Station rebuildings

[Helvellyn]

Stations have been rebuilt for almost as long as the railways have existed. For all the debate about the 1960s Euston rebuilding, with the loss of the Euston Arch and Great Hall, it's often forgotten that if it hadn't been for the Second World War it's extremely likely the LMS would have got there 25-30 years earlier albeit with a art deco design. St Pancras station frontage could have gone the same way to provide a modern hotel with engineering suite facilities.

The drivers of rebuilds are usually easily understood.

• Euston and New Street in the 1960s were to allow comprehensive remodelling as part of electrification.
• Stafford was rebuilt for electrification but I am not sure if it was remodelled? I know it used to have some platform structures similar to the main part of Crewe, which would have imposed speed restrictions.
• Bedford was rebuilt in the 1980s to resite the station away from the original site on the truncated original line to Hitchin.
• Peterborough was rebuilt in the 1970s to both expand the station and also support remodelling (the station set-up had been similar to Darlington where trains had to effectively leave the mainline).

But some station rebuilding work is less clear why it happened. For example, Leicester was completely rebuilt with new single storey buildings and canopies. But the station footprint (two islands) doesn't seem to have changed - was the overall roof beyond economic repair, and even if so why a full rebuild?

Also, given the complete rebuild of some stations for West Coast electrification why weren't Rugby and Crewe rebuilt? Both had speed restrictions through them for non-stop trains due to the way supports for canopies/overall roofs were positioned between running lines. Rugby was dealt with by a 2000s remodel and new platform supported canopies but apart from strengthening the supports at Crewe in the 1980s remodelling (which I think increased the speed on the fast lines from 20mph to 40mph?) It was left untouched.

I'm not advocating rebuilds for the sake of them but I am intrigued by what factors come into play historically. I'm also aware of general BR rationalisation, sweeping away redundant buildings that weren't needed, were at risk of vandalism, etc. Or the resiting of stations to free up land resulting in smaller, simpler (in some cases basic) facilities.

(Another historic one is the LSWR rebuild of Waterloo, which was curtailed for the then Windsor Line platforms by the First World War. Would have been fascinating to see a single completely open train shed of 24/25 platforms!)

So any knowledge on the rationale for rebuilds would be great to hear. Or likewise schemes that never happened.

 

[D6130]

apart from strengthening the supports at Crewe in the 1980s remodelling (which I think increased the speed on the fast lines from 20mph to 40mph?) It was left untouched.

The 1985 remodelling of Crewe increased the speed on the fast lines from 20 to 80 mph.

 

[341o2]

Seaton Junction was rebuilt in 1927/8 to provide through lines, with the platforms being served by loop lines for traffic that never materialised. Closed in 1966 following the Beeching report

As part of the ECML electrification, Peterborough station was modified in 1972 to accommodate high-speed running through the station. Previously, there was a speed restriction, was it 40mph?

Exeter Central was originally Queen St, and grew to two wooden train sheds. Fire damaged the westbound one, so in 1933, the train sheds were demolished and replaced by brick buildings.

The original stations at both Looe and St Ives have been demolished, and new stations constructed further back, part of rationalisation?

 

[The exile]

Stations have been rebuilt for almost as long as the railways have existed. For all the debate about the 1960s Euston rebuilding, with the loss of the Euston Arch and Great Hall, it's often forgotten that if it hadn't been for the Second World War it's extremely likely the LMS would have got there 25-30 years earlier albeit with a art deco design. St Pancras station frontage could have gone the same way to provide a modern hotel with engineering suite facilities.

The drivers of rebuilds are usually easily understood.

• Euston and New Street in the 1960s were to allow comprehensive remodelling as part of electrification.
• Stafford was rebuilt for electrification but I am not sure if it was remodelled? I know it used to have some platform structures similar to the main part of Crewe, which would have imposed speed restrictions.
• Bedford was rebuilt in the 1980s to resite the station away from the original site on the truncated original line to Hitchin.
• Peterborough was rebuilt in the 1970s to both expand the station and also support remodelling (the station set-up had been similar to Darlington where trains had to effectively leave the mainline).

But some station rebuilding work is less clear why it happened. For example, Leicester was completely rebuilt with new single storey buildings and canopies. But the station footprint (two islands) doesn't seem to have changed - was the overall roof beyond economic repair, and even if so why a full rebuild?

Also, given the complete rebuild of some stations for West Coast electrification why weren't Rugby and Crewe rebuilt? Both had speed restrictions through them for non-stop trains due to the way supports for canopies/overall roofs were positioned between running lines. Rugby was dealt with by a 2000s remodel and new platform supported canopies but apart from strengthening the supports at Crewe in the 1980s remodelling (which I think increased the speed on the fast lines from 20mph to 40mph?) It was left untouched.

I'm not advocating rebuilds for the sake of them but I am intrigued by what factors come into play historically. I'm also aware of general BR rationalisation, sweeping away redundant buildings that weren't needed, were at risk of vandalism, etc. Or the resiting of stations to free up land resulting in smaller, simpler (in some cases basic) facilities.

(Another historic one is the LSWR rebuild of Waterloo, which was curtailed for the then Windsor Line platforms by the First World War. Would have been fascinating to see a single completely open train shed of 24/25 platforms!)

So any knowledge on the rationale for rebuilds would be great to hear. Or likewise schemes that never happened.

I would imagine that until the GCR viaduct was removed, any rebuild at Rugby would have been pretty pointless. By the time it could be, the money had run out.

 

[Magdalia]

Peterborough was rebuilt in the 1970s to both expand the station and also support remodelling (the station set-up had been similar to Darlington where trains had to effectively leave the mainline).

As part of the ECML electrification, Peterborough station was modified in 1972 to accommodate high-speed running through the station. Previously, there was a speed restriction, was it 40mph?

There are some misunderstandings here.

Until the early 1970s the ECML ran through what are now platforms 1 and 2 (in those days platforms 2 and 3). There were "dog leg" curves at both ends and the speed restriction was 20 mph. The through roads were not like Darlington, they were the ex Midland railway tracks, mainly for goods but, before Peterborough East was closed, they were also used by some passenger trains that went to/from Peterborough East without calling at Peterborough North. There was a bay on the down side at the north end for East Lincs trains, and a bay on the up side at the south end for Great Eastern trains (the old platform 1), plus a "back platform" on the down side. Most Great Eastern trains arrived on the down side and then had to shunt across to depart from the up bay.

What is now the platform 4/5 island, and the fast lines in between, were built as part of the early 1970s changes. This upped the ECML speed limit for non-stopping trains from 20mph to 100mph, knocking about 5 minutes off of the schedules, implemented in the May 1973 timetable. It also made it much easier to run through cross country services between the Great Eastern and Midland lines without obstructing ECML movements. The up bay was retained, at first mainly for Hitchin stopping services. The entrance/exit building, on what is now platform 1, was rebuilt afterwards, in the late 1970s.

There was then another big round of changes about 10 years ago. The old up bay was finally removed, a new platform went in on the up fast line, and another new island platforms 6/7. There are more changes to come, including a west side entrance/exit.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jun 2025 ==

Bedford was rebuilt in the 1980s to resite the station away from the original site on the truncated original line to Hitchin.

The main driver for this was electrification. The old Midland Road station was an absolute dump.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jun 2025 ==

Other significant rebuilds as part of electrification include Broxbourne, Harlow Town and Bishops Stortford.

One that isn't electrification related is Stevenage which got its new station in 1973, close to the centre of the new town, replacing the old station that was near to the centre of the old town about 1 mile further north.

 

[30907]

Also, given the complete rebuild of some stations for West Coast electrification why weren't Rugby and Crewe rebuilt? Both had speed restrictions through them for non-stop trains due to the way supports for canopies/overall roofs were positioned between running lines. Rugby was dealt with by a 2000s remodel and new platform supported canopies but apart from strengthening the supports at Crewe in the 1980s remodelling (which I think increased the speed on the fast lines from 20mph to 40mph?) It was left untouched.

I suspect money combined with practicality - the WCML South was done on the cheap as far as track and signals were concerned!

Crewe was used extensively for loco changes until 1975 (and after that for N Wales of course) and relatively few trains ran non-stop through it.

Rugby got its flyover back in the 60s and was reasonably adequate for BR-era service levels. Remodelling was part of the 90s modernisation - though I was told by someone very senior that no-one had actually worked out how the new layout could be achieved on a working railway! It was of course eventually done

The other WCML rebuild was Coventry - was that triggered by wartime damage?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jun 2025 ==

Seaton Junction was rebuilt in 1927/8 to provide through lines, with the platforms being served by loop lines for traffic that never materialised. Closed in 1966 following the Beeching report.

The loops came in very handy on summer Saturdays and for freight, though.

 

[The exile]

I'm not advocating rebuilds for the sake of them but I am intrigued by what factors come into play historically. I'm also aware of general BR rationalisation, sweeping away redundant buildings that weren't needed, were at risk of vandalism, etc. Or the resiting of stations to free up land resulting in smaller, simpler (in some cases basins

Almost too obvious to mention, but rebuild usually necessary when lines were quadrified. At this moment staring at 2 examples which have gone from 2 to 3 to 4 in the space of 25 years or so….

 

[bramling]

Stations have been rebuilt for almost as long as the railways have existed. For all the debate about the 1960s Euston rebuilding, with the loss of the Euston Arch and Great Hall, it's often forgotten that if it hadn't been for the Second World War it's extremely likely the LMS would have got there 25-30 years earlier albeit with a art deco design. St Pancras station frontage could have gone the same way to provide a modern hotel with engineering suite facilities.

The drivers of rebuilds are usually easily understood.

• Euston and New Street in the 1960s were to allow comprehensive remodelling as part of electrification.
• Stafford was rebuilt for electrification but I am not sure if it was remodelled? I know it used to have some platform structures similar to the main part of Crewe, which would have imposed speed restrictions.
• Bedford was rebuilt in the 1980s to resite the station away from the original site on the truncated original line to Hitchin.
• Peterborough was rebuilt in the 1970s to both expand the station and also support remodelling (the station set-up had been similar to Darlington where trains had to effectively leave the mainline).

But some station rebuilding work is less clear why it happened. For example, Leicester was completely rebuilt with new single storey buildings and canopies. But the station footprint (two islands) doesn't seem to have changed - was the overall roof beyond economic repair, and even if so why a full rebuild?

Also, given the complete rebuild of some stations for West Coast electrification why weren't Rugby and Crewe rebuilt? Both had speed restrictions through them for non-stop trains due to the way supports for canopies/overall roofs were positioned between running lines. Rugby was dealt with by a 2000s remodel and new platform supported canopies but apart from strengthening the supports at Crewe in the 1980s remodelling (which I think increased the speed on the fast lines from 20mph to 40mph?) It was left untouched.

I'm not advocating rebuilds for the sake of them but I am intrigued by what factors come into play historically. I'm also aware of general BR rationalisation, sweeping away redundant buildings that weren't needed, were at risk of vandalism, etc. Or the resiting of stations to free up land resulting in smaller, simpler (in some cases basic) facilities.

(Another historic one is the LSWR rebuild of Waterloo, which was curtailed for the then Windsor Line platforms by the First World War. Would have been fascinating to see a single completely open train shed of 24/25 platforms!)

So any knowledge on the rationale for rebuilds would be great to hear. Or likewise schemes that never happened.

Never really understood the rationale for the fairly recent replacement of the station building at Hastings, especially as the current building is something of a monstrosity.

 

[341o2]

Birkenhead Hamilton Square. A new platform 3 and burrowing junction to eliminate New Brighton/West Kirby trains crossing Rock Ferry trains on the level

 

[Rescars]

I would imagine that until the GCR viaduct was removed, any rebuild at Rugby would have been pretty pointless. By the time it could be, the money had run out.

Running out of money in this instance was a perennial problem. Didn't they say at the time that the MS&L was money sunk and lost, and when it became the Great Central the money had gone completely?

 

[Man of Kent]

Never really understood the rationale for the fairly recent replacement of the station building at Hastings, especially as the current building is something of a monstrosity.

The 1930s station was said to require costly repairs that exceeded that of a new building. Some more info here:

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER, JOHN PRESCOTT LAUNCHES NEW PHASE IN £400 MILLION INVESTMENT PROGRAMME FOR THE REGENERATION OF HASTINGS AND BEXHILL

Information for journalists, press, bloggers and the media about Network Rail. Contact the press office to receive news, updates, press releases, videos, pictures, and factsheets, and to arrange interviews, filming and photography

www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER, JOHN PRESCOTT LAUNCHES NEW PHASE IN £400 MILLION INVESTMENT PROGRAMME FOR THE REGENERATION OF HASTINGS AND BEXHILL​

Region & Route: | Southern Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott launched a major new phase in the 10-year investment programme for the regeneration of Hastings and Bexhill by digging the first shovel of earth from the site of the new Hastings station. The project to rebuild Hastings Station is being led by Network Rail and is seen as an important element in the regeneration of the town of Hastings. Due to the high cost of necessary repair, the decision was taken to construct a new modern station building. The scheme has been developed in close partnership with Connex, Hastings Borough Council and SEEDA. The £8.6 million redevelopment of the station by Network Rail, which includes a £750,000 contribution from SEEDA for enhancement works to the forecourt and bus interchange, will herald the development of a £50 million spend on the adjacent station yard. This will comprise business space, the second phase of the University Centre, Hastings and over 120 new homes. The government announced last year its commitment to a £38 million spend to “kick start” the regeneration of Hastings and Bexhill and funds are allocated through the South East of England Development Agency (SEEDA). Further government money was committed through the Millennium Communities initiative funded by English Partnerships. Geoffrey Osborne Limited will carry out the work to Hastings Station on behalf of Network Rail. The project started in July 2003 and should be completed by the end of October 2004. The Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott said “Today’s start of the Hastings’s Station redevelopment is a symbolic start to the regeneration of Hastings and Bexhill and underlines the Government’s commitment to bringing investment, jobs and new buildings into the heart of the community”. Local MP, Michael Foster added: “The Government has set out the means for local partners to work together in the regeneration of their community by establishing the Hastings and Bexhill Task Force and providing these significant funds which will allow a momentum of development to be maintained” Dave Ward, general manager, Network Rail said, “We are delighted to work with local partners in a project that will deliver significant benefits to both passengers and the town of Hastings, ensuring they have the first class station they rightly deserve.”

 

[izvor]

East Grinstead - so good they rebuilt it twice!

(actually 4 times if you include the 2 earlier sites)

 

[bramling]

The 1930s station was said to require costly repairs that exceeded that of a new building. Some more info here:

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER, JOHN PRESCOTT LAUNCHES NEW PHASE IN £400 MILLION INVESTMENT PROGRAMME FOR THE REGENERATION OF HASTINGS AND BEXHILL

Information for journalists, press, bloggers and the media about Network Rail. Contact the press office to receive news, updates, press releases, videos, pictures, and factsheets, and to arrange interviews, filming and photography

www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk

I’m quite curious as to what was actually wrong with the building where it supposedly required such costly repairs. Can’t help but find this all a bit dubious, feels more like someone wanted a new building for whatever reason. I find the current building utterly awful, though that’s just a personal opinion of course.

 

[DarloRich]

the 1960's rebuilds of the WCML stations south of Crewe are awful.

 

[bramling]

the 1960's rebuilds of the WCML stations south of Crewe are awful.

Midland between Bedford and London is no better. Only Flitwick, Harlington, Leagrave and Harpenden retain their buildings, and even these look tatty. Bedford and Luton are awful to use (albeit they match their respective towns in being horrible), St Albans is completely unfit the numbers of people it handles, and the stations inwards of St Albans still give a very run-down feel.

 

[DarloRich]

Midland between Bedford and London is no better. Only Flitwick, Harlington, Leagrave and Harpenden retain their buildings, and even these look tatty. Bedford and Luton are awful to use (albeit they match their respective towns in being horrible), St Albans is completely unfit the numbers of people it handles, and the stations inwards of St Albans still give a very run-down feel.

Bedford is an awful station but Luton makes it look palatial! Total dumps.

BTW - I am sure the 1960's rebuilds were seen as cutting edge for the time and future proofed for expected passenger numbers etc. They were, after all, building the railway of the future with snazzy electric trains. I am sure the builders through that was what the future would look like.

We know they were wrong but they didn't. The problem is we are stuck with the results of those choices. Bletchley station, for example, is just depressing and soulless.

 

[The exile]

the 1960's rebuilds of the WCML stations south of Crewe are awful.

Are you including Coventry and Stafford in that? Main buildings there aren’t that bad. Admittedly I don’t think I’ve seen what the last 30 years have done to Stafford…

 

[DarloRich]

Are you including Coventry and Stafford in that? Main buildings there aren’t that bad. Admittedly I don’t think I’ve seen what the last 30 years have done to Stafford…

Perhaps not Coventry - Stafford and me don't get on!

 

[Cricketer8for9]

Almost too obvious to mention, but rebuild usually necessary when lines were quadrified. At this moment staring at 2 examples which have gone from 2 to 3 to 4 in the space of 25 years or so….

Selhurst to Clapham Jct, but not Balham, from a station perspective is an example. Then East Croydon, (now itself rebuilt) Purley Oaks and Purley as the line was quadrupled going south. Horley as well from this period and I think St Leonards Warrior Square, although not due to quadrupling. All of the same architectural style.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Barrow in Furness station was rebuilt in the style of 1960s southern WCML. That was repair of war damage, but I think was 1950s rather than 1960s.

 

[D6130]

Barrow in Furness station was rebuilt in the style of 1960s southern WCML. That was repair of war damage, but I think was 1950s rather than 1960s.

Bentham was rebuilt in a similar style - also in the 1950s. Not sure why, but perhaps the original "Little North Western" buildings had deteriorated beyond repair?

EDIT: The Furness side platform canopies at Carnforth were also rebuilt in a rather brutalist concrete style in the same period.... presumably to replace the original Furness Railway timber-framed overall roof, which must have deteriorated badly after more than a hundred years of steam loco exhaust blast.

 

[Rescars]

the 1960's rebuilds of the WCML stations south of Crewe are awful.

But from the same era, the frequently rebuilt Manchester Oxford Road is not without architectural merit, even though it has proved a nightmare to maintain.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Several of the stations north of Finchley Road on the Jubilee (previously Bakerloo) were rebuilt in the 1930s Holden art-deco style. I believe this was to facilitate having the Bakerloo (slow lines) inside the Metropolitan (fast lines). Stations like Neasden and Willesden Green that orginally had four platforms were not rebuilt. Hence the mix of styles on that line.

 

[WesternLancer]

Are you including Coventry and Stafford in that? Main buildings there aren’t that bad. Admittedly I don’t think I’ve seen what the last 30 years have done to Stafford…

Those two are very good imho. Coventry is listed building iirc

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2025 ==

But from the same era, the frequently rebuilt Manchester Oxford Road is not without architectural merit, even though it has proved a nightmare to maintain.

Genuinely impressive architecture in my view.

But it’s a shame that a small station design of equal merit to these examples seemingly wasn’t designed.

 

[The exile]

Those two are very good imho. Coventry is listed building iirc

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2025 ==


Genuinely impressive architecture in my view.

But it’s a shame that a small station design of equal merit to these examples seemingly wasn’t designed.

The architects at the time probably thought it was (the Crewe - Manchester intermediates). Tastes change and time highlights the weakness of some designs hailed as “bold and innovative” (usually in the form of buckets catching drips!)

 

[satisnek]

From my observations Coventry was the last major station to be built on a grand scale, before the advent of today's 'compliant' stations. The booking halls of Stafford and the previous station at Wolverhampton are/were poky little places. Even Birmingham New Street was rather 'compact' when compared in terms of usage.

As for Leicester, the overall roof had already gone and the platform buildings were in a poor state of repair by the mid-1970s. From my earliest memories of this station in the 1980s, the street-level facilities remained somewhat decrepit.

 

[The exile]

From my observations Coventry was the last major station to be built on a grand scale, before the advent of today's 'compliant' stations. The booking halls of Stafford and the previous station at Wolverhampton are/were poky little places. Even Birmingham New Street was rather 'compact' when compared in terms of usage.

Certainly true for the intervening period, but there’s been a trend away from bare minimum boxes in this century. Abbey Wood, Worcestershire Pky and the current Bristol Parkway might not be 21st century cathedrals but they’re better than arrangements on a theme by Portakabin.

 

[matchmaker]

One of the pinnacles of station rebuilding must surely the 1898 onward rebuilding of Glasgow Central, The accommodation for both trains and passengers was doubled, and the approach tracks over the Clyde were quadrupled. Nearly 130 years later it is still an outstanding example of station design.

 

[D6130]

One of the pinnacles of station rebuilding must surely the 1898 onward rebuilding of Glasgow Central, The accommodation for both trains and passengers was doubled, and the approach tracks over the Clyde were quadrupled. Nearly 130 years later it is still an outstanding example of station design.

Likewise Stirling in about 1905-06, by the Caledonian Railway's eminent architect James Miller. Shame he wasn't allowed to do something about the grim collection of wooden shacks that was Glasgow Buchanan Street!

 

[satisnek]

Certainly true for the intervening period, but there’s been a trend away from bare minimum boxes in this century. Abbey Wood, Worcestershire Pky and the current Bristol Parkway might not be 21st century cathedrals but they’re better than arrangements on a theme by Portakabin.

Indeed, that's what I meant by 'today's 'compliant' stations'. These stations are what they are because of stipulated requirements and regulations. Back in the late 20th century there was no reason to make anything more expensive than it needed to be.