenance....., comes from separate allocations than capital improvements ". The point is that someone decides those allocations, and they seem to be badly skewed.
Your comment on my "tin pot marginal station" is illuminating. Ranking all stations in terms of annual users in 2011/12 then my station would be approx. a third of the way down the list i.e. two thirds of all UK stations have fewer users. If you consider mine tip pot and marginal what do you call the rest?