6 ms·

The DNA of a London Underground Station

35 points by alexbilbie 11y ago

bostik 11y ago
The design document can be found at http://content.tfl.gov.uk/station-design-idiom-2.pdf http://content.tfl.gov.uk/station-design-idiom-2.pdf (link lifted from first comment in the article). I find it disturbing that the first major item is "capacity", but then the design parts do not even care to note how the given idiom will work towards that end. Discoverability helps, by making it less likely for individuals to get lost and thus take up valuable commuter real estate, but without sufficient peak throughput it makes very little difference. Not to mention that if station design does not accommodate for need to widen the tunnels in the future, they are not really aiming for future-proof. The only good measure for capacity is how many commuters can be moved through, and there is an upper bound to how many trains per platform you can fit in an hour. Once that limit is reached, the only way to further increase capacity is to get more people in per train. Hence: make trains longer (and extend platforms), or make them wider (which requires to expand the tunnels). As for personal taste... I like Canada Water station. It's utilitarian, can sustain a lot of commuter traffic going both ways and doesn't even look that ugly. Sure, it has a weird bottleneck on the street level because all commuters need to take a long circular route to reach the escalators but all parts within the station are spacious and wide. Not to say that the station couldn't look nicer, of course...
- Symbiote 11y ago
  > Hence: make trains longer (and extend platforms), or make them wider (which requires to expand the tunnels). Neither of these are possible with any realistic budget, and the year-long line closures for the latter would be intolerable. It's much cheaper to build a new line — for example, Crossrail and Crossrail 2.
  - bostik 11y ago
    I think the first actually does happen already, if only at a smaller scale. I know overground has some stations where the last car can't fit on the platform. (Circle line might have couple of these too, if I remember correctly.) And I've noticed that a couple of fairly central stations have been closed for more than a year due to construction works. So extending platforms a couple of stations at a time should be possible - one fully closed and another with just one end blocked off. It would take ages and insane amounts of money to do that for the entire line, you're right about that. But maybe just for the stations where it would provide the biggest benefit?
    - Symbiote 11y ago
      It massively shows down alighting time, the "dwell time" is already a big factor in how many tube trains can be run. It's also very confusing to passengers. For both reasons, TfL would be extremely reluctant to introduce it at a central London station. And, there are building foundations and other tunnels in the way in many cases, so it wouldn't be a temporary inconvenience.
    - quarterto 11y ago
      Of the deep level lines, only the Northern line has selective door opening IIRC. It's in use at stations like Moorgate and Embankment that are already so riddled with tunnels that extending the platform is just plain impossible.
  - david-given 11y ago
    I have heard that one of the reasons for building the Crossrail lines is to provide enough spare capacity that they can get away with closing one of the other lines for an extended period of time for long-overdue extended maintenance. In other words, they're currently running at n and want to instead run at n+2.
    - lmm 11y ago
      I think that's more aspirational, particularly given how long it's taken. The Central line is already extremely overcrowded in the peaks, and only yesterday Canary Wharf station had to close to prevent dangerous overcrowding. Even post-Crossrail there may well not be a lot of slack. (Another example: Waterloo is overcrowded and they'd dearly like to start work on bringing the old Eurostar platforms into use. But they can't start that until work on Victoria underground station finishes, because the work will involve diverting some trains into Victoria rail station which would lead to overcrowding in the underground station if they did it while work there was still going on).
    - Symbiote 11y ago
      That may have been an original plan, but another original plan was to start with short trains, and extend them later. Demand has increased massively since that planning, and the trains will now be the maximum length from the start. So I suspect there won't be as much spare capacity as hoped.
      - bostik 11y ago
        Figures. I moved to London in late 2013, shortly before London Bridge works started. I have been joking from the start that when the works are done and London Bridge opens up fully rebuilt in 2018, it can finally handle the traffic levels of 2008. It looks like that may not have been much of a joke after all. And if there's something I've learned: all other central stations suffer from the same problems. Too much traffic, not enough capacity, not enough trains or platforms, and not even close enough space to hold the people waiting to get either on or off. At some point this city will have to take lessons from around the world and start building multi-level overground rails networks. That's the only direction there's any room to expand to.
- jnsaff2 11y ago
  Am I the only one who thinks the Westminster station feels like the inside of the Death Star?
  - te_chris 11y ago
    I love Westminster station! To me it's more like the 'real world' from the matrix though - so not dissimilar to the Death Star.
- quarterto 11y ago
  > making it less likely for individuals to get lost and thus take up valuable commuter real estate Directing people the long way around the station (as signage in more complex stations such as Bank/Monument does) arguably increases the bandwidth of a station, since the bottleneck is almost always the ticket hall and barriers (which are difficult to expand without significant street-level work, for example at Tottenham Court Road and the Cannon Street ticket hall at Bank).
  - zeristor 11y ago
    Or even the Streets themselves; seemingly like roads increased tube capacity begets more traffic. The Crossrail expansion is forecast to be at capacity within only a few years of being opened. They're having issues with what to do with the pedestrians around TCR, the pavements aren't wide enough. Perhaps 2 or more level streets, the 3D city?
    - alexbilbie 11y ago
      Part of the problem could be solved by reducing car traffic in central London and encouraging (perhaps through radically cheap or even free) bus journeys; and improved communication to tourists that sometimes the best way to get from A to B is to walk (e.g Leicester Square to Covent Garden)
      - DanBC 11y ago
        Every tourist gets a Tube map. Some designer should create a Tourist-friendly walking map.
      - lmm 11y ago
        That part of Oxford Street is already bus-only. Full pedestrianization would be great except I'm not sure where the buses could go.
RLN 11y ago
Those pictures really looked a lot like the newer stations such as Canada Water to me. All concrete, glass and cold lighting. Undoubtedly they work and are functional but we end up with these cold, cavernous halls which serve just to get you out of them as quickly as possible. The Underground I love is the one that feels a bit lived in and isn't clinically perfect. I like that different stations can bring different eras and have a completely different feel to them. Such as Tottenham Court Road [1] with its lovely mosaics. Now it's just a bit more bland. All over the Underground is a lot of history and design that was probably never meant to last over 100 years [2] but it did. I don't think these new designs are going to be pretty in 100 years. Maybe I'm harking for a design philosophy that never really existed. And I like the old District line trains so what do I know! [1] http://now-here-this.timeout.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Julie-Gibson-Paolozzi.jpg http://now-here-this.timeout.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/... [2] http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dILlxEDvx20/UkwfeIhKOyI/AAAAAAAAAuA/ob1IE6VUnGk/s1600/EdgewareRdStation.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dILlxEDvx20/UkwfeIhKOyI/AAAAAAAAAu...
- david-given 11y ago
  I particularly like the new Westminster station --- you get off the train, leave the platform, and you're at the bottom of this huge vertical space, full of support girders and zigzagging diagonal escalators. You ascend through this, with new views becoming visible at every turn, and eventually the ceiling comes into view overhead, looming over you before the escalator passes through it... It reminded me intensely of some of the Portal 2 levels.
  - theoh 11y ago
    I'm not sure this will reach an audience here, but both Canada Water and Westminster were commissioned by Roland Paoletti as part of the Jubilee Line Extension. Overall, I think it's a success (a different architect was chosen for each station). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/10460471/Roland-Paoletti-Obituary.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/10460471/Roland-P...
- lmm 11y ago
  As someone who doesn't remember the '80s, Tottenham Court Road's mosaics look ugly already. I'd lay money that in 100 years the new designs will look better than them. The Jubilee Line extension stations are very elegant in my view - functional design has a beauty all of its own, and clean and modern is a good look for a transport system (A station shouldn't look lived in, that's not what it's for) - particularly one that serves Canary Wharf where it fits in with the broader æsthetic. At the same time the concrete and arches have just enough character to be interesting. It's a little bland, but for something that so many people have little choice about using, inoffensive is better than avant-garde. (Compare /u/cstross' notion of the "beige dictatorship").
druml 11y ago
Not a relevant comment for the article, but when I saw the title I was expecting a DNA sequencing experiment.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  Likewise. I was expecting an analysis of all the DNA floating around in the tunnels.
zhte415 11y ago
The map of lines and station architectural styles http://cdn.londonreconnections.com/2013/stationdesigntypes.jpg http://cdn.londonreconnections.com/2013/stationdesigntypes.j... really does pin down some of the very stark differences the different lines have. It doesn't provide examples, but an image search for each of the station names for each style really can illustrate the different if you're not familiar with the tube. The trains themselves also play a big role in this. I love this diversity. And dislike the suggestion of standardisation the article suggests. There appears to be inconsistency between what the article states as solutions and the 'problem' of modern design and construction. Near the start of the article it states: >It’s a statement that an observer of TfL’s recent station builds and rebuilds would find difficult to dispute. Indeed in recent years it has become almost impossible to picture a new Underground station as being anything other than glass, brushed steel and concrete. A clean and efficient style, certainly, but hardly an inspiring one. By this inconsistent with the answers offered: The photo 'A station passage at Idiom Park.' has a very generic cylindrical passage... with stairs leading off at an odd angle. No character or indication of history or line, or individualisation (unless an oppressive blue is unique to Idiom Park). And disability incompatible. The photo 'Escalators at Idiom Park' includes iconic steel and plate escalators I can imagine speeding at a pace leading to a... generic steel and concrete chasm mentioned in the lead above as undesirable. The image 'Platform level at Idiom Park' flat out reminds me of the old Charring Cross Jubilee line. It could well be Charring Cross Jubille Line, with blue lighting. I'm surprised I have this reaction, as it is simply cut-away girding, blue lighting, which the lead again suggests isn't the way forward (and a lack of safety doors). > The tube means so much more to Londoners than getting from A to B. We are a part of the city and what we want to make sure is that we are doing our best to make sure that life in London is getting better as well. A result of that is a real focus on design. I guess what we recognise is that great design doesn’t happen by accident. The tube is a testament to, and a record of, design through the past century-and-a-half. More often than not, this was not by committee, as these designs seem to be. What would be worth improving would be disabled access and cleanliness (which the article does mention), and affordability. Is the article a parody of itself?
- chiph 11y ago
  > And disability incompatible. Presumably there is another passage with a lift/elevator for people in wheelchairs, or for parents with prams. What attracted my attention was the handrail. Trains arrive and empty of passengers in "bursts". The handrail would confine them to a smaller portion of the passage, leaving the rest unused. I can see problems similar to the confined entrances of football stadiums, with dangerous overcrowding.

35 points by alexbilbie 11y ago

The design document can be found at http://content.tfl.gov.uk/station-design-idiom-2.pdf http://content.tfl.gov.uk/station-design-idiom-2.pdf (link lifted from first comment in the article). I find it disturbing that the first major item is "capacity", but then the design parts do not even care to note how the given idiom will work towards that end. Discoverability helps, by making it less likely for individuals to get lost and thus take up valuable commuter real estate, but without sufficient peak throughput it makes very little difference. Not to mention that if station design does not accommodate for need to widen the tunnels in the future, they are not really aiming for future-proof. The only good measure for capacity is how many commuters can be moved through, and there is an upper bound to how many trains per platform you can fit in an hour. Once that limit is reached, the only way to further increase capacity is to get more people in per train. Hence: make trains longer (and extend platforms), or make them wider (which requires to expand the tunnels). As for personal taste... I like Canada Water station. It's utilitarian, can sustain a lot of commuter traffic going both ways and doesn't even look that ugly. Sure, it has a weird bottleneck on the street level because all commuters need to take a long circular route to reach the escalators but all parts within the station are spacious and wide. Not to say that the station couldn't look nicer, of course...

Symbiote 11y ago
> Hence: make trains longer (and extend platforms), or make them wider (which requires to expand the tunnels). Neither of these are possible with any realistic budget, and the year-long line closures for the latter would be intolerable. It's much cheaper to build a new line — for example, Crossrail and Crossrail 2.
- bostik 11y ago
  I think the first actually does happen already, if only at a smaller scale. I know overground has some stations where the last car can't fit on the platform. (Circle line might have couple of these too, if I remember correctly.) And I've noticed that a couple of fairly central stations have been closed for more than a year due to construction works. So extending platforms a couple of stations at a time should be possible - one fully closed and another with just one end blocked off. It would take ages and insane amounts of money to do that for the entire line, you're right about that. But maybe just for the stations where it would provide the biggest benefit?
  - Symbiote 11y ago
    It massively shows down alighting time, the "dwell time" is already a big factor in how many tube trains can be run. It's also very confusing to passengers. For both reasons, TfL would be extremely reluctant to introduce it at a central London station. And, there are building foundations and other tunnels in the way in many cases, so it wouldn't be a temporary inconvenience.
  - quarterto 11y ago
    Of the deep level lines, only the Northern line has selective door opening IIRC. It's in use at stations like Moorgate and Embankment that are already so riddled with tunnels that extending the platform is just plain impossible.
- david-given 11y ago
  I have heard that one of the reasons for building the Crossrail lines is to provide enough spare capacity that they can get away with closing one of the other lines for an extended period of time for long-overdue extended maintenance. In other words, they're currently running at n and want to instead run at n+2.
  - lmm 11y ago
    I think that's more aspirational, particularly given how long it's taken. The Central line is already extremely overcrowded in the peaks, and only yesterday Canary Wharf station had to close to prevent dangerous overcrowding. Even post-Crossrail there may well not be a lot of slack. (Another example: Waterloo is overcrowded and they'd dearly like to start work on bringing the old Eurostar platforms into use. But they can't start that until work on Victoria underground station finishes, because the work will involve diverting some trains into Victoria rail station which would lead to overcrowding in the underground station if they did it while work there was still going on).
  - Symbiote 11y ago
    That may have been an original plan, but another original plan was to start with short trains, and extend them later. Demand has increased massively since that planning, and the trains will now be the maximum length from the start. So I suspect there won't be as much spare capacity as hoped.
    - bostik 11y ago
      Figures. I moved to London in late 2013, shortly before London Bridge works started. I have been joking from the start that when the works are done and London Bridge opens up fully rebuilt in 2018, it can finally handle the traffic levels of 2008. It looks like that may not have been much of a joke after all. And if there's something I've learned: all other central stations suffer from the same problems. Too much traffic, not enough capacity, not enough trains or platforms, and not even close enough space to hold the people waiting to get either on or off. At some point this city will have to take lessons from around the world and start building multi-level overground rails networks. That's the only direction there's any room to expand to.
jnsaff2 11y ago
Am I the only one who thinks the Westminster station feels like the inside of the Death Star?
- te_chris 11y ago
  I love Westminster station! To me it's more like the 'real world' from the matrix though - so not dissimilar to the Death Star.
quarterto 11y ago
> making it less likely for individuals to get lost and thus take up valuable commuter real estate Directing people the long way around the station (as signage in more complex stations such as Bank/Monument does) arguably increases the bandwidth of a station, since the bottleneck is almost always the ticket hall and barriers (which are difficult to expand without significant street-level work, for example at Tottenham Court Road and the Cannon Street ticket hall at Bank).
- zeristor 11y ago
  Or even the Streets themselves; seemingly like roads increased tube capacity begets more traffic. The Crossrail expansion is forecast to be at capacity within only a few years of being opened. They're having issues with what to do with the pedestrians around TCR, the pavements aren't wide enough. Perhaps 2 or more level streets, the 3D city?
  - alexbilbie 11y ago
    Part of the problem could be solved by reducing car traffic in central London and encouraging (perhaps through radically cheap or even free) bus journeys; and improved communication to tourists that sometimes the best way to get from A to B is to walk (e.g Leicester Square to Covent Garden)
    - DanBC 11y ago
      Every tourist gets a Tube map. Some designer should create a Tourist-friendly walking map.
    - lmm 11y ago
      That part of Oxford Street is already bus-only. Full pedestrianization would be great except I'm not sure where the buses could go.

RLN 11y ago

Those pictures really looked a lot like the newer stations such as Canada Water to me. All concrete, glass and cold lighting. Undoubtedly they work and are functional but we end up with these cold, cavernous halls which serve just to get you out of them as quickly as possible. The Underground I love is the one that feels a bit lived in and isn't clinically perfect. I like that different stations can bring different eras and have a completely different feel to them. Such as Tottenham Court Road [1] with its lovely mosaics. Now it's just a bit more bland. All over the Underground is a lot of history and design that was probably never meant to last over 100 years [2] but it did. I don't think these new designs are going to be pretty in 100 years. Maybe I'm harking for a design philosophy that never really existed. And I like the old District line trains so what do I know! [1] http://now-here-this.timeout.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Julie-Gibson-Paolozzi.jpg http://now-here-this.timeout.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/... [2] http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dILlxEDvx20/UkwfeIhKOyI/AAAAAAAAAuA/ob1IE6VUnGk/s1600/EdgewareRdStation.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dILlxEDvx20/UkwfeIhKOyI/AAAAAAAAAu...

david-given 11y ago
I particularly like the new Westminster station --- you get off the train, leave the platform, and you're at the bottom of this huge vertical space, full of support girders and zigzagging diagonal escalators. You ascend through this, with new views becoming visible at every turn, and eventually the ceiling comes into view overhead, looming over you before the escalator passes through it... It reminded me intensely of some of the Portal 2 levels.
- theoh 11y ago
  I'm not sure this will reach an audience here, but both Canada Water and Westminster were commissioned by Roland Paoletti as part of the Jubilee Line Extension. Overall, I think it's a success (a different architect was chosen for each station). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/10460471/Roland-Paoletti-Obituary.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/10460471/Roland-P...
lmm 11y ago
As someone who doesn't remember the '80s, Tottenham Court Road's mosaics look ugly already. I'd lay money that in 100 years the new designs will look better than them. The Jubilee Line extension stations are very elegant in my view - functional design has a beauty all of its own, and clean and modern is a good look for a transport system (A station shouldn't look lived in, that's not what it's for) - particularly one that serves Canary Wharf where it fits in with the broader æsthetic. At the same time the concrete and arches have just enough character to be interesting. It's a little bland, but for something that so many people have little choice about using, inoffensive is better than avant-garde. (Compare /u/cstross' notion of the "beige dictatorship").

druml 11y ago

Not a relevant comment for the article, but when I saw the title I was expecting a DNA sequencing experiment.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
Likewise. I was expecting an analysis of all the DNA floating around in the tunnels.

zhte415 11y ago

The map of lines and station architectural styles http://cdn.londonreconnections.com/2013/stationdesigntypes.jpg http://cdn.londonreconnections.com/2013/stationdesigntypes.j... really does pin down some of the very stark differences the different lines have. It doesn't provide examples, but an image search for each of the station names for each style really can illustrate the different if you're not familiar with the tube. The trains themselves also play a big role in this. I love this diversity. And dislike the suggestion of standardisation the article suggests. There appears to be inconsistency between what the article states as solutions and the 'problem' of modern design and construction. Near the start of the article it states: >It’s a statement that an observer of TfL’s recent station builds and rebuilds would find difficult to dispute. Indeed in recent years it has become almost impossible to picture a new Underground station as being anything other than glass, brushed steel and concrete. A clean and efficient style, certainly, but hardly an inspiring one. By this inconsistent with the answers offered: The photo 'A station passage at Idiom Park.' has a very generic cylindrical passage... with stairs leading off at an odd angle. No character or indication of history or line, or individualisation (unless an oppressive blue is unique to Idiom Park). And disability incompatible. The photo 'Escalators at Idiom Park' includes iconic steel and plate escalators I can imagine speeding at a pace leading to a... generic steel and concrete chasm mentioned in the lead above as undesirable. The image 'Platform level at Idiom Park' flat out reminds me of the old Charring Cross Jubilee line. It could well be Charring Cross Jubille Line, with blue lighting. I'm surprised I have this reaction, as it is simply cut-away girding, blue lighting, which the lead again suggests isn't the way forward (and a lack of safety doors). > The tube means so much more to Londoners than getting from A to B. We are a part of the city and what we want to make sure is that we are doing our best to make sure that life in London is getting better as well. A result of that is a real focus on design. I guess what we recognise is that great design doesn’t happen by accident. The tube is a testament to, and a record of, design through the past century-and-a-half. More often than not, this was not by committee, as these designs seem to be. What would be worth improving would be disabled access and cleanliness (which the article does mention), and affordability. Is the article a parody of itself?

chiph 11y ago
> And disability incompatible. Presumably there is another passage with a lift/elevator for people in wheelchairs, or for parents with prams. What attracted my attention was the handrail. Trains arrive and empty of passengers in "bursts". The handrail would confine them to a smaller portion of the passage, leaving the rest unused. I can see problems similar to the confined entrances of football stadiums, with dangerous overcrowding.