Reading Station Escalators

[lincolnshire]

After seeing a previous post on here about Birmingham New Street station escalators not working I was changing trains there on Tuesday and in the time while I was there I counted 14 escalators out of use. Two out the four as you enter used to get to the over bridge, and some platforms with both out of use at one side.

Considering that H.M. the Queen only opened the station in July 2014, whats going on with them?

Are they buying crap made ones or haven,t they got a a maintenance agreement with a repair company like everything else these days.

As in Stannah have the contract to maintain station lifts ( or did have at one stage)

Back in B.R. days the ODM looked after them and thus the cost,s of maintenance and repair was kept in house and the money was also stayed within B.R.s books was was not leaking away like these days and also local staff was on hand for faster repairs.

So anyone know why 14 escalators are out of use at prestigious rebuilt station?

 

[PHILIPE]

Costs before efficiency ?

 

[Blindtraveler]

More chinese made junk identical to BHM is my guess. Stanna do still have the lift contract, unsure about the escalaters though and lets face it, no matter how good your maintaining contracter is, a turd can only be polished so much.

 

[LexyBoy]

[I've been told] they aren't weatherproof, being a model intended for fully indoor use. 14 is a bit much though - never seen more than a couple out of use, excepting late at weekends when they're being maintained.

I think also part of the problem is the overdependence on escalators - on the eastern (busy) side of the bridge, most of the platforms are accessed by escalator only. I'd rather have had one escalator with stairs, as on the western side, rather than double escalators. Especially as we are always being told what a deathtrap the escalators are.

The lifts are rubbish too: several times I have been in them (or trying to get in) and the doors refused to open, before the lift snails its way back to the level it was on before.

 

[ironstone11]

[I've been told] they aren't weatherproof, being a model intended for fully indoor use. 14 is a bit much though - never seen more than a couple out of use, excepting late at weekends when they're being maintained.

Hadn't realised this was an ongoing problem. Quote from another Forum

The story I heard is that, while Kone is a big, international, Finnish-owned company, its escalators are bought in from China. Not from a single Chinese supplier, either, but different bits from different places - and they don't all use the same dimensions. Hence some bits needed "persuading" to operate together.

Amazing NR are having all these problems when the first escalator was installed on the London Underground over 100 years ago!

Hope Crossrail isn't going to have the same problems!

 

[davetheguard]

Are you sure that they were all out of use?

The escalators at Reading station incorporate an energy-saving feature whereby they stop running if nobody uses them for a while. As soon as someone steps on to the stationary escalator, they start running again.

 

[quantinghome]

Amazing NR are having all these problems when the first escalator was installed on the London Underground over 100 years ago!

Hope Crossrail isn't going to have the same problems!

Escalators do not like even the smallest movements in their supports. This has caused great difficulties for the London Underground over the years, particularly when new tunnels are excavated close by. Presumably Crossrail are well aware of this and have designed accordingly.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I was lead to understand that LU/TFL were leading the contract for the Crossrail ones and given there vast experience in these areas they would Id guess be fine, particularly if built to LU Spec. Im personally very angry at the seamingly endless issues with new NR Escalaters and there is a growing list of locations too!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Off the top of my head:
Waverley Steps, Kings Cross, Bam New Street and now Reading

i dont use Haymarket much, anyone know how theres are doing? And what about London Bridge? Have any new ones gone into service there yet?

 

[lincolnshire]

Are you sure that they were all out of use?

The escalators at Reading station incorporate an energy-saving feature whereby they stop running if nobody uses them for a while. As soon as someone steps on to the stationary escalator, they start running again.

Yes definitely block at top and bottom by barrier tapes across them, all 14 of them as had enough time to look and count them. Yes seen them before where they start up as soon as you step on ends they start up and away you go, also some run at a slower pace and then speed up upon standing on the ends. Also seen them abroad where they start up in the direction of who ever is on the end to start it first.

Why not let people walk down them on the eastern side at least.

 

[causton]

Perhaps they're just switched off totally to save energy. 14 broken? Not at Reading! New Street on the other hand...

 

[lincolnshire]

Perhaps they're just switched off totally to save energy. 14 broken? Not at Reading! New Street on the other hand...

Well if they are switched off to save money then there are some idiots about running that station, why have 2 escalators blocked off with barrier tapes across the top and bottoms and have to go down the stairs on the Bristol side to then have to walk back to the bottom of escalators at the Paddington end of them platforms to get to where you want to be.

Stairs to go down and escalator to go up would have been a better idea, God knows what will happen then at that station if there is a power failure of the REC.
close the station down and let the trains run through.

Another of the balls up by the management of Network Rail then, not buying suitable escalators fit for purpose.

 

[Andrewlong]

The escalators at the car park end we're working on Sunday both in morning and evening. That's more can be said of the station barriers which were open and the ticket office which was closed!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps they're just switched off totally to save energy.

Because the UK is (generally) too pig-ignorant to introduce automatic escalators as found all over Europe that only start running when you step onto them?

As for having specified indoor escalators for Reading, the mind boggles.

 

[quantinghome]

As for having specified indoor escalators for Reading, the mind boggles.

Do we know this for sure, or is it a rumour?

 

[Philip C]

Of course this would matter much less if megalomaniacal architects had not been allowed to put the cross-bridge so far above platform levels. The amount of money wasted at this station appalls me, but it is too late now. Future generations will doubtless enjoy their surrounds, the pseudo-airport shopping opportunities afforded on the bridge, the wondrous panoramas across this beautiful Berkshire borough and the healthy exercise afforded by broken escalators! For my part I shall do my best to travel in less improved parts.

 

[transmanche]

megalomaniacal architects

:roll:

had not been allowed to put the cross-bridge so far above platform levels.

Go on then. How high is the bridge? How much lower would you like it to be?

 

[FenMan]

As a regular user of the station (albeit mainly to change trains), I think the new design is a triumph of style over substance.

• Access to and from the island platforms from the transfer deck is inadequate. As I rarely use the station during the peak I can only imagine the queues to exit the platform when a Paddington train arrives full up with commuters.
• The (lack of) cover when using the escalators can result in an unpleasant cold, wet and windy experience. Reading is not in Southern California.
• The lack of shelter on the platforms - I first saw this canopy design at Rugby and it doesn't work there either.
• The transfer deck is a wind tunnel.
• The modelling of walking flows on the main concourse at the base of the transfer deck doesn't seem to have taken into account that passengers arriving on Platforms 1-7 may want to continue their journeys from an island platform. It's a mess.
• As for the, seemingly permanent, temporary barrier at the top of the escalators to separate inbound and outbound passengers, all I can say is, oh dear!

 

[LexyBoy]

FenMan, I agree in general although it's a huge improvement on what was there before!

There is definitely no way that platform access is adequate. The station is supposed to cope with double the current numbers, yet already you have to queue to get off the platforms (and I commute counter-peak).

Modelling of passenger behaviour was dire. The problem top of the main stairs should have been obvious to anyone, and there's the PIS that is everywhere except where you need it, and much too small. The boards by the main entrance are opposite one's natural focus (the stairs), and in the way of the barriers.

I don't find the lack of shelter any worse than any other station, excepting those entirely under cover. If only we could have had a trainshed (is that the right word?) rather than individual canopies, then there could have been two, lightweight overbridges to cope with the flows (and still connect to the car park potentially), no problems with rain, and a much less cluttered look. Presumably it would cost more, but I can't imagine it would be that much more than making so many individual canopies, that bridge, etc.

 

[Rational Plan]

Personally I find the new Reading station a joy to use. I've never had any problems.

The large transfer deck is much better than multiple bridges and there is loads of room.

The transfer deck was never going to be draught proof, no station is. Unless they start introducing platform edge doors (and trains with the same door positions) then platforms can not be sealed off from the elements unless the whole station is underground.

Stations will always be exposed to the wind.

 

[Philip C]

:roll:

Go on then. How high is the bridge? How much lower would you like it to be?

I've ranted about this on another thread, not that long ago, and can only repeat that access to the cross bridge (and associated shopping opportunities etc.) is 44 steps from P1-7 & P8-9; 40 from P10-11, P12-13 & P14-15 and 76 from the North Entrance. As commented by others, the design also exposes escalators and their users to the weather.

It is now far too late to build the bridge lower but, unless this has been designed with double decker operation in mind, it appears significantly higher than is common at other overhead wired stations. For example Manchester Victoria seems to get by with as few as 29 steps from platform to bridge. At Milton Keynes there are 34/35 but here there is a logic in that the elevation needs to reach that of the surrounding roads. At Ealing Broadway 32 steps suffice.

I appreciate that something extra might be appropriate for high(ish) speed non-stopping trains, and that riser heights may vary, but the underside of the bridge looks significantly higher than required for operational purposes; and all the rest is architectural vanity. This vanity confers wondrous views on the millions who seek such in Reading, prizes on those with access to public coffers and stress, healthy exercise, exposure to the weather and missed connections on this generation of passengers, and the next, and the one after that.

Anyway that's my view.

 

[sng7]

From memory i had seen it mentioned else where that it had to be that high as since it was new it had to be built so that the OHLE didn't have to reduce in height and the OHLE was designed for high speed through running resulting in a hight bridge than found else where where grandfather rights allowed the OHLE to be modified to fit the bridge.

 

[transmanche]

I read all the way down to:

architectural vanity

and then I stopped bothering to read...

 

[swt_passenger]

From memory i had seen it mentioned else where that it had to be that high as since it was new it had to be built so that the OHLE didn't have to reduce in height and the OHLE was designed for high speed through running resulting in a hight bridge than found else where where grandfather rights allowed the OHLE to be modified to fit the bridge.

Correct - although unfortunately I predict that people will still be questioning this for years, no matter how often it is explained.

As the count of the steps in the earlier response shows, it also deals with the fact that the original islands are slightly lower than the new islands, as can be seen by the ballast fence between P9 and P10 tracks. Presumably for some reason they didn't want a short set of steps half way along the transfer deck...

 

[Taunton]

Perhaps they're just switched off totally to save energy. 14 broken? Not at Reading! New Street on the other hand...

When I came through this last Tuesday, 14 Jul, the pair up from the Down Main island platforms were both off and taped across, as were the pair down to the northern exit (76 steps on the stairs, it states above, and I can believe it). Returned through the main entrance, one was working up although the other was taped off. There were others I noticed that were taped off as well.

For that enormous descent to the northern exit, which is like something down to the deep level Tubes in London, if the escalators are not going to work perhaps a fireman's greasy pole can be installed to make things a bit easier.

 

[Philip C]

I read all the way down to: .............

and then I stopped bothering to read...

I don't believe you!


The further comments, from others, about new build conditions are interesting. Do these standards come from a standards office in Network Rail or from legislation or elsewhere? Can anyone outline the way in which they come into force and how derogation is administered?

A Proposition:

At some level, do standards exist not only for good reasons but for idealistic reasons (This is how we wish the railway to be. Wouldn't it be nice if there were just one design of signal post.......)? Standards are more likely to be established around new build projects, where serious money is being spent; this tends to be where the railway is busy, dare I say it(?), in the prosperous south-east. But the standard is then left hanging over projects in much less heavily trafficked parts and people begin to doubt that their local railway can ever be made viable. Meanwhile politicians question the logic of granting the funds to match the quoted price for some major, often non-metropolitan, projects.

Is that really what is happening? Are we suffering from inappropriate standards rather than the inherent costs of getting the improvements we desire? Has there been a period of standards inflation? How did we get from a world in which rudimentary halts could enter service seemingly overnight to the massive cost of a minimum spec new station today; and do this in 80 years? Do the standards really serve the public and if they don't who/what do they serve?

Any views?


As for Reading, it is there now and I feel very small when I'm there! Good luck with the escalators!

 

[Tio Terry]

I don't believe you!


The further comments, from others, about new build conditions are interesting. Do these standards come from a standards office in Network Rail or from legislation or elsewhere? Can anyone outline the way in which they come into force and how derogation is administered?

A Proposition:

At some level, do standards exist not only for good reasons but for idealistic reasons (This is how we wish the railway to be. Wouldn't it be nice if there were just one design of signal post.......)? Standards are more likely to be established around new build projects, where serious money is being spent; this tends to be where the railway is busy, dare I say it(?), in the prosperous south-east. But the standard is then left hanging over projects in much less heavily trafficked parts and people begin to doubt that their local railway can ever be made viable. Meanwhile politicians question the logic of granting the funds to match the quoted price for some major, often non-metropolitan, projects.

Is that really what is happening? Are we suffering from inappropriate standards rather than the inherent costs of getting the improvements we desire? Has there been a period of standards inflation? How did we get from a world in which rudimentary halts could enter service seemingly overnight to the massive cost of a minimum spec new station today; and do this in 80 years? Do the standards really serve the public and if they don't who/what do they serve?

Any views?


As for Reading, it is there now and I feel very small when I'm there! Good luck with the escalators!

I don't actually know so I'm guessing but I think you will find that the OHEL clearances at Reading are in accordance with the Technical Standard for Interoperability - Energy. These are EU Standards mandated by law for all new build major projects with a view to having an interoperable railway across the EU. They are drawn up by the ERA and the UK has representatives on the various committee's that draft the legislation.

 

[fgwrich]

As a regular user of the station (albeit mainly to change trains), I think the new design is a triumph of style over substance.

• Access to and from the island platforms from the transfer deck is inadequate. As I rarely use the station during the peak I can only imagine the queues to exit the platform when a Paddington train arrives full up with commuters.
• The (lack of) cover when using the escalators can result in an unpleasant cold, wet and windy experience. Reading is not in Southern California.
• The lack of shelter on the platforms - I first saw this canopy design at Rugby and it doesn't work there either.
• The transfer deck is a wind tunnel.
• The modelling of walking flows on the main concourse at the base of the transfer deck doesn't seem to have taken into account that passengers arriving on Platforms 1-7 may want to continue their journeys from an island platform. It's a mess.
• As for the, seemingly permanent, temporary barrier at the top of the escalators to separate inbound and outbound passengers, all I can say is, oh dear!

I've ranted about this on another thread, not that long ago, and can only repeat that access to the cross bridge (and associated shopping opportunities etc.) is 44 steps from P1-7 & P8-9; 40 from P10-11, P12-13 & P14-15 and 76 from the North Entrance. As commented by others, the design also exposes escalators and their users to the weather.

It is now far too late to build the bridge lower but, unless this has been designed with double decker operation in mind, it appears significantly higher than is common at other overhead wired stations. For example Manchester Victoria seems to get by with as few as 29 steps from platform to bridge. At Milton Keynes there are 34/35 but here there is a logic in that the elevation needs to reach that of the surrounding roads. At Ealing Broadway 32 steps suffice.

I appreciate that something extra might be appropriate for high(ish) speed non-stopping trains, and that riser heights may vary, but the underside of the bridge looks significantly higher than required for operational purposes; and all the rest is architectural vanity. This vanity confers wondrous views on the millions who seek such in Reading, prizes on those with access to public coffers and stress, healthy exercise, exposure to the weather and missed connections on this generation of passengers, and the next, and the one after that.

Anyway that's my view.

[I've been told] they aren't weatherproof, being a model intended for fully indoor use. 14 is a bit much though - never seen more than a couple out of use, excepting late at weekends when they're being maintained.

I think also part of the problem is the overdependence on escalators - on the eastern (busy) side of the bridge, most of the platforms are accessed by escalator only. I'd rather have had one escalator with stairs, as on the western side, rather than double escalators. Especially as we are always being told what a deathtrap the escalators are.

The lifts are rubbish too: several times I have been in them (or trying to get in) and the doors refused to open, before the lift snails its way back to the level it was on before.

Don't forget that the original design for the station incorporated near covered escalators with big glass screens providing more protection from the platforms up to the Transfer Deck which was also supposed to have more Glass in it than they have built it with.

Other than that, I completely agree with you both. The Island Platforms feel like an afterthought, and the canopy as I've said before is near useless. Especially in inclement weather where the design of it actually allows the rain to run down the inside of it and leak over the centre of the platform - So if the rain isn't coming down at a horizontal angle, you will still get wet regardless. I've noticed the escalator issue as well, not helpful in the peak hours when you can have a rush of commuters heading for one of the A/B platforms and having to channel down one set of stairs.

 

[pdeaves]

As a regular user of the station (albeit mainly to change trains)...

Likewise.

• The modelling of walking flows on the main concourse at the base of the transfer deck doesn't seem to have taken into account that passengers arriving on Platforms 1-7 may want to continue their journeys from an island platform. It's a mess.

The other things that are stupid in my opinion are that you can't get down from the bridge towards the west for the Basingstoke/Bedwyn platforms. You have to go down eastbound and double back on platform 7 and take your chances amongst the throng heading to/from the street, by which time the connection could have left! All the islands have west facing escalators and stairs. The bridge would be more helpful in the middle of the station, too, not near one end.

However, regarding FenMan's comment of 'triumph of style over substance', I refer the honourable gentleman to Newport (Wales, not Essex!)...

 

[swt_passenger]

The bridge would be more helpful in the middle of the station, too, not near one end.

The bridge actually is in the middle of the through platforms though, to a first approximation. Apart from P8, which is offset towards London, but this is not as originally designed - they should have completed moving it west to match P9.

There are detailed explanations of why the transfer deck has to be where it is in the original planning application's design and access statement. Basically it was the only place it could be put to allow the stairs and escalators on the P7 side to get down to ground level within the Network Rail owned site boundary, which is aligned E/W with the new entrance's glass doors. The ramps outside are on Reading council land.

The position certainly wasn't chosen lightly.

With regard to stairs and escalators down towards P1-P3, there is no room to add them, because there is a defined safety zone behind the buffer stops which extends all the way to the new waiting room area. To provide similarly located stairs as on the through platforms the buffers would have to be moved west, and the platforms would not be long enough for their intended uses, especially P3, without taking all the approach S&C further west and modifying Caversham Rd bridge.

 

[David Goddard]

Living near Reading it has been quite interesting following the redevelopment over the last five years. The basic concept with multiple island platforms, as seen on the continent, has worked well, and the relief line arrangement with (at the time) passive provision for Crossrail puts it well placed to deal with these services.

I went to a couple of presentations on the rebuild while it was going on, and on seeing the plans did wonder well the partly open part of the deck would be. I had originally wondered if they would have done it with an overall roof like at Leeds (or if more modern like Liege in Belgium) but when I asked heard that this concept was never thought of, let alone considered, for Reading.
The result is nonetheless impressive, but I cant help but think how it could be better every time I use the station which is about every two weeks.

The stair and escalator openings in the side of the transfer deck enable every bit of rain to come in and create puddles on the deck, which requires constant attention from cleaning staff with wet floor signs and mops to keep control of. Even if the top eight feet of each escalator/stair was glazed this would help keep most of the rain out. But look up and you will see that the roof is not fully enclosed, and so the rain finds its way in there as well.

It is worth noting that the already wide island platform 8/9 was retained in order to deal with large volumes disembarking from westbound services, but the exit routes from these platforms is far from sufficient to get them up and away in good time before the next train arrives (potentially four minutes if the route is at full capacity).

Overall the build was more about design than how it would be used, from the open parts of the bridge to the position of the island platform toilets, the aspect of customer flow was clearly a glaring omission.