Euston Station
 

[original thread on uk.railway]
[x-posted to uk.transport.london]

On 31 Jan, 23:52, Martin Petrov wrote:
The new stuff that's being built outside of Euston at the moment - is
that preparation work for rebuilding the main station? Or not related
at all?


It's not preparation work for the big rebuild, instead it's more
immediate improvements, although Network Rail say they will
"complement" the proposed future redevelopment. The big rebuilding of
the station, being led by the property company British Land, won't
begin until at least 2011, so says Building magazine - though I
wouldn't be amazingly surprised if this got put back, and I suppose
it's possible this particular scheme may never happen. Note that I
don't have any inside info though, just speculating.

Also, aside from considerations about the economy, I dare say it might
not be considered ideal for one of the main London termini to be in
the process of being rebuilt whilst the Olympics are on. Plus, in the
hard to imagine situation that the Tories get moving on their high
speed rail plans (assuming they get elected in 2010, which is what I
and pretty much everyone else is assuming), then Euston is regarded as
the obvious choice of the London end of it as it has enough space to
accommodate it. The planned arrival of a high-speed line and
subsequent requirement to rebuild Euston in a different way could I
suppose put the brakes on the present redevelopment plan - unless the
current plan would be compatible?

Anyway, here's some more information - first Network Rail on what they
call the "Euston Station upgrade":
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/4771.aspx

And a short Building Magazine news piece from 2007 on British Land
winning the redevelopment contract for Euston:
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3084568

Euston Station
 

On 1 Feb, 00:50, Mizter T wrote:
And a short Building Magazine news piece from 2007 on British Land
winning the redevelopment contract for Euston:
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3084568

I don't know why they bother wasting the money; they're planning to
build an ugly monstrosity that's nearly identical to the horrific
inhumanity that's there now.

Euston Station
 

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:12:55 -0800 (PST), lonelytraveller
wrote:

On 1 Feb, 00:50, Mizter T wrote:
And a short Building Magazine news piece from 2007 on British Land
winning the redevelopment contract for Euston:
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3084568

I don't know why they bother wasting the money

They're probably not given that it'll turn into a shopping mall with a
station attached (as has happened at Manchester Piccadilly)! It's
definitely a vast improvement over the old station concourse, though.

Euston Station
 

"Mizter T" wrote...
... then Euston is regarded as
the obvious choice of the London end of it as it has enough space to
accommodate it.

Whuh?

The assumption that Euston will host HS2 is way off; I don't think *anybody*
regards it as the obvious choice.

Indeed, all my reading suggests there's zero likelihood.

HS2 will be tacked onto HS1, allowing for Eurostar to (eventually) fulfill
my Dad's ambition of traveling from Edinburgh to Amsterdam without changing
trains (My grandchildren might just make it!).

But in practical terms, that means New Build starting from a junction on the
Stratford-StP link, heading off to Heathrow and Watford Gap.

As many of the trains *will* go HS1HS2 without terminating, the terminating
facilities at St.P can shared between HS1 & HS2 trains that do need it.

Effectively, HS1-HS2 will be a continuous line from the North (or at least
the W Midlands) to Europe, with a spur for St P, accessed from both the
North and South. Some trains will go into StP and reverse out, most will use
the Stratford/Ebbsfleet/Heathrow interchanges.

If Eurostar (or its successor) gives in to the pressure to terminate all in
central London, then you can bet that an open access operator will choose
not to, and cream off all the through traffic.

Such a scheme does several things:

1. It saves the cost of 'new' International Terminus half a mile form the
current International Terminus
2. It saves passenger confusion and movement
3. It takes advantage of StP's interchange facilities (MUCH better than
Euston's)
4. It (finally) provides a raison d'etre for Stratford-I
5. Euston does NOT have 'space' to spare to give away 4-5 segregated
platforms for a 'new' service
6. The central London requirement is the junction for N-bound HS1 trains to
bypass St.P, and the spur for Europe-bound HS2 trains to access StP. Much of
that already exists!

The days of jigsaw railways have gone; to compete effectively with domestic
airlines, a little join-up thinking will be required by DfT
--

Andrew

"If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z.
Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." ~ Albert Einstein

Euston Station
 

"Andrew Heenan" wrote

The assumption that Euston will host HS2 is way off; I don't think
*anybody*
regards it as the obvious choice.

Most of the trains and passengers using HS2 will be travelling to/from
London - the trains will in effect be diverted to HS2 from the WCML (leaving
space on the WCML for commuters and freight). Diversion of these trains to
HS2 will vacate space at Euston, which can be used for the HS2 terminus. St
Pancras could not accommodate an extra 12-15 InterCity trains each hour.

Most of the trains on HS2 will not be running through from HS1 - the few
that may will be able to use the Camden Road - Primrose Hill link. Not
ideal, but can a business case be made for a high speed link between HS1 in
the St Pancras throat and HS2?

Even if any Central London station could be set up for North of England -
European Mainland trains to call (allowing for any necessary security and
border formalities) it is likely that in practice most trains would continue
to terminate in London.

Peter

Euston Station
 

It's not preparation work for the big rebuild, instead it's more
immediate improvements, although Network Rail say they will
"complement" the proposed future redevelopment. The big rebuilding of
the station, being led by the property company British Land, won't
begin until at least 2011, so says Building magazine - though I
wouldn't be amazingly surprised if this got put back, and I suppose
it's possible this particular scheme may never happen. Note that I
don't have any inside info though, just speculating.

Cheers, cheers, cheers!

We had been speculating yesterday that it might be the start of a
temporary ticket office, which made a bit of sense, except I didn't
recall seeing anything on here (or elsewhere) about a definite start
to the work.

Euston Station
 

"Peter Masson" wrote
Most of the trains on HS2 will not be running through from HS1 - the few
that may will be able to use the Camden Road - Primrose Hill link.

I don't think so!

The justification for HS1 - especially the 'via Heathrow' imperative,
suggests slightly less parochial thinking.

It would be frankly stupid NOT to have the possibility of fast HS1-HS2
transit - way beyond any stupidity displayed so far by DfT (yes, THAT
stupid), and I see no justification for building any 'new' station.

With the model I've proposed, there is the facilty for plain 'ole intercity
trains piggybacking, joining north of Euston somewhere, and then peeling off
oop North to cities not served directly by HS2 (?Liverpool, eg), just as
395s will join at Ebbsfleet, and then go to separate platforms at St. P.

Euston needs no rebuilding (beyond the current plans), and HS1, HS2 (etc)
would be a coherent high speed railway - a trick the motorways learned back
in 1961 (ish).

There is a stated aspiration for HS1 to reach Heathrow, which can only be
via HS2 (surely), so there is already a case made (and understood by DfT),
for the two to connect. And I find it really hard to visualize trains from
Heathrow going to Euston OR St Pancras OR Stratford for Europe.

HS2 is not simply an intercity-bypass. Bet you a pound that St Pancras is
designated THE HS station for London.
--

Andrew

Euston Station
 

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as
lonelytraveller gently
breathed:
On 1 Feb, 00:50, Mizter T wrote:

And a short Building Magazine news piece from 2007 on British Land
winning the redevelopment contract for Euston:
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3084568

I don't know why they bother wasting the money; they're planning to
build an ugly monstrosity that's nearly identical to the horrific
inhumanity that's there now.

Euston is pretty much a lost cause, I think. The only real solution
would be to send a team of trainee architects untainted by the scourge
of "modernism" to examine St Pancras, and Glasgow Central, and
Manchester Piccadilly, and learn how a main line terminus station should
be designed, with beautiful and imposing buildings, a glass roof
supported by impressive-looking steelwork, and using traditional
materials like brick and stone. And of course to include a replica of
the "arch".

But that'd cost money, and no-one in the DfT (who at the end of the day
pay for such things) seems to believe that it's important for the
capital city terminus of one of our most prestigious routes should be
anything other than dull and utilitarian.

We just have to trust that the Grade-1 listings of the beautiful
Victorian termini we still have will prevent them from ever being
reduced to the concrete horror of Euston (and perhaps Euston itself as
an on-going warning to future generations that once you allow someone to
demolish the good stuff, it can never be replaced).

Writing in The Times, Richard Morrison stated that "even by the bleak
standards of Sixties architecture, Euston is one of the nastiest
concrete boxes in London: devoid of any decorative merit; seemingly
concocted to induce maximum angst among passengers; and a blight on
surrounding streets. The design should never have left the drawing-board
- if, indeed, it was ever on a drawing-board. It gives the impression of
having been scribbled on the back of a soiled paper bag by a thuggish
android with a grudge against humanity and a vampiric loathing of
sunlight".

--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net
- http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com

Euston Station
 

On 1 Feb, 13:31, Pyromancer
wrote:
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as
lonelytraveller gently
breathed:

On 1 Feb, 00:50, Mizter T wrote:
And a short Building Magazine news piece from 2007 on British Land
winning the redevelopment contract for Euston:
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3084568
I don't know why they bother wasting the money; they're planning to
build an ugly monstrosity that's nearly identical to the horrific
inhumanity that's there now.

Euston is pretty much a lost cause, I think. *The only real solution
would be to send a team of trainee architects untainted by the scourge
of "modernism" to examine St Pancras, and Glasgow Central, and
Manchester Piccadilly, and learn how a main line terminus station should
be designed, with beautiful and imposing buildings, a glass roof
supported by impressive-looking steelwork, and using traditional
materials like brick and stone. *And of course to include a replica of
the "arch".

But that'd cost money
Or they could just rebuild it as it used to look, but scaled and re-
oriented appropriately for the modern size and location of the
station.

Euston Station
 

On 1 Feb, 13:20, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:
There is a stated aspiration for HS1 to reach Heathrow, which can only be
via HS2 (surely), so there is already a case made (and understood by DfT),
for the two to connect. And I find it really hard to visualize trains from
Heathrow going to Euston OR St Pancras OR Stratford for Europe.

The suggested service patterns in the Heathrow hub scheme a
- The North -- Heathrow Hub -- Euston
- The North -- Heathrow Hub -- Stratford -- Europe
- St Pancras -- Europe

In other words, there are no Heathrow/HS2-St Pancras services, and no
international services at Euston.

(also, I'd expect most if not all HS2-HS1 services to start at
Heathrow, with passengers from the north expected to change)

U

Euston Station
 

Pyromancer wrote:


Euston is pretty much a lost cause, I think. The only real solution
would be to send a team of trainee architects untainted by the scourge
of "modernism" to examine St Pancras, and Glasgow Central, and
Manchester Piccadilly, and learn how a main line terminus station
should be designed, with beautiful and imposing buildings, a glass
roof supported by impressive-looking steelwork, and using traditional
materials like brick and stone. And of course to include a replica of
the "arch".

I don't know. Despite its faults, Euston does at least get one thing
right: it keeps the trains firmly out of sight of the concourse. For
many people, it's bad enough having to make a long journey by train,
without having to be reminded of how depressing trains can be by
actually having to look at them while you wait.

That's one thing that St Pancras only managed to get right with the
latest redevelopment, giving us that new basement-level shopping mall
and concourse, tucked nicely away from the trains. (After all, unlike
stations, shopping malls are places that most people actually enjoy
visiting spending time in.) And before it was redeveloped, St Pancras
was one of the bleakest, gloomiest, most depressing stations in London.

Euston Station
 

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 13:31:20 +0000, Pyromancer wrote

Euston is pretty much a lost cause, I think. The only real solution
would be to send a team of trainee architects untainted by the scourge
of "modernism" to examine St Pancras, and Glasgow Central, and
Manchester Piccadilly, and learn how a main line terminus station should
be designed, with beautiful and imposing buildings, a glass roof
supported by impressive-looking steelwork, and using traditional
materials like brick and stone.

Given that the railway is supposed to be the transport mode of the future -
new major terminals should reflect the best we can offer today. By all
means keep the best of what's gone before - the recent rebirth of St Pancras
shows how well that can be done, but pastiche and/or replica doesn't suit a
modern public building such as (say) Euston.

Look at Chep Lap Kok, built from scratch to do the job and act as a state of
the art structure into the bargain. No-one would have seriously suggested
that the terminal should have been a replica of Kai Tak.

In it's day Euston was a staggering building; a true examplar of Britain's
New Railway. Sadly it's since been debased to a point where it's of no real
architectural merit and barely functions as an effective public space.

Zaha Hadid, IM Pei, Frank Gehry, even Richard Rogers, could produce a
stunning terminal but, as you say, "that'd cost money, and no-one in the DfT
(who at the end of the day pay for such things) seems to believe that it's
important for the capital city terminus of one of our most prestigious routes
should be anything other than dull and utilitarian"

Euston Station
 

On 1 Feb, 14:49, Stimpy wrote:
Given that the railway is supposed to be the transport mode of the future -
new major terminals should reflect the best we can offer today.
There's no justification in claiming that classicism isn't the best we
can offer today.

pastiche and/or replica doesn't suit a
modern public building such as (say) Euston.
The new design is a pastiche. Its a pastiche of 60s modernism.

Look at Chep Lap Kok
Very clinical isn't it.

In it's day Euston was a staggering building
That day was before the 1960s.

Zaha Hadid, IM Pei, Frank Gehry, even Richard Rogers, could produce a
stunning terminal
No. They could produce an eyesore. They've done that before.

Euston Station
 

In message , at 14:39:11 on Sun, 1 Feb
2009, solar penguin remarked:
That's one thing that St Pancras only managed to get right with the
latest redevelopment, giving us that new basement-level shopping mall
and concourse, tucked nicely away from the trains.

It's only "tucked away" from the domestic trains because the latter have
been relegated to a windswept 1950's loo-wall structure built entirely
outside the original station, and a route-march from the rest of
humanity.
--
Roland Perry

Euston Station
 

"lonelytraveller" wrote in
message
...

Zaha Hadid, IM Pei, Frank Gehry, even Richard Rogers, could produce a
stunning terminal
No. They could produce an eyesore. They've done that before.

Before advocating Zaha Hadid as an architect for any project, check out the
analysis done by a Real Firefighter (tm) on her Fire Station (in Germany
IIRC).

--
Tim
http://tim-fenton.fotopic.net/

Euston Station
 

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:12:55 -0800 (PST), lonelytraveller
wrote:

I don't know why they bother wasting the money; they're planning to
build an ugly monstrosity that's nearly identical to the horrific
inhumanity that's there now.

ITYM very effective station. It's warm, bright, spacious and
accessible (OK, the platforms aren't, but it isn't designed for you to
wait on them, except for the commuter services). A fine station by
all accounts, and one that so long as it is structurally sound could
carry on as it is for another 20 years.

The one thing I'd change is to add a barriered walkway either up the
middle or up both sides, marked for people not to stand there, so
people can reach the platforms from the outside world without
crowd-dodging.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Euston Station
 

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 14:39:11 -0000, "solar penguin"
wrote:

That's one thing that St Pancras only managed to get right with the
latest redevelopment, giving us that new basement-level shopping mall
and concourse, tucked nicely away from the trains.

I find it claustrophobic compared with Euston's high-ceilinged Great
Hall, which is certainly deserving of the name.

I wasn't impressed with St P, to be honest. It feels unfinished,
scruffy and poorly-designed. The trainshed is indeed impressive, but
that's all, and I don't go to stations to look at architecture, but to
catch trains.

Paddington is another example of a station that "looks nice" but is
poorly-designed for the passenger. Cold and reeking of diesel fumes,
and "The Lawn" (why's it called that? No grass...) is far too packed
in.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Euston Station
 

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 05:02:36 -0800 (PST), Martin Petrov
wrote:

We had been speculating yesterday that it might be the start of a
temporary ticket office, which made a bit of sense, except I didn't
recall seeing anything on here (or elsewhere) about a definite start
to the work.

It isn't for that. It's for retail space to replace (and add to) that
which was removed to make more circulating space inside the station.

I think they're aiming at a kind of outdoors version of Manc Picc.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Euston Station
 

In message , Neil Williams
writes

I wasn't impressed with St P, to be honest.
[...]
The trainshed is indeed impressive, but that's all,

There are some nice features on the ground floor, but the overwhelming
impression is of just another shopping mall, which will probably go the
way of many such places in the current economic climate.

Paddington is another example of a station that "looks nice" but is
poorly-designed for the passenger. Cold and reeking of diesel fumes,
and "The Lawn" (why's it called that? No grass...) is far too packed
in.

IIRC, the lawn was once part of the stationmaster's garden.
--
Paul Terry

Euston Station
 

Neil Williams wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 14:39:11 -0000, "solar penguin"
wrote:

That's one thing that St Pancras only managed to get right with the
latest redevelopment, giving us that new basement-level shopping mall
and concourse, tucked nicely away from the trains.

I find it claustrophobic compared with Euston's high-ceilinged Great
Hall, which is certainly deserving of the name.

I wasn't impressed with St P, to be honest. It feels unfinished,
scruffy and poorly-designed. The trainshed is indeed impressive, but
that's all, and I don't go to stations to look at architecture, but to
catch trains.

They could raise the money to make it look finished by charging a quid
to everyone who says "yes, the old bit looks nice, but when are they
going to put something permanent in place of that temporary bit where
the MML/EMT/Thameslink/FCC on a weekend go from?"

The last time I was playing "hunt the snorbans train" I was surprised to
find there are no ticket machines around the MML platforms, you have to
go downstairs.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Euston Station
 

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:39:11 on Sun, 1 Feb
2009, solar penguin remarked:
That's one thing that St Pancras only managed to get right with the
latest redevelopment, giving us that new basement-level shopping mall
and concourse, tucked nicely away from the trains.

It's only "tucked away" from the domestic trains because the latter have
been relegated to a windswept 1950's loo-wall structure built entirely
outside the original station, and a route-march from the rest of
humanity.

Windswept is good, given the diesel fumes.

Euston Station
 

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 19:17:29 +0000, Paul Terry
wrote:

There are some nice features on the ground floor, but the overwhelming
impression is of just another shopping mall, which will probably go the
way of many such places in the current economic climate.

True. While retail can provide a useful facility in a station[1], it
shouldn't be its primary function. This is similarly one big reason
why I find that Schiphol is a vastly superior airport to Thiefrow or
Gatwick.

My favourite large station in the UK remains the new Manc Picc,
though, and it is for similar reasons to Euston, namely the large,
airy and practical yet heated concourse. Manc Picc gains, of course,
by having a nice trainshed as well. But I am less fond of most
stations where the trainshed and the concourse are one, because they
tend to be too cold or hot (depending on the time of year) and often
stink of diesel fumes. Manc Picc also loses points on the satellite
concourse for 13/14, though, which is often bloody freezing, and
because it often stinks of **** in the summer because of the
non-retention train toilets.

It is nice to see, talking of Manc Picc, that the plans for Kings
Cross appear to look very similar.

[1] It's a pity that M&S Food[2] seem to have an almost-monopoly on
station supermarkets, though. A small Tesco or Sainsbury's would be a
lot more useful for a "get a quick shop on the way home" type
diversion - which is why the latter is very welcome at Manc Picc.

[2] The issue I have with them isn't just price (though they are dear
for a lot of food items), rather that they have an almost non-existent
range of unprepared fresh vegetables, which by their very nature are
the sort of thing I want to buy during the week on the way to/from
work. My local Tesco Express, on the other hand, has quite a decent
range, but it'd be so much easier if I could just pick something up at
EUS.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Euston Station
 

On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 20:30:00 GMT, Sarah Brown
wrote:

Windswept is good, given the diesel fumes.

A windswept concourse/waiting area is bad, though. The platform area
for EMT at St Pancras would be fine if it were properly enclosed with
doors through to the trains.

The platforms at Euston are hardly attractive, but the point is that
you don't spend very long there.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Euston Station
 

On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 19:56:54 +0000, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

The last time I was playing "hunt the snorbans train" I was surprised to
find there are no ticket machines around the MML platforms, you have to
go downstairs.

If the logical conclusion of LM's proposed Watford shuttles (a
half-hourly through service to Snorbens Abbey from Euston) was ever to
occur (though infrastructure work would be needed for it), I wonder
how much business FCC would lose down the Euston Road by having a
better station environment and probably a less overcrowded train?

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Euston Station
 

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...

ITYM very effective station.

I agree. Euston isn't pretty but it's functional.

I would remove some of the retail units in the middle of the concourse
(which I believe is planned) but other than that there's not much wrong with
it.

--
David

Euston Station
 

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 22:27:35 -0000, "David Morgan"
wrote:

I would remove some of the retail units in the middle of the concourse
(which I believe is planned)

It's already done. They've gone - the pillars are now exposed.

The ones that remain are two new ones on what would be the barrier
line if there was one (directly under the departure board). These, in
practice, don't seem to get in the way too much, and in some ways help
to separate flows and provide places for people to sit against if they
want to.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Euston Station
 

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
It's already done. They've gone - the pillars are now exposed.

Neil

I look forward to seeing the changes next time I arrive at Euston.

--
David

Euston Station
 

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Tim Fenton wrote:

"lonelytraveller" wrote in
message
...

Zaha Hadid, IM Pei, Frank Gehry, even Richard Rogers, could produce a
stunning terminal
No. They could produce an eyesore. They've done that before.

Before advocating Zaha Hadid as an architect for any project, check out
the analysis done by a Real Firefighter (tm) on her Fire Station (in
Germany IIRC).

I'd love to. Could you supply a URL, or even some slightly more specific
information?

If a building she designed isn't fire-safe, though, that's not really her
fault, it's her civil engineer's fault - it's their job to turn the
architect's high-level design into something that actually works, meets
the standards, etc, and if it can't be made to do so, to veto it. Of
course, if the civil engineer is incompetent, then that's really the
management's problem - and that's probably Ms Hadid aagin!

Not that i'm a big fan. I think her buildings are ugly and superficial -
like the output of most of the big-name architects of today. Still, at
least she's not Frank Gehry.

tom

--
Tubes are the foul subterranean entrails of the London beast, stuffed
with the day's foetid offerings. -- Tokugawa

Euston Station
 

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Neil Williams wrote:

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 14:39:11 -0000, "solar penguin"
wrote:

That's one thing that St Pancras only managed to get right with the
latest redevelopment, giving us that new basement-level shopping mall
and concourse, tucked nicely away from the trains.

I find it claustrophobic compared with Euston's high-ceilinged Great
Hall, which is certainly deserving of the name.

Hmm. Big Hall, possiby. There's nothing very Great about it.

I wasn't impressed with St P, to be honest. It feels unfinished,
scruffy and poorly-designed. The trainshed is indeed impressive, but
that's all, and I don't go to stations to look at architecture, but to
catch trains.

Agreed. Euston is ugly and mediocre, but at least it's not actively bad in
the way that the new St Pancras is.

tom

--
Tubes are the foul subterranean entrails of the London beast, stuffed
with the day's foetid offerings. -- Tokugawa

Euston Station
 

In article ,
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Neil Williams wrote:

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 14:39:11 -0000, "solar penguin"
wrote:

That's one thing that St Pancras only managed to get right with the
latest redevelopment, giving us that new basement-level shopping mall
and concourse, tucked nicely away from the trains.

I find it claustrophobic compared with Euston's high-ceilinged Great
Hall, which is certainly deserving of the name.

Hmm. Big Hall, possiby. There's nothing very Great about it.

?

In fact, boggle.

The Great Hall at Euston is a glorious space. With some of the retail
clutter cleared away (as I hear it has been - can't wait to see the
results) it should be the magnificent, uplifting space it should be.
Lovely bit of architecture - and the materials used were superb.

It's probably the best circulating area in any station I've come across,
with the probable exception of Grand Central in Washington. Shame they
both share the problem of dark platform spaces, but that doesn't make
either of the head-houses less magnificent.

I wasn't impressed with St P, to be honest. It feels unfinished,
scruffy and poorly-designed. The trainshed is indeed impressive, but
that's all, and I don't go to stations to look at architecture, but to
catch trains.

You are Sir Richard Moon, and I claim my five pounds..

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

Euston Station
 

On 2/2/09 12:25, in article , "Andrew Robert
Breen" wrote:

The Great Hall at Euston is a glorious space. With some of the retail
clutter cleared away (as I hear it has been - can't wait to see the
results) it should be the magnificent, uplifting space it should be.
Lovely bit of architecture - and the materials used were superb.

Agree totally; one of the best '60s buildings in London.

It's probably the best circulating area in any station I've come across,
with the probable exception of Grand Central in Washington. Shame they
both share the problem of dark platform spaces, but that doesn't make
either of the head-houses less magnificent.

The Booking Office/Waiting Room at Newark Penn station is rather nice, as is
that at Hoboken Terminal, which reminds me somewhat of the Great Hall at the
old Euston.

Just about every American station I've seen, and I admit I haven't seen very
many, is horrible at track level. At Newark Penn the tracks are at an
elevated level, and the platforms are terrible; the edges are breaking up in
places, and have been roughly repaired by thick plates of some sort of thick
material fixed over the worst places, and providing something for people to
trip over. At EWR airport station, built just a few ears ago, the platforms
are very narrow, I would say dangerously so, where there are buildings on
them. New York Penn Station and Grand Central Terminal are both much worse
than Euston at platform level, though they are nice at concourse level.
Poughkeepsie (I'm not even sure how to pronounce that) is a nice smaller
station.

Euston Station
 

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

In article ,
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Neil Williams wrote:

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 14:39:11 -0000, "solar penguin"
wrote:

That's one thing that St Pancras only managed to get right with the
latest redevelopment, giving us that new basement-level shopping mall
and concourse, tucked nicely away from the trains.

I find it claustrophobic compared with Euston's high-ceilinged Great
Hall, which is certainly deserving of the name.

Hmm. Big Hall, possiby. There's nothing very Great about it.

?

In fact, boggle.

The Great Hall at Euston is a glorious space. With some of the retail
clutter cleared away (as I hear it has been - can't wait to see the
results) it should be the magnificent, uplifting space it should be.
Lovely bit of architecture - and the materials used were superb.

It's a featureless cuboid. It absolutely does the job of being a station,
but apart from that, it does nothing at all.

Let's make sure we're on the same wavelength here - are we talking about
this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._concourse.jpg

(now minus some of the shops)

?

tom

--
Tubes are the foul subterranean entrails of the London beast, stuffed
with the day's foetid offerings. -- Tokugawa

Euston Station
 

On 2 Feb, 14:02, Tom Anderson wrote:

Let's make sure we're on the same wavelength here - are we talking about
this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...on_station_con...

Yep. Spacious, airy, practical and warm. Everything that a number of
other main termini are not.

Interesting, no, but then that's not what it's there for.

(now minus some of the shops)

All 3 of the "teepee" like ones around the pillars visible on the
photo above have gone. Makes quite a difference.

Neil

Euston Station
 

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Stephen Furley wrote:

Just about every American station I've seen, and I admit I haven't seen very
many, is horrible at track level. At Newark Penn the tracks are at an
elevated level, and the platforms are terrible; the edges are breaking up in
places, and have been roughly repaired by thick plates of some sort of thick
material fixed over the worst places, and providing something for people to
trip over. At EWR airport station, built just a few ears ago, the platforms
are very narrow, I would say dangerously so, where there are buildings on
them. New York Penn Station and Grand Central Terminal are both much worse
than Euston at platform level, though they are nice at concourse level.
Poughkeepsie (I'm not even sure how to pronounce that) is a nice smaller
station.

I think it's somehting like "Pur-kip-see".

I didn't get off the train at Newark, but from the window it did look
like it was falling down.

NYP reminded me was a bit like a big Liverpool Street (modern looking busy
but not that exciting above the track level, and dark and dingy down by
the trains) and Grand Central Terminal has a really nice big hall, but is
truly awful at platform level.

Boston South was the best of a bad bunch at track level of the ones I went
to.
--
Chris Johns

Euston Station
 

Chris Johns gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Poughkeepsie (I'm not even sure how to pronounce that)

I think it's somehting like "Pur-kip-see".

"Pick-upsy", IIRC

Euston Station
 

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 06:06:36 -0800 (PST), Neil Williams put finger to
keyboard and typed:

On 2 Feb, 14:02, Tom Anderson wrote:

Let's make sure we're on the same wavelength here - are we talking about
this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...on_station_con...

Yep. Spacious, airy, practical and warm. Everything that a number of
other main termini are not.

Interesting, no, but then that's not what it's there for.

(now minus some of the shops)

All 3 of the "teepee" like ones around the pillars visible on the
photo above have gone. Makes quite a difference.

Where have the shops gone?

FWIW, I agree that the main hall at Euston is designed to be
practical, if uninteresting, but what made it increasingly impractical
was their inability to resist the temptation to turn it into
revenue-earning space. If they've finally realised that was an error,
it will at least make travelling via Euston less hassle even if it
doesn't do much to make it more enjoyable.

Mark
--
A Miscellany Of Good Stuff:
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
http://namestore.good-stuff.co.uk
http://news.good-stuff.co.uk

Euston Station
 

On 2 Feb, 14:35, Mark Goodge wrote:

Where have the shops gone?

The CD shop has gone completely, while the other two have moved into
two new units situated where the two food outlets were under the
departure board.

Neil

Euston Station
 

On 2/2/09 14:13, in article l,
"Chris Johns" wrote:

I think it's somehting like "Pur-kip-see".

I didn't get off the train at Newark, but from the window it did look
like it was falling down.

NYP reminded me was a bit like a big Liverpool Street (modern looking busy
but not that exciting above the track level, and dark and dingy down by
the trains) and Grand Central Terminal has a really nice big hall, but is
truly awful at platform level.

Boston South was the best of a bad bunch at track level of the ones I went
to.

You didn't see the better part of Newark. I took some pictures of it a few
years ago, but due to a failed hard disk I can't start my desktop computer
at the moment, and my SCSI film scanner won't work on my laptop.

There's a picture of it he
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...8/P7140087.JPG

This is taken from the sort of shop/café area at one end; NJ Transit ticket
office and machines to left, the thing with the canopy over it is an
information kiosk. Doorway at far left leads to a passageway with stairs up
to the platforms. Out of sight to he left of this doorway is the Amtrak
ticket office. The door at the far end leads out to the buses; the
metalwork around it, aluminium I think, can also be seen elsewhere in the
station. 1937 I think; I can't remember who the architects were. It
replaced two earlier stations, Market Street for the PRR, and Park Place for
the Hudson & Manhattan, now PATH. There are various shops and eating
places, and also the entrance to the Newark City Subway, in other
passageways at concourse level.

There are some more pictures, including some of the outside he
http://www.thortrains.net/lackawanna/pennsy1.htm

They are of poor quality though.

He http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/re...21station.html

he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoboken_Terminal

and he http://www.forgotten-ny.com/STREET%2...n/hoboken.html

Are pictures of the booking hall/waiting room at Hoboken Terminal. It's the
first one which reminds me somewhat of the Great Hall at the old Euston.

Euston Station
 

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 06:51:50 -0800 (PST), Neil Williams put finger to
keyboard and typed:

On 2 Feb, 14:35, Mark Goodge wrote:

Where have the shops gone?

The CD shop has gone completely, while the other two have moved into
two new units situated where the two food outlets were under the
departure board.

Which food outlets? And have they disappeared altogether, or have they
moved as well?

When travelling home from London, I often buy a sandwich or roll from
one of the vendors at the station and take it with me on the train, so
it's nice to have a good selection of food outlets.

Mark
--
A Miscellany Of Good Stuff:
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
http://namestore.good-stuff.co.uk
http://news.good-stuff.co.uk

Euston Station
 

On 2 Feb, 15:01, Mark Goodge wrote:

Which food outlets?

The Pasty Shop, and I forget what was on the other side. They've
moved outside the station into temporary units.

Neil