Options for providing better waiting areas at stations?

[Grumpy]

Whoops, here’s the video link:

mods note - split from here

Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

Well it was suggested in the Manchester - Liverpool Electrification thread that we have a seperate Transpennine thread. Now I know that Manchester - Stalybridge is actually part of the Northern Hub project , but to me, haulage bashing Peaks in the 1970s-1980s - Liverpool-Newcastle was classed as...

www.railforums.co.uk

Batley Lad thanks for posting the Video.
Unfortunately the section on Mirfield shows the true awfulness of what is being provided for passengers. Thus a cover is provided for a cycle rack(I can never understand why these are covered) but no canopy is provided on the platform for passengers. Of course there were no actual cycles there.
Mirfield station is quite exposed, being slightly higher than the surrounding land. When the wind blows there is nowhere to shelter.

I accept a couple of small glass enclosures are provided but these are totally inadequate-I think each has eight seats and a similar number of the useless perches. I caught a train here a few weeks back, a Saturday lunchtime to Leeds and there were 40+passengers waiting.

The video shows the ridiculous uncovered footbridge. I noticed that the surfaces outside the lift shaft doors had been so carelessly laid that rain had formed pools immediately outside the doors-almost inviting to be frozen. This can be seen clearly on the video.

 

[Killingworth]

Batley Lad thanks for posting the Video.
Unfortunately the section on Mirfield shows the true awfulness of what is being provided for passengers. Thus a cover is provided for a cycle rack(I can never understand why these are covered) but no canopy is provided on the platform for passengers. Of course there were no actual cycles there.
Mirfield station is quite exposed, being slightly higher than the surrounding land. When the wind blows there is nowhere to shelter. I accept a couple of small glass enclosures are provided but these are totally inadequate-I think each has eight seats and a similar number of the useless perches. I caught a train here a few weeks back, a Saturday lunchtime to Leeds and there were 40+passengers waiting.
The video shows the ridiculous uncovered footbridge. I noticed that the surfaces outside the lift shaft doors had been so carelessly laid that rain had formed pools immediately outside the doors-almost inviting to be frozen. This can be seen clearly on the video.

Long gone are the days of cosy waiting rooms with a coal fire for soft Victorians.

A combination of crumbling brickwork, rusting metalwork, peeling and faded paint, rotting wood, vandalism and destaffing of stations means that even when any new shelter is provided it's cheap, very basic, draughty and any seats are angled so you slide off.

No wonder many wait in their car as close to the station as possible before dashing the final lap to the platform. Thus proving to those responsible for providing more shelter that it's not needed!

 

[Geeves]

While the description of the shelter is all the above while it looks cheap it likely wasn't to build and you're probably still looking at north of 150k for a singular shelter.

Construction generally is extremely expensive these days

 

[zwk500]

Thus a cover is provided for a cycle rack(I can never understand why these are covered)

They are covered to give protection to the cycles, a considerable concern of people relying on those vehicles to get to and from the station. Coming back from work to find an already soaked saddle, and gears starting to rust in a matter of weeks, would quickly discourage people from cycling.

Your points about providing adequate coverage for passengers, I completely agree with. Providing a decent length of canopy to allow passengers sufficient protection when waiting, boarding, and alighting would be a signficant 'added value' purchase for stations. It shouldn't be impossibly hard to design a standard, scalable, modular canopy system that could be widely deployed like the footbridges.

 

[Grumpy]

They are covered to give protection to the cycles, a considerable concern of people relying on those vehicles to get to and from the station. Coming back from work to find an already soaked saddle, and gears starting to rust in a matter of weeks, would quickly discourage people from cycling.

If cyclists want to avoid a soaked saddle surely they could simply fasten a plastic bag over the saddle?
As for gears etc rusting if a station bike shelter is not provided , surely these are just as likely to get wet on the journey to and from the station?

 

[Metroman62]

I had to use Mirfield last Saturday around 6:30pm. The shelter on the platform was full so my party of 6 people mostly filled the shelter on the adjoining platform. But that meant I could not see the departure board so had to go out and around to read it! It's an interesting doused station now well lit but little cover, so we were not impressed! And our norther train was late meaning a longer wait!

 

[absolutelymilk]

If cyclists want to avoid a soaked saddle surely they could simply fasten a plastic bag over the saddle?
As for gears etc rusting if a station bike shelter is not provided , surely these are just as likely to get wet on the journey to and from the station?

Most people are presumably leaving their bikes at the station all day and only cycling them for 10-30 minutes at a time, so not quite the same

 

[fishwomp]

Surely these are just as likely to get wet on the journey to and from the station?

Consider: stand outside for 10 minutes, or stand outside for a whole working day.

Which one gets wetter on a wet day, which gets wetter on an intermittent rain day etc.

 

[Grumpy]

Consider: stand outside for 10 minutes, or stand outside for a whole working day.

Which one gets wetter on a wet day, which gets wetter on an intermittent rain day etc.

Consider the mentality of Railway managers who think it better to let their fare-paying customers get soaked to the skin rather than provide adequate protection from the weather. Better wet bikes than wet passengers.

 

[The Mercian]

Consider the mentality of Railway managers who think it better to let their fare-paying customers get soaked to the skin rather than provide adequate protection from the weather. Better wet bikes than wet passengers.

It shouldn’t be either/or.

 

[Grumpy]

While the description of the shelter is all the above while it looks cheap it likely wasn't to build and you're probably still looking at north of 150k for a singular shelter.

Construction generally is extremely expensive these days

Poor management is expensive. You could build a 2 bedroom house in the area for £150k.
The basic requirement is something to protect passengers from the prevailing wind and rain. Take a trip round a few conservatory showrooms or firms promoting structures for gardens. It’s possible to imagine modular simple structures being provided at a fraction of the cost quoted

 

[AndrewE]

Poor management is expensive. You could build a 2 bedroom house in the area for £150k.
The basic requirement is something to protect passengers from the prevailing wind and rain. Take a trip round a few conservatory showrooms or firms promoting structures for gardens. It’s possible to imagine modular simple structures being provided at a fraction of the cost quoted

which fits nicely with the comments about a new Stranraer station in https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr57yql31e9o

The project - which it is hoped could be delivered for under £5m - would be based on a new modular design concept to deliver a modern and visually-attractive building, and support local regeneration.

"...it could be more than just a functional station.
"We are aware from feedback that new stations are not aesthetically pleasing - they can be quite utilitarian-type affairs of a concrete platform and a bus shelter," he said.
"So down in the centre of Network Rail they've come up with this hub station concept to try and give a kit of parts - sort of Ikea style - which have all been architecturally-designed.
"Which means it is actually cheaper for each station that you then do because you can choose from a selection of pre-designed items.
"They're very keen on this clock tower concept to visually anchor the station and give it a sense of place rather than being simply somewhere you can get on and off the train."

which sounds good.

 

[J s]

Modular design gets cost efficiencies from producing lots and lots of units and thereby making savings through economies of scale. It’s analogous to buying the family sized pack of crunchy nut vs. the standard pack. The individual portion is cheaper.

In other words you’d need to be building lots and lots of stations for modular design to really be beneficial. I don’t think we’re building enough for this to be much of a win.

 

[zwk500]

Consider the mentality of Railway managers who think it better to let their fare-paying customers get soaked to the skin rather than provide adequate protection from the weather. Better wet bikes than wet passengers.

The bike shelter isn't being stolen from the platform.

As you can note in my original response, I am 100% in favour of providing decent coverage for passengers.

 

[Swaine]

The discussion on the lack of shelters at these new build stations highlights a lot of what is wrong with the railway at the moment. Where is the comfort of the customer in all this?

It really isn’t that difficult to specify a basic, economical modular structure.
Two or preferably 3 sides, aligned for the prevailing wind direction.
Not fully enclosed to discourage “antisocial behaviour”.
Gap of 6” or so at ground level for easy cleaning/ hosing down as necessary.
Bolted to the ground.
What’s difficult or expensive in that spec?

If the underlying issue is antisocial behaviour then deal with that. That type of behaviour will occur at reasonably predictable times and locations. Don’t seriously inconvenience the customer because of the possible actions of a small minority.

Finally the 64,000 dollar question. Who actually decided to omit shelters on this station? An engineer or a bean counter!!

 

[3RDGEN]

Finally the 64,000 dollar question. Who actually decided to omit shelters on this station? An engineer or a bean counter!!

If your referring to Mirfield it has two new shelters, one at each end of the island platform, you can see them in the video in post #10151. They appear similar to your required specification.

None of the smaller stations between Huddersfield and York/Selby have had platform canopies for decades so why would TRU provide them now? The upgraded/new build stations are far superior to what is/was there with full accessibility being the most obvious benefit.

 

[Mr Mean]

Years ago when Leeds was been redeveloped the temporary station (was it Leeds Whitehall?) was advertised with the promise of reuseability and modular design where the bolt together concept and quick / cheap design with decent shelter provision could be used across the network. Indeed the station itself was promised to be used elsewhere on the network after it was no longer needed in Leeds.

Im guessing nothing came of that idea as I dont recall seeing any further similar stations, unless perhaps you count Workington after the floods?

Back on topic, Mirfield does seem to look better now with lifts working and general unfinished bits cleared away. The lack of shelter is definitely as issue as the waiting areas already get full and this will be more apparent when both platforms are in use.

 

[zwk500]

None of the smaller stations between Huddersfield and York/Selby have had platform canopies for decades so why would TRU provide them now? The upgraded/new build stations are far superior to what is/was there with full accessibility being the most obvious benefit.

Because we should be building the railway for the next 100 years, not to redo what was done before.
TRU is justified because many more people want to travel on the train, both now and on the future. It is reasonable to provide them with protection from the elements suitable for the number of people expected to be using the trains.

Canopies also have a small benefit to railway operations by encouraging people to spread down the train and platform, so improve timekeeping on dwells (especially) in inclement weather .

 

[Bevan Price]

The discussion on the lack of shelters at these new build stations highlights a lot of what is wrong with the railway at the moment. Where is the comfort of the customer in all this?

It really isn’t that difficult to specify a basic, economical modular structure.
Two or preferably 3 sides, aligned for the prevailing wind direction.
Not fully enclosed to discourage “antisocial behaviour”.
Gap of 6” or so at ground level for easy cleaning/ hosing down as necessary.
Bolted to the ground.
What’s difficult or expensive in that spec?

If the underlying issue is antisocial behaviour then deal with that. That type of behaviour will occur at reasonably predictable times and locations. Don’t seriously inconvenience the customer because of the possible actions of a small minority.

Finally the 64,000 dollar question. Who actually decided to omit shelters on this station? An engineer or a bean counter!!

No - no gaps at bottom (or top) of shelters. They become very draughty on windy days, and rain can get inside and make the floor slippery (and eventually covered with slime or moss).