Elizabeth Line / Crossrail Updates.

[Ron Ron Ron]

On 04/06/2020 at 16:47, The Stationmaster said:

Presumably they are having to incorporate lifts to both platforms which means extra building space at street level but it looks larger than what it will be replacing......

 

The Elizabeth Line service at Acton Mainline is supposed to be a train every 15 minutes, in each direction.  [editted]

A significant uplift in passenger numbers is being catered for. 

 

The new station includes...

New lifts to provide step-free access to every platform

Platform extensions to accommodate the new 200 metre long trains

New platform canopies, lighting, customer information screens, station signage, help points and CCTV

 

The new station building is being built just around the corner and the new footbridge and lift shafts are already under construction.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5168057,-0.2665615,3a,75y,309.53h,76.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOQg3h19Une92wVSyy2o-UA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5168057,-0.2665615,183m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

 

.

Edited June 10, 2020 by Ron Ron Ron

[caradoc]

Personally I'm delighted to see today's railway showing such ambition and confidence in the future; Something of a contrast to my home town of Oxford, where the station has been rebuilt twice in the last 50 years yet is still totally inadequate, and frankly an embarassment to the historic city it serves. If only BR had had the resources to do an 'Acton Main Line 2020' at Oxford in 1970 !

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

33 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

.....I am pleased to see the railway showing some pride by constructing buildings like these.

But they come at a huge cost - both initial cost and subsequent operating costs......

 

Note that TfL are responsible for running and maintaining the station.

 

 

.

[Joseph_Pestell]

11 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

The Elizabeth Line service at Acton Mainline is supposed to be a train every 5 minutes, in both directions (i.e. 12 tph each way).

A significant uplift in passenger numbers is being catered for. 

 

.

 

It's that much enhanced service which is going to bring so many more passengers, not just the frequency but the range of destinations that will become attractive in terms of journey time.

 

But with passengers in the station for less than five minutes, does it need that large station building? Will most of it just end up being an M&S Simply Food (other convenience stores are available) to the detriment of the local High St?

[Ron Ron Ron]

 

[Mike Storey]

On 04/06/2020 at 18:45, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

The Elizabeth Line service at Acton Mainline is supposed to be a train every 5 minutes, in both directions (i.e. 12 tph each way).

A significant uplift in passenger numbers is being catered for. 

 

The new station includes...

New lifts to provide step-free access to every platform

Platform extensions to accommodate the new 200 metre long trains

New platform canopies, lighting, customer information screens, station signage, help points and CCTV

 

The new station building is being built just around the corner and the new footbridge and lift shafts are already under construction.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5168057,-0.2665615,3a,75y,309.53h,76.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOQg3h19Une92wVSyy2o-UA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5168057,-0.2665615,183m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

 

.

 

I am afraid only four trains per hour, each way, are planned Ron. The five minute interval is a quote from the standard blurb about the central section.

 

https://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/western-section/acton-main-line-station

 

I would suggest two things:

 

1. The scale of the new building is actually not that large, when you see people imposed on the architectural imagery. The building footprint is probably no larger than the present ensemble. The double height facade is a standard feature of all new Crossrail surface buildings. As well as housing the upper lift headroom (a style favoured by TfL), it would also allow much more efficient HLV, particularly with high numbers of users in the peaks.

 

2. The evidence of new and converted housing development in Acton is quite staggering. Usage will no doubt increase in short order, one would suspect.

[Mike Storey]

On 04/06/2020 at 19:01, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Note that TfL are responsible for running and maintaining the station.

 

 

.

 

But NR own (and are funding the new construction of) the building and lands. Funding is coming from the stations development fund, and a part from Ealing Council (for the landscaping primarily).

 

TfL will pay NR via a lease, and will maintain up to the guttering, excluding utilities supply and structure. NR have to maintain and supply the rest. I doubt TfL will have wanted an expensive building to maintain, and neither will NR. Or at least, that's what I would hope.....

[Mike Storey]

On 04/06/2020 at 18:14, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

I am pleased to see the railway showing some pride by constructing buildings like these.

 

But they come at a huge cost - both initial cost and subsequent operating costs. Rail users and their representatives can't have it both ways. Either fares rise beyond reason or the railway is careful about costs. Which is it?

 

No they don't. The greatest cost of the entire build will have been the new platform extensions. The main building is just one step above an Amazon warehouse standard frame, and the lifts are bog standard, overhung pulley systems (i.e. no significant pits). The greatest maintenance cost will be window cleaning.

 

Do you think a small , brick built, pitch tiled roof jobbie (which was the standard, new NSE, small station type in the 80's/early 90's) would have been cheaper? I can tell you the answer - very unlikely, and much more expensive to maintain, as we discovered after privatisation. (Before privatisation, they were not maintained, unless actually falling down, because there was no contractual obligation to do so.)

 

Your argument over fare rises/careful about costs is not applicable in this case, or in fact, in the case of any station re-developments. It is far more expensive to maintain an old building, and it is far easier to build a new one now, given the availability of cheap finance, and spread the cost over 25 years (40 in some cases). Given the chance, NR would knock down all its old buildings and start afresh, but that is clearly verboten for the listed ones, and the ones which get listed as soon as such a possibility is raised....... but then, that is, partly, why we like railways and not, for example, supermarkets, or even airports.

[corneliuslundie]

I hope that the current range of new buildings lasts better than those built in the 1960s which seem rapidly to be disappearing, whereas many Victorian buildings are still doing the job they were designed for.

Jonathan

[Joseph_Pestell]

8 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

No they don't. The greatest cost of the entire build will have been the new platform extensions. The main building is just one step above an Amazon warehouse standard frame, and the lifts are bog standard, overhung pulley systems (i.e. no significant pits). The greatest maintenance cost will be window cleaning.

 

Do you think a small , brick built, pitch tiled roof jobbie (which was the standard, new NSE, small station type in the 80's/early 90's) would have been cheaper? I can tell you the answer - very unlikely, and much more expensive to maintain, as we discovered after privatisation. (Before privatisation, they were not maintained, unless actually falling down, because there was no contractual obligation to do so.)

 

Your argument over fare rises/careful about costs is not applicable in this case, or in fact, in the case of any station re-developments. It is far more expensive to maintain an old building, and it is far easier to build a new one now, given the availability of cheap finance, and spread the cost over 25 years (40 in some cases). Given the chance, NR would knock down all its old buildings and start afresh, but that is clearly verboten for the listed ones, and the ones which get listed as soon as such a possibility is raised....... but then, that is, partly, why we like railways and not, for example, supermarkets, or even airports.

 

I have built enough to know that curtain glazing of that extent does not come cheap. But my main concern is about ongoing running costs of that volume of space.

 

But, as I wrote before, I suspect that will be covered by the "retail opportunities".

[Bernard Lamb]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

 

 

But, as I wrote before, I suspect that will be covered by the "retail opportunities".

Back in the era of privatization I read an article by a financial journalist who suggested that you look at the railway as a property company rather than a transport company.  We in the UK did not seem to fully grasp that point of view.

Long before that, a new station was planned at Two Waters to replace both Apsley and Boxmoor on the London end of the WCML, with the new town shopping centre between the station and the main road. Various odd piecemeal developments took place and the whole area is now the centre piece of a long term plan. The shopping centre and market that was built nearer to the town centre is in a bad state and has been declining long before the virus appeared. A missed opportunity.

My "other" local station is in Leipzig. Here they moved the buffer stops about 100m away from the station building and built a vast two tier show piece retail centre. They also removed a couple of platforms to provide more parking and by doing this it lost the title of the largest terminal station, but this loss of status was soon compensated by the income from the new facilities. I suppose the nearest we have to that is the opening up of the beer storage area at St Pancras.

Bernard 

[Joseph_Pestell]

18 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Back in the era of privatization I read an article by a financial journalist who suggested that you look at the railway as a property company rather than a transport company.  We in the UK did not seem to fully grasp that point of view.

 

 

Sometimes, I think that the UK rail industry has not grasped it at all. Many railway buildings stand empty and deteriorating when they could be occupied. Even if the rents obtained were minimal, it would get the buildings heated and maintained at someone else's expense and reduce the business rates bill.

 

As to all the enormous areas of land that are still left as a wasteland but could be developed, I am completely baffled.

[Fenman]

12 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

... but then, that is, partly, why we like railways and not, for example, supermarkets, or even airports.

I think the only UK airport building which is in the same league, architecturally, as some of the great railway buildings is Norman Foster’s terminal at Stansted. Huge, soaring roof, but then that was utterly compromised when owner BAA filled all the space (and blocked all the sight lines) with wretched “retail opportunities”. For a long time BAA was, financially speaking, a car park operator and landlord for retail space, which happened to have a few runways as a sideline. 
 

In fairness to BAA, Southampton airport isn’t bad, architecturally — a swooping bird, by Manser Associates, though it’s let down by the cheap materials. 
 

Heathrow T5 is a prime example of architectural ignorance — conceived as a soaring wavy form by Richard Rogers (just like the glorious roof at Madrid T5 by the same architects), BAA then handed-over the design to get it “value engineered”, which resulted in the current cheap-looking tin shed. Stuffed full of retail opportunities. 
 

Though the railway hasn’t been immune to that: British Rail cut off views of trains at Liverpool Street with lines of shops (having already tried the same thing at Euston, to make it look as much like an airport as possible).

 

And smaller but architecturally glorious stations like Barking have been ruined by poor maintenance and dreadful space management. The last time I was there, significant numbers of the retail opportunities had gone bust and been boarded-up — the worst of all worlds. 
 

But Waterloo and it’s new-ish balcony of shops and cafes is a rather good example of how to get a good balance, I think. 
 

Paul

 

[corneliuslundie]

At Manchester Piccadilly they seem to have managed to keep the balance - plenty of shops and cafes but you can still see the trains. And although it is rather overpowering the destination indicator system is very effective. I'd better not say anything about Birmingham New Street as I might be sued by the designers!

The other issue with glazed boxes is solar overheating, with the resultant need for air conditioning, and therefore high running costs. Not clever when we are trying to be more environmentally friendly.

Jonathan

[Bernard Lamb]

15 minutes ago, Fenman said:

I think the only UK airport building which is in the same league, architecturally, as some of the great railway buildings is Norman Foster’s terminal at Stansted. Huge, soaring roof, but then that was utterly compromised when owner BAA filled all the space (and blocked all the sight lines) with wretched “retail opportunities”. For a long time BAA was, financially speaking, a car park operator and landlord for retail space, which happened to have a few runways as a sideline. 
 

 

Heathrow T5 is a prime example of architectural ignorance — conceived as a soaring wavy form by Richard Rogers (just like the glorious roof at Madrid T5 by the same architects), BAA then handed-over the design to get it “value engineered”, which resulted in the current cheap-looking tin shed. Stuffed full of retail opportunities. 
 

 

 

I liked the original buildings at Heathrow by Fredrick Gibberd. As with many of his buildings they were designed to do a job rather than to show off. I was at his house in Harlow one day and there was a small pile of bricks in one of the rooms. I was told that it was the only surviving material rescued from the demolition.

 

I worked in storage and materials handling and we were rather miffed not to get the Terminal 5 contract at the time. But soon realized how lucky we were not to have been involved.

Bernard 

[Fenman]

17 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

...

The other issue with glazed boxes is solar overheating, with the resultant need for air conditioning, and therefore high running costs. Not clever when we are trying to be more environmentally friendly.

Jonathan

Some get this right: the very simple (but striking) West Hampstead Thameslink station is basically just a box, but has a strong street “presence”, and very nice use of coloured tiles (a good vernacular tradition in London railway stations). No air conditioning. 

 

Paul

[caradoc]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

I liked the original buildings at Heathrow by Fredrick Gibberd. As with many of his buildings they were designed to do a job rather than to show off. I was at his house in Harlow one day and there was a small pile of bricks in one of the rooms. I was told that it was the only surviving material rescued from the demolition.

 

 

My first job on the railway was at Harlow, suffice to say that Mr Gibberd was not exactly well regarded by the ordinary people who actually had to live in Harlow ! Harlow Town station on the other was when I worked there (1978-80), and still is, a magnificent station, despite being of the 1960s......

 

[caradoc]

45 minutes ago, Fenman said:

And smaller but architecturally glorious stations like Barking have been ruined by poor maintenance and dreadful space management. The last time I was there, significant numbers of the retail opportunities had gone bust and been boarded-up — the worst of all worlds. 

 

I'm sure I read recently somewhere that the retail buildings at Barking are being removed to restore the station hall to the original concept ?

 

[Fenman]

15 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

I'm sure I read recently somewhere that the retail buildings at Barking are being removed to restore the station hall to the original concept ?

 

That would be wonderful. The concourse building was an homage to the great Rome Termini building, and rather lovely. 
 

The redevelopment/ restoration of the Great Eastern 1960s stations has been effective — eg, Harlow Town, and especially Broxbourne, have been nicely done. The strength of the original architecture mostly shines through. 
 

Paul

[eastwestdivide]

14 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

I hope that the current range of new buildings lasts better than those built in the 1960s which seem rapidly to be disappearing, whereas many Victorian buildings are still doing the job they were designed for.

Jonathan

You're right in that many of the Victorian-era buildings are still doing the job, if it's the same job that's required of them.

To look at it another way, those Victorian buildings that are left are still doing the job. It's too easy to think "they always did it right back then", when the failures and inadequacies have been swept away. Not just station buildings, but other stuff too.

[rodent279]

2 hours ago, Fenman said:

I think the only UK airport building which is in the same league, architecturally, as some of the great railway buildings is Norman Foster’s terminal at Stansted. Huge, soaring roof, but then that was utterly compromised when owner BAA filled all the space (and blocked all the sight lines) with wretched “retail opportunities”. For a long time BAA was, financiaor a long time BAA was, financially speaking, a car park operator and landlord for retail space, which happened to have a few runways as a sideline.

In fairness to BAA, Southampton airport isn’t bad, architecturally — a swooping bird, by Manser Associates, though it’s let down by the cheap materials. 
 

Heathrow T5 is a prime example of architectural ignorance — conceived as a soaring wavy form by Richard Rogers (just like the glorious roof at Madrid T5 by the same architects), BAA then handed-over the design to get it “value engineered”, which resulted in the current cheap-looking tin shed. Stuffed full of retail opportunities. 
 

Though the railway hasn’t been immune to that: British Rail cut off views of trains at Liverpool Street with lines of shops (having already tried the same thing at Euston, to make it look as much like an airport as possible).

 

And smaller but architecturally glorious stations like Barking have been ruined by poor maintenance and dreadful space management. The last time I was there, significant numbers of the retail opportunities had gone bust and been boarded-up — the worst of all worlds. 
 

But Waterloo and it’s new-ish balcony of shops and cafes is a rather good example of how to get a good balance, I think. 
 

Paul

 

Can't remember where I saw it, possibly in here, and it was in connection with Bristol Airport, but I've read that most airports are really, in business terms, shopping malls with runways attached. The revenue from the retail side far exceeds that from flights.

(Except of course without the flights you'd have no real need to go there).

[corneliuslundie]

One of the few times I went to Stansted I had great difficulty finding the boarding gate - a poorly signed passage between two retail outlets.

Mind you, very few airports I have flown to or from are architectural gems.

I fully appreciate that many of the Victorian stations have gone, and often because they were no longer able to cope with the traffic. But the fact that a good number of 1960s stations have since had to be rebuilt does not reflect well on the original design and construction.

One which does survive and I like for its spacious feel is Coventry. And from the few times I have used it I agree about Broxbourne.

I am not sure whether it was the earlier 1960s structures or the later ones which fared worst.

Of course one challenge has been incorporating lifts or ramps in buildings never designed for them- and it can add significantly to the cost of new buildings.

Anyway, perhaps it is time to get back to the topic of the thread. I admit that I have been as bad as others in diverting it.

Jonathan

[Ron Ron Ron]

9 hours ago, Fenman said:

I think the only UK airport building which is in the same league, architecturally, as some of the great railway buildings is Norman Foster’s terminal at Stansted. Huge, soaring roof, but then that was utterly compromised when owner BAA filled all the space (and blocked all the sight lines) with wretched “retail opportunities”........

 

I had the privilege of a guided tour of the Stansted Terminal building when it was being fitted out, prior to completion.

Our guide described the architectural concept and how the building was designed to be easily expanded by removing the curtain wall at the ends.

The owner at the time, the then BAA, chucked all that out of the window, by altering the internal layout and cramming in an excess of retail, mostly fast food and cheap outlets to satisfy the budget airline crowd. 
After one modest longitudinal extension of the terminal, the BAA then sanctioned the construction of other buildings that would effectively  prohibit any further extensions of the building.

It was quite sad to see what a scruffy mess it was by the early 00’s

 

 

9 hours ago, Fenman said:

.....In fairness to BAA, Southampton airport isn’t bad, architecturally — a swooping bird, by Manser Associates, though it’s let down by the cheap materials. .....

...except that they laid the terminal at 90 degrees to the orientation that it should have been.

Designed when the predominant and much smaller traffic load was limited to Channel Island flights and a handful of regional services using Jetstream sized aircraft.
10 years later the terminal was catering for a vastly different range of flights and a much busier passenger throughput and the layout of the terminal prevented a suitable expansion.

 

 

9 hours ago, Fenman said:

.....Heathrow T5 is a prime example of architectural ignorance — conceived as a soaring wavy form by Richard Rogers (just like the glorious roof at Madrid T5 by the same architects), BAA then handed-over the design to get it “value engineered”, which resulted in the current cheap-looking tin shed. Stuffed full of retail opportunities. ....

Except that T5 is a very good terminal and well laid out, with vast amounts of space.
The retail is mostly upmarket and tucked to the side and easily avoided.
There’s also no compulsory and unavoidable running the gauntlet of a so called Duty Free retail experience as you pass through to airside, unlike in many U.K. and overseas airports. That makes it many times better than lots of other airport terminals.

Architecturally, passengers arriving or leaving can see very little of the outside of the building as a whole. The clearest view if from the inside, where it counts the most.

 

 

.

[Mike Storey]

9 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

I'm sure I read recently somewhere that the retail buildings at Barking are being removed to restore the station hall to the original concept ?

 

 

I hope so - this was first planned in 2009!! Only the bus layby and exterior landscaping got done. I would guess they would want to get something positive done in time for the opening of the new line extension.

[Fenman]

2 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

...

Except that T5 is a very good terminal and well laid out, with vast amounts of space.
The retail is mostly upmarket and tucked to the side and easily avoided.
...

Except it’s really not. It's poorly planned, with unpleasant choke points as you move through, and deliberately forces you to walk excessive distances past retail opportunities.

 

An example: BA begged BAA to let their passengers access their lounges direct from security. BAA refused, knowing it would reduce shop rents. It took a decade before BAA finally agreed - after getting BA to pay compensation - and the First Wing opened. That’s at the opposite end of T5 from the public transport, but at least you now only walk one length of the terminal rather than two. 
 

If you think T5 is a “very good terminal”, you really need to travel more!
 

Paul