Euston overcrowding at TfL/LU entrance caused by new Network Rail departure boards

[bramling]

It was for the night tube. The old arrangement was a small door opposite Sainsbury's, not ideal. I suppose they had contingency plans in case of a fire or whatever, but with the new arrangement they can manage tube passenger flows a lot better.

I don’t think it was entirely about Night Tube.

There was a desire to end the arrangement where the two stations were indelibly linked as far as passenger flows are concerned. So for example avoiding the situation where a closure of the mainline concourse due to overcrowding (not particularly unusual!) doesn’t result in the LU stations having to be closed as well.

 

[urbophile]

I don’t think it was entirely about Night Tube.

There was a desire to end the arrangement where the two stations were indelibly linked as far as passenger flows are concerned. So for example avoiding the situation where a closure of the mainline concourse due to overcrowding (not particularly unusual!) doesn’t result in the LU stations having to be closed as well.

Why would it, if all were needed were the raising of one barrier and lowering of another?

 

[RailWonderer]

Paddington boards by platform 1 are far worse, as passengers passing though the arches from the Lizzy line are straight away pushed and collided into when they stop to read the boards. People come from the shops to the right and the platform to the left and it’s starting to feel like Liverpool St but worse on weekends as it’s primarily an IC terminal.

 

[bramling]

Why would it, if all were needed were the raising of one barrier and lowering of another?

It didn’t work like that before. Because the only practical entrance / exit to the Underground station was via the mainline concourse, in the event that the mainline station closed then it also became necessary to close the Underground station. The new arrangement avoids that - though I’m not sure what happens if the fire alarm goes off upstairs as the upper escalators are still technically part of the mainline station, so that might still affect LU.

But what should not happen now is the LU station having to evacuate if the mainline station closes its doors due to overcrowding - which isn’t exactly uncommon during disruption. It might also actually reduce the likelihood of overcrowding on the mainline as it’s now easier to regulate entry to the station, whereas before there was no way of stopping people passing from LU to NR.

 

[urbophile]

It didn’t work like that before. Because the only practical entrance / exit to the Underground station was via the mainline concourse, in the event that the mainline station closed then it also became necessary to close the Underground station. The new arrangement avoids that - though I’m not sure what happens if the fire alarm goes off upstairs as the upper escalators are still technically part of the mainline station, so that might still affect LU.

But what should not happen now is the LU station having to evacuate if the mainline station closes its doors due to overcrowding - which isn’t exactly uncommon during disruption. It might also actually reduce the likelihood of overcrowding on the mainline as it’s now easier to regulate entry to the station, whereas before there was no way of stopping people passing from LU to NR.

As I remember it before, the entrance to the LU station was via escalators from the main concourse. Those escalators are in the same place: all that has happened is that a new opening has been made in the outside wall, and the opening from the concourse has been sealed off. I don't know if it's a solid wall or a permanently closed gate; if the former, it could surely be replaced by a gate which rather than being permanently closed should be normally open, and only closed in times of congestion or emergency. Access would still be available from the other opening.

 

[modernrail]

As I remember it before, the entrance to the LU station was via escalators from the main concourse. Those escalators are in the same place: all that has happened is that a new opening has been made in the outside wall, and the opening from the concourse has been sealed off. I don't know if it's a solid wall or a permanently closed gate; if the former, it could surely be replaced by a gate which rather than being permanently closed should be normally open, and only closed in times of congestion or emergency. Access would still be available from the other opening.

Yes that is what feels to be to be much more sensible. At the very least the up flow should have an exit option directly into the station but ideally it should be two way.

I can just about see an argument for exit only as that would allow entrance and exit from the outside entrance without creating cross-flows at the top of the escalators. That gives 3 non-conflicting entrance/exit flows. It would still result in the current awkward exit to re-enter.

Is there any other terminal station in London that has removed direct access?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Is there any other terminal station in London that has removed direct access?

Over the years several London termini have had more organised Underground access. St Pancras immediately springs to mind. Paddington (Hammersmith & City), Liverpool Street after the 1980s rebuild, Victoria, Blackfriars, Cannon Street and London Bridge have also seen significant changes.

Considerations like crowd control, secondary egress, fire segregation and lifts have become much more important.

 

[bramling]

As I remember it before, the entrance to the LU station was via escalators from the main concourse. Those escalators are in the same place: all that has happened is that a new opening has been made in the outside wall, and the opening from the concourse has been sealed off. I don't know if it's a solid wall or a permanently closed gate; if the former, it could surely be replaced by a gate which rather than being permanently closed should be normally open, and only closed in times of congestion or emergency. Access would still be available from the other opening.

Yes presumably they could have done that, though for whatever reason they haven’t. I’m not sure if the chosen solution includes any separation from the point of view of the fire detection systems, that could provide a possible explanation. Anyone know the answer?

 

[Trackman]

I don’t think it was entirely about Night Tube.

There was a desire to end the arrangement where the two stations were indelibly linked as far as passenger flows are concerned. So for example avoiding the situation where a closure of the mainline concourse due to overcrowding (not particularly unusual!) doesn’t result in the LU stations having to be closed as well.

Only saying what I was told. The underground station gets shut more often than the mainline station due to overcrowding. Like both they usually become exit only.

 

[DelW]

Yes presumably they could have done that, though for whatever reason they haven’t. I’m not sure if the chosen solution includes any separation from the point of view of the fire detection systems, that could provide a possible explanation. Anyone know the answer?

Might it be related to the fact that every recent change at Euston seems to be intended to make passengers' experience of the station as inconvenient, miserable and unpleasant as possible?
Euston has never been a welcoming place but the current management seems actively to despise those people who are forced to use the station.
Moving the departures information to inconvenient locations, corralling passengers on the concourse until the last possible moment, bellowing at passengers who transgress invented rules .... pushing all passengers changing to or from the tube outside into the weather is just one more gratuitous nastiness.

 

[Taunton]

Might it be related to the fact that every recent change at Euston seems to be intended to make passengers' experience of the station as inconvenient, miserable and unpleasant as possible?
Euston has never been a welcoming place but the current management seems actively to despise those people who are forced to use the station.
Moving the departures information to inconvenient locations, corralling passengers on the concourse until the last possible moment, bellowing at passengers who transgress invented rules .... pushing all passengers changing to or from the tube outside into the weather is just one more gratuitous nastiness.

Reaching the National newspapers. Article in The Independent today:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/ne...1&cvid=f98eae366efd4c6bb7f53dbd343aa9c2&ei=69

"Passengers who stampede like Wildebeests"

 

[43066]

Reaching the National newspapers. Article in The Independent today:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/ne...1&cvid=f98eae366efd4c6bb7f53dbd343aa9c2&ei=69

"Passengers who stampede like Wildebeests"

Interesting article, much of which I agree with.

The Euston concourse is a hostile, claustrophobic, menacing space. Which I suspect adds to the issues - operational matters aside.

It’s a truly ghastly station.

 

[bramling]

Interesting article, much of which I agree with.

The Euston concourse is a hostile, claustrophobic, menacing space. Which I suspect adds to the issues - operational matters aside.

It’s a truly ghastly station.

What gets me with Euston is everything that is done to the place seems to make it worse. The balcony in particular has contributed to making the concourse quite claustrophobic, and the new departure boards seem to add to this feeling.

To complete the experience there always seem to be announcements playing, in particular some pretty rambling ones about engineering work which seem to be specifically created to do nothing useful but add irritating background noise to the station.

Absolutely horrific station in every single respect.

 

[Taunton]

You are right about the incessant irrelevant announcements. There was likewise a takeover of the first new inside information board when I was last there, about future engineering works. A nice notice in one or two columns would be reasonable. No, they had been allowed to take over the whole board in garish text. All passengers seeking platforms etc were thus squashed looking at just the second one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You are right about the incessant irrelevant announcements. There was likewise a takeover of the first new inside information board when I was last there, about future engineering works. A nice notice in one or two columns would be reasonable. No, they had been allowed to take over the whole board in garish text. All passengers seeking platforms etc were thus squashed looking at just the second one.

It's like that because if they put departures on that screen people stand in the way blocking the exit from the station. It is yet another example of how poorly thought through this all was.

 

[Dr Hoo]

It's like that because if they put departures on that screen people stand in the way blocking the exit from the station. It is yet another example of how poorly thought through this all was.

There are, of course, three sets of departure boards generally in use, two in the 'middle' and one of the booking office side. As I understand it they can all be re-configured, e.g. to cover maintenance, including the one on the Eversholt Street side if appropriate.

I am struggling to understand why using the board (as a default) to display essentially 'static' advice, e.g about future engineering work that people can just glance at and then move on, thereby leaving a wide walkway for exit from the low-numbered platforms, is seen as being 'poorly thought through'. Seems like a good idea to me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are, of course, three sets of departure boards generally in use, two in the 'middle' and one of the booking office side. As I understand it they can all be re-configured, e.g. to cover maintenance, including the one on the Eversholt Street side if appropriate.

I am struggling to understand why using the board (as a default) to display essentially 'static' advice, e.g about future engineering work that people can just glance at and then move on, thereby leaving a wide walkway for exit from the low-numbered platforms, is seen as being 'poorly thought through'. Seems like a good idea to me.

It's poorly thought through because people entering the station via its busiest entrance (the main way in from the bus and Tube) do not pass a departure board (other than the small one hanging from the ceiling) on the way in, unlike when it was in its previous location where the stupid advert is.

It would be better in my view to completely remove that board leaving only the other one, which would balance where people stand based on how busy each entrance is.

 

[modernrail]

It's poorly thought through because people entering the station via its busiest entrance (the main way in from the bus and Tube) do not pass a departure board (other than the small one hanging from the ceiling) on the way in, unlike when it was in its previous location where the stupid advert is.

It would be better in my view to completely remove that board leaving only the other one, which would balance where people stand based on how busy each entrance is.

Exactly. So what happens is now is you enter and are forced to enter the very small middle scrum area to find out anything about trains departing. Previously you just looked up.

As the middle scrum gets more scrum like it takes people longer to get into and out of it. That causes backing up at the sides.

It might be better if people enter from the middle into the station and if the long distance platforms were in the middle but the opposite is true. The entrances are on the sides, suburban platforms in the middle. So they have created the most stupid possible flow where you enter from a side and then fight your way into a small space in the middle and then fight your way back out to the sides.

I also cannot see how that massive advertising board got through accessibility. It must be triggering for all sorts of groups at the level of brightness and dominance, especially in a station that is already ultra chaotic. It beggars belief really, no concern for vulnerable passenger groups.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With the taxi rank having moved to the Tube side too it's going to get worse still.

Whoever thought of this needs the sack. There's nothing good about it at all.

 

[dosxuk]

In case people are unaware, LED screens can have their brightness significantly adjusted, from just visible in a dark room all the way up to readable in direct sunlight. The brightness of a screen in a particular location is by choice, not a side effect of the choice of display technology.

If people are concerned that a screen is so bright that it is causing them discomfort, they should contact the operator of the screen and tell them so. If they agree, the screen will be able to be adjusted. Telling them that a screen is too bright and should therefore be completely removed is unlikely to be received as constructive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In case people are unaware, LED screens can have their brightness significantly adjusted, from just visible in a dark room all the way up to readable in direct sunlight. The brightness of a screen in a particular location is by choice, not a side effect of the choice of display technology.

If people are concerned that a screen is so bright that it is causing them discomfort, they should contact the operator of the screen and tell them so. If they agree, the screen will be able to be adjusted. Telling them that a screen is too bright and should therefore be completely removed is unlikely to be received as constructive.

It's not just brightness, it's large moving images, flashing etc.

Personally I would like to see a complete ban on "TV style" billboard advertising. It is disruptive and unpleasant wherever it is found. Keep Piccadilly Circus as a one off exhibit.

 

[dosxuk]

It's not just brightness, it's large moving images, flashing etc.

Likewise, if these are actually causing you issues, then complain with details. Many advertising sites have restrictions on what content can be displayed - the best example is that only static images are allowed on most roadside advertising screens aimed at drivers - there is no reason why suitable restrictions couldn't be placed on the content on the Euston screen if they are actually causing problems. These types of screens have been in use for decades, and there is mountains of research on both the positive and negative effects of the content shown this way.

Personally I would like to see a complete ban on "TV style" billboard advertising. It is disruptive and unpleasant wherever it is found. Keep Piccadilly Circus as a one off exhibit.

If you (and the others making similar complaints), don't want the advertising at all, then that should be the base of your complaint - not wrapped up in vague "somebody might have an adverse effect" reasoning. Most of the complaints actually made on these threads are about things that can be altered or changed without removal of the advertising screen, but the solution that most posters have is removal is the only option.

It's very similar to the widely held belief on this site that all LED lighting is overly bright and harsh. It's a complete fallacy, with brightness, colour temperature, fixture type and directioness (is that a word) being choices made by operators and ROSCO's. If people want better lighting, they should be complaining that the quality of the light is too bright / too cold / shines directly in their eyes, rather than complaining that LEDs are being used.

 

[bramling]

Likewise, if these are actually causing you issues, then complain with details. Many advertising sites have restrictions on what content can be displayed - the best example is that only static images are allowed on most roadside advertising screens aimed at drivers - there is no reason why suitable restrictions couldn't be placed on the content on the Euston screen if they are actually causing problems. These types of screens have been in use for decades, and there is mountains of research on both the positive and negative effects of the content shown this way.



If you (and the others making similar complaints), don't want the advertising at all, then that should be the base of your complaint - not wrapped up in vague "somebody might have an adverse effect" reasoning. Most of the complaints actually made on these threads are about things that can be altered or changed without removal of the advertising screen, but the solution that most posters have is removal is the only option.

It's very similar to the widely held belief on this site that all LED lighting is overly bright and harsh. It's a complete fallacy, with brightness, colour temperature, fixture type and directioness (is that a word) being choices made by operators and ROSCO's. If people want better lighting, they should be complaining that the quality of the light is too bright / too cold / shines directly in their eyes, rather than complaining that LEDs are being used.

In the case of Euston I suspect people are rather cynical about the original departure board being replaced by something inferior, and then finding the space taken by an advertising board. Hence the negativity towards the advertising.

It unfortunately all goes with the theme that someone almost seems to be trying their hardest to make Euston as unpleasant as possible, which given just how awful the station has become isn’t an entirely unreasonable conclusion to come to.

 

[Failed Unit]

How long ahead of departure do they typically put trains platforms up? I just looked now on my mobile phone and the 12:33 Manchester via Wilmslow still hadn’t got a platform, but neither had anything else including the London Overground.

 

[modernrail]

How long ahead of departure do they typically put trains platforms up? I just looked now on my mobile phone and the 12:33 Manchester via Wilmslow still hadn’t got a platform, but neither had anything else including the London Overground.

Usually about 1 minute before the close the gate line

As for the screens - name me another enclosed public space as chaotic as mainline terminal that has anything approaching the scale and motion of the new advertising screens at Euston.

Yes the brightness is one problem, but it is only one of the problems. They really are a hideous addition, even if you are neutral on removing the departure boards.

 

[Trackman]

How long ahead of departure do they typically put trains platforms up?

About 12 mins for Avanti in my experience (when the wind is blowing in the right direction and the stars are aligned in a certain position).
1H01 22:03 to Picc was called at 18 mins before this evening.

 

[norbitonflyer]

How long ahead of departure do they typically put trains platforms up?

At least 28 hours in the case of Sunday night's Caledonian Sleeper!

Odd announcements on these boards this afternoon. (Saturday) One said that tonight's Caledonian Sleeper would leave from Platform 1. (Unless Friday's sleeper was going to depart at least 18 hours late.....)

Another said the Overground was closed - without making it clear that only applied to the Watford line.