-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Redevelopment Plans for Liverpool Street - Development Policy Going Backwards
- Thread starter yorksrob
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The new one looks fantastic inside, far easier to get through and around, and the bit of the concourse you will linger on will be open to look over the trains and see the old roof properly - so not dingy as the light will be coming through the old roof.
Its currently horrible, difficult and crowded to get around, and the view of the train sheds is blocked by a load of cramped pastiche Toytown greenhouses.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Not just me then, I thought I was maybe mad. I dislike the present Liverpool St strongly. It's too small, it looks straight out of the 1990s, it's cluttered and crowded. It has a fancy building but it's mostly fake-old. This could well improve it.
I think the 1990s redevelopment was sympathetic and can find nothing in the new proposals to convince me that this will be an improvement. I'd almost prefer if they were going to completely remove the trainshed and restore it somewhere else - it's clearly in the way of what the developers would prefer, which is presumably something akin to New Street or New York's Penn station (not the new bit) with the largest office block they can get away with on top.
You could get rid of the toytown greenhouses quite easily, the problem with the proposal is that the concourse area will become dingy and covered over.
Trainbike46
Established Member
While liverpool street isn't perfect, these proposals to me seem to mostly make things worse
Last time I was at liverpool street they seemed to have removed some of the ticket machine kiosks that were in the middle of the concourse, which does somewhat help with crowding by freeing up space (and I guess we don't need as many ticket machines anymore due to increasing use of phone app ticketing, and in the near future, contactless extensions)
Last time I was at liverpool street they seemed to have removed some of the ticket machine kiosks that were in the middle of the concourse, which does somewhat help with crowding by freeing up space (and I guess we don't need as many ticket machines anymore due to increasing use of phone app ticketing, and in the near future, contactless extensions)
I really don't like New Street station; I'd hate if LST ended up resembling it in any way
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
One end of it already does, and to me the concourse has the same dated 1990s feel that New St's old upstairs had.
It won't be dingy if it's well lit.
Current shortcomings (and they've never struck me as that bad) are not an excuse to replace a pleasantly naturally lit concourse area with a concrete block.
The Eastern side is already "one end" too many.
You could have Piccadilly Circus down there, but it's no substitute for natural light.
Why will it be dingy with bright arched roofs?
And one side of the level you might linger on will be open to the train shed - you can sit on benches and look through/over a glass balustrade down the Victorian trainshed and watch the trains come and go.
If you actually have time to linger for long you can go up to the public podium garden or the public roof garden and look out over the city and St Pauls.
It is fantastic for rail passengers - multiple wide accesses and wide open concourses.
The main bit I don't like is the uninspiring grilled frontage over the main entrance. Its hiding plant and the bike sheds for the offices (huge facilities in new build offices - multiple cycle lifts to get to this one!) but its dull and doesn't really work with either the old building or the offices above. Could at least put a massive double arrow on it! (I notice that in one of the CGI renders of the concourse they have the double arrows the wrong way round...)
I think we need to look at this from a passenger perspective, not as an enthusiast.
Passengers need a bigger, easier to access and use concourse.
How many passengers actually hang around at the station to admire the architecture and how many arrive at the station, grab a coffee and head straight to their train?
As for it being covered over, half of the platforms are covered over already, is it really an issue, given as I said above, very few people actually hang around on them?
Passengers need a bigger, easier to access and use concourse.
How many passengers actually hang around at the station to admire the architecture and how many arrive at the station, grab a coffee and head straight to their train?
As for it being covered over, half of the platforms are covered over already, is it really an issue, given as I said above, very few people actually hang around on them?
I don't think you need to be a rail enthusiast, or even to be hanging around for ages, to enjoy open space and decent architecture. Turning it into a gloomy joyless "circulation space" under a million tonnes of concrete transforms that 15-20 minutes of all commuters' days from something potentially pleasant and uplifting into a further bit of misery.
I'm not particularly defending the current Liverpool Street, which I thought was fairly awful last time I was there, but nothing about this project suggests that any passengers will have their lives improved by it.
The concourse that we'll be using to catch the trains will be underneath the big office block.
The best thing about the old redevelopment was the way in which they continued back the old train shed over the opened out concourse and made it symmetrical.
Dr Hoo
Established Member
I think that it is just the 'back' of a suspended set of logos/roundels. Obviously the roundels appear to be the same from either direction but the double arrow can only be the normal way round from one.
Having now had the chance to see the impressions from some of the planning documents I have to say that it seems a lot better (for passengers, internally) than I had been led to believe from this thread. I remember using the 'original' station when I lived in Enfield in the 1970s and seeing the 1990s version built. IMHO the latter has quite a few limitations that the new plans seem to address quite well.
Where is all of the light in the renders coming from? In no way is it going to be anything but claustraphobic.
The lighting attachments aren't rendered, but will be provided from poles emitting light both upwards and downwards at the upper street level. Personally do not believe it will be claustraphobic with the height of the arched cieling proposed, I've seen similar before, the example that jumps to mind is the Westgate Shopping Centre in Oxford (North end), which feels anything but claustophobic, and in much narrower.
I'm sure they could open out the gateline and provide more lifts etc without removing the new part of the train shed, however that would preclude building a massive great office/hotel block. This is what is behind the fancy PR.
Its not a like a multi storey car park, it is under a high, arched, brightly lit roof. I can't say I remember the current one being exactly flooded with light.
It would still be cramped with not enough steps and escalators, not enough circulation space, and the upstairs would still be cramped with awkward right angle corners.
The vast majority of people will probably think it is actually lighter - glass roofs are rarely more brightly and evenly lit than a white roof.
The station gets made vastly better for passengers, the city gets better office and hotel space.
You want daylight go up on the roof gardens or sit on the benches overlooking trains in the Victorian trainshed
So we're replacing an attractive, vaulted glass roof running the length of the station, with a concrete edifice which will allegedly be brighter than natural light, with the Victorian train shed tacked on the end.
Don't get me wrong, I think that some elements of the 1980's rebuild are rather twee and could bear replacement, however I think that the roof in its entirety and the "McDonalds" building are the best bits of that restoration and should be retained
This proposal doesn't cut it for me.
RailWonderer
Established Member
The current building has it's pros and cons but the new design won't get rid of the north platforms, south tube entrance and east and west exits that lead to a clashing of four different crowds that make getting to your train like being in a ring of bumper cars. All it will do is clear some floor space by replacing the upper mezzanine with a solid floor with less light. White paint does not replace sunlight. Ultimately investment consortiums almost always get their way so I wouldn't expect to see opposition heard.
Regarding lighting we don’t have a lot of details, however having read through the given details it really doesn’t seem like it’s going to be bad. The majority of the building is lit to the required standards by daylight, but lighting will also be enhanced by artificial lighting, keeping the entire space at the required lighting level dynamically according to the area.
Of course this is obviously just the plan, and whether they manage it is another matter.
Also its how the "required lighting level" compares to natural daylight.
It will obviously be dimmer than outdoor daylight, We can't say how much dimmer than the current lighting without some form of measurement for the station as it is now, which we do not have access to, however I don't think. As for required, it is a misspeak on may part to call it required, it is more recommended for a public space, and the levels fall far above the Network Rail recommendations for stations. Personally from what I have read I do not think it will be 'dark' or 'dingy' as others in this thread have said, although it will obviously not be quite as bright as currently.
I know what you're saying, however I just think that the current roof provides a more pleasant environment for passengers. Better than the original pre-1980's refurb station and this proposal.
You make a fair point, and something like it would be the ideal situation, however I think this is the best daylighting situation possible given the constraint of having to build the office/hotel block above, in order to finance the project. I don't think it should be neglected that the project is a huge positive for the station overall, and less daylight isn't a reason to stop a project which will be a positive for the station. Realistical the project won't go ahead without the attached office/hotel block, and therefore any project will involve the removal of part of the train shed roof.
I suppose the question is whether there are less destructive ways to provide extra circulating space, lifts etc in a large station.
There are undoubtedly less destructive ways, but without funding for such projects they cannot happen, and I doubt Liverpool Street is high on the DfT's list of stations for goveernment funding given work was done fairly recently.
Trainbike46
Established Member
A big problem I have with this project is that it appears to be driven by the desire to build the hotel office block above it, rather than by changing it to meet passenger's and the railways needs.
And I certainly am not convinced that any of the proposals will actually improve the situation for passengers significantly
And I certainly am not convinced that any of the proposals will actually improve the situation for passengers significantly
There certainly are, for example by removing some of the remaining structure that are on the main concourse, like the help desk (people can go to the ticket office for queries instead). Or removing the shops between the concourse and the platforms to create a wider gateline
I suppose that's an issue, but given how much has been spent on the EL, opening out some space on the concourse and providing additional lifts etc seems like a cost effective improvement in itself.
Indeed. When I've used it, the structure between the concourse and platforms has seemed a bit in the way. Perhaps a start could be achieved by removing this.
We've slready spent x billion, might as well spend a few more million is the attitude that helped cause HS2 cost overruns. The removal of the structure between the concourse and platforms would be extremely costy, both in demoliton, reconfiguration of the space, and loss of passive income from the retail outlets, since there is nowhere to relocate them to. At that point you've already detracted from the station at the cost of tens of millions of pounds. The issue which snags proposals to increase circulation is that it often requires removing facilities, which reflects very badly on a cost benefit analysis.
The reality is however that even if a good plan could be put forward whic brings a relatively positive cost benefit, the money is not there, and needs to be spent on other stations in worse of a state across the network. In my opinion the DfT is not going to spend more public money on Liverpool Street anytime soon, and it does come down to this redevelopment, or nothing.
I've used Liverpool Street. Barely anyone used to venture to the outlets above the barriers from what I could see.
I'm not convinced that their deconstruction would feature greatly in terms of NR spend.
Liverpool Street is a fairly important station in the scheme of things. It seems ridiculous that funding can't be found to dismantle some buildings that are in the way, and install some more lifts.
Don't get me wrong - this would be a good opportunity for NR to flog some airspace - perfectly understandable given the circumstances.
Why can't they flog it on the station approach, rather than ruining an attractive London terminal.