Reading Station improvements

[whole diary]

[Jeff]

Subject: Signage and weather ingress on the Transfer Deck

Further to our upthread discussions on these issues, a quick browse on the NR^» (Network Rail - home page) site has thrown up their Guide to Station Planning and Design. It's very good, and I commend it to interested posters on this thread. It's at: www.networkrail.co.uk > Property & Retail > Improvements > Stations (sorry, my browser refuses to let me copy/paste links).

I've attached here (and on my subsequent 4 posts below) some abstracts I've made of pertinent pages from the Guide. It'll be interesting to read your thoughts on them as they relate to Reading.   

[Jeff]

Abstract no.2.

[Jeff]

Abstract no.3

[Jeff]

Abstract no.4

[Jeff]

Abstract no.5

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

I did mention this document in my post 954 back last November, in the context of the short canopies on P12-15.  There was a view here that the canopies were perfectly OK for a 6 coach Turbo - this was of course before we all knew that these platforms would have A and B ends with 5 car trains in each. 

If you walk around the new station (which of course I accept is not finished yet) and tick off what it provides against what it should provide wrt the NR^» (Network Rail - home page) Guide, how much would you score it out of 10?  About 7?  And how much would that score go down in winter with a cold wind howling through the footbridge?

[Jeff]

Ah, sorry GTBE, beg pardon. Oh well, perhaps my repeat posting will be of use/interest to recent joiners who haven't worked their way right through the thread. 

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

Jeff, no need to apologise for drawing attention to something that was mentioned a long time ago - I've done it several times as have others. 

I'm at Reading tomorrow, must check if there any more signs up yet eg a sign at the northern end of the footbridge pointing to the northern exit (how on earth are non-regular passengers supposed to know there is a down escalator to an exit out of sight round the corner?)

[stuving]

Abstract no.5

I am not so impressed by the "Guide to Station Planning and Design", which I find too keen on motherhood and apple pie. I assume it is meant to tell the public what kind of things are considered relevant, rather than actually to guide designers, still less be a top-level requirement. Even so, it is not much use.

Looking at "U4.2 Provide effective climate protection, [...]", the main statement is:
Design of stations should ensure that passengers are protected from extreme weather conditions (wind, rain, snow, sun, and extreme heat and cold).
To what degree? I certainly expect protection from extremes that threaten life and health, though I accept that I will probably still be uncomfortable. What is more important, I expect to be comfortable within the station when the weather is ordinarily unpleasant outside. Where is that mentioned? I think the current design may meet what the guide says, but not a more realistic requirement.

Later, we find:
Mitigate risks arising from climatic conditions (e.g. the impact of summer sun or water on floor surfaces) for reasons of safety and ease of use.
Another failure, at least for snow getting in (I assume the leaky roof can be cured). Also:
Consider the need for resilience to climatic change and extreme weather conditions.
"Resilience" in the current jargon usually refers to coping with the unexpected, or out-of-normal-range event, even with a lot of intervention. In this case it seems a bit unnecessary; none of the (serious) climate change predictions I have seen involves more extreme extremes, it is all about shifts in probability distributions and so medians and means.

That's poor enough. What is more likely to be damaging is the section on sustainability, here given the title "V2.2 Minimise energy use and explore sustainable energy sources". Most of this is about economising on heating energy use, which I will try to filter out, as my main concern here is the unheated transfer deck. However, we still have:
Harness and reuse solar, wind, daylight and water power where appropriate combined with: 
Passive measures such as increasing a building^s insulation should take priority over active or mechanical solutions and:
Use intelligent control systems to optimise energy use where appropriate.

Because the emphasis is on the need for heating, followed by cooling, ventilation is not covered except by implication. Thus what this set of statements is taken to mean will depend on the mind-set of the reader. I see it as advocating intelligent control and adaptability, to make best use of "mechanical solutions" (fans and motorised flaps and louvres); others may see it as a blanket ban on anything mechanical. There is evidence of this...

There is a "Network Rail Sustainability Policy", as well as loads of web pages on the subject, but I can't see any meaningful; content in any of it - it's all guff. (Google for the title; the link in the design guide does not work.) However, in the RBC^‡(resolve) planning documents there is a "Reading Station Sustainability Strategy" (00229620.pdf, the third "Other documentation..." in 10/01269/FUL). Ignore the "Programme Environment and Sustainability Strategy" (both the first "Other documentation..." in 10/01269/FUL, and the "Sustainability statement" in 11/1-885/FUL) which is really about the construction phase and the surrounding environment, not the design of the building itself.

I shall quote in extenso the section on ventilation:
"Ventilation Options"
Natural ventilation should be always considered where feasible as the most sustainable solution and cost effective from an operation and maintenance perspective.
Wind-catcher or similar systems shall be considered and assessed.
Thats yer lot - the rest is about HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) systems, understood not to be passive.

Why this odd selection of possibilities, ignoring all others? Shouldn't this project-specific document be better targeted and more thorough than the more general one? It confuses cheap with cost-effective, a fatal error when purely natural ventilation simply does not work so, however cheap, is not cost effective.

This comes from section 3, "Building Management", which does say at its start: The objective is to make sure that any Passive measures are designed into the project [in GRIP^▸ (Guide to Railway Investment Projects) 4] and also to assess the viability of additional Active measures that could be incorporated cost-effectively (their capitalisations).
That reflects a more sensible approach, though I still wonder if they know what cost-effective means.
 
What I can't see in any of this is a stated objective of achieving the required performance, in terms of a comfortable internal environment, whatever the weather outside, and for the lowest cost. That should give a rank ordering of fully passive, controlled passive (motorised vents and windows), fans, and then HVAC. And fully passive is never, on its own, going to be the answer.

[Electric train]

Abstract no.5

I am not so impressed by the "Guide to Station Planning and Design", which I find too keen on motherhood and apple pie. I assume it is meant to tell the public what kind of things are considered relevant, rather than actually to guide designers, still less be a top-level requirement. Even so, it is not much use.

Looking at "U4.2 Provide effective climate protection, [...]", the main statement is:
Design of stations should ensure that passengers are protected from extreme weather conditions (wind, rain, snow, sun, and extreme heat and cold).
To what degree? I certainly expect protection from extremes that threaten life and health, though I accept that I will probably still be uncomfortable. What is more important, I expect to be comfortable within the station when the weather is ordinarily unpleasant outside. Where is that mentioned? I think the current design may meet what the guide says, but not a more realistic requirement.

Later, we find:
Mitigate risks arising from climatic conditions (e.g. the impact of summer sun or water on floor surfaces) for reasons of safety and ease of use.
Another failure, at least for snow getting in (I assume the leaky roof can be cured). Also:
Consider the need for resilience to climatic change and extreme weather conditions.
"Resilience" in the current jargon usually refers to coping with the unexpected, or out-of-normal-range event, even with a lot of intervention. In this case it seems a bit unnecessary; none of the (serious) climate change predictions I have seen involves more extreme extremes, it is all about shifts in probability distributions and so medians and means.

That's poor enough. What is more likely to be damaging is the section on sustainability, here given the title "V2.2 Minimise energy use and explore sustainable energy sources". Most of this is about economising on heating energy use, which I will try to filter out, as my main concern here is the unheated transfer deck. However, we still have:
Harness and reuse solar, wind, daylight and water power where appropriate combined with: 
Passive measures such as increasing a building^s insulation should take priority over active or mechanical solutions and:
Use intelligent control systems to optimise energy use where appropriate.

Because the emphasis is on the need for heating, followed by cooling, ventilation is not covered except by implication. Thus what this set of statements is taken to mean will depend on the mind-set of the reader. I see it as advocating intelligent control and adaptability, to make best use of "mechanical solutions" (fans and motorised flaps and louvres); others may see it as a blanket ban on anything mechanical. There is evidence of this...

There is a "Network Rail Sustainability Policy", as well as loads of web pages on the subject, but I can't see any meaningful; content in any of it - it's all guff. (Google for the title; the link in the design guide does not work.) However, in the RBC^‡(resolve) planning documents there is a "Reading Station Sustainability Strategy" (00229620.pdf, the third "Other documentation..." in 10/01269/FUL). Ignore the "Programme Environment and Sustainability Strategy" (both the first "Other documentation..." in 10/01269/FUL, and the "Sustainability statement" in 11/1-885/FUL) which is really about the construction phase and the surrounding environment, not the design of the building itself.

I shall quote in extenso the section on ventilation:
"Ventilation Options"
Natural ventilation should be always considered where feasible as the most sustainable solution and cost effective from an operation and maintenance perspective.
Wind-catcher or similar systems shall be considered and assessed.
Thats yer lot - the rest is about HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) systems, understood not to be passive.

Why this odd selection of possibilities, ignoring all others? Shouldn't this project-specific document be better targeted and more thorough than the more general one? It confuses cheap with cost-effective, a fatal error when purely natural ventilation simply does not work so, however cheap, is not cost effective.

This comes from section 3, "Building Management", which does say at its start: The objective is to make sure that any Passive measures are designed into the project [in GRIP^▸ (Guide to Railway Investment Projects) 4] and also to assess the viability of additional Active measures that could be incorporated cost-effectively (their capitalisations).
That reflects a more sensible approach, though I still wonder if they know what cost-effective means.
 
What I can't see in any of this is a stated objective of achieving the required performance, in terms of a comfortable internal environment, whatever the weather outside, and for the lowest cost. That should give a rank ordering of fully passive, controlled passive (motorised vents and windows), fans, and then HVAC. And fully passive is never, on its own, going to be the answer.

Welcome to the fun that is Network Rail Infrastructure Projects, there are many tens if not several hundreds of company standards that sit behind these glossy statements and then there are TSI's (Technical Specification for Interoperability) which are European standards which the NR^» (Network Rail - home page) are endeavouring to incorporate

[BerkshireBugsy]

I stopped travelling through reading on the Thursday before Easter and today was my first visit since the big change. As I had a few minutes between services I thought I would have a look at the new south entrance and transfer deck. So as a layman on a warm sunny morning here are my thoughts:

1) space - I love the feeling of space on the transfer deck and abundance on natural light
2) I am happy with the signage but then having flowed this thread I kind of knew what to expect.
3) I'm not sure about the lack of shops on the transfer deck - but I haven't explored down onto platforms 8 and above to know what is down there. This personally doesn't affect my travels but may be an issue with passengers changing services

In fact the only thing I would give a definite down mark down to are the PA^▸ (Public Address) announcements as there seems to be a lot of echo.

I do accept that things are still fluid so this may change. Once again I reckon it has been one hell of a project keeping the station open whilst these changes are going on. I have wondered if the project teams which oversee the changes at reading are in contact with their counterparts at Birmingham new street to offer assistance.

[stuving]

In fact the only thing I would give a definite down mark down to are the PA^▸ (Public Address) announcements as there seems to be a lot of echo.

I thought the same. It would be a predictable drawback of so much glazed wall - I don't think they make transparent acoustic absorbers. In the transfer deck itself, the ceiling has acoustic treatment above the slatted surface. I guess that could perhaps be increased - but only up to a strict limit (100% absorption).

The northern stairwell is worse, and that already has a pretty large treated wall. It may be hard to alter that, but maybe it is not such a high priority there.

In the design guide, there are several mentions of the need for announcements, but the only reference to acoustics per se is under "O3.2 Ensure full compliance with all statutory emergency requirements", where we find:
Design appropriate acoustics to allow passengers to hear public address announcements on platforms and help control excess noise and vibration.
Why does that only refer to platforms? Even for this restricted purpose of emergency management, that looks wrong.

[SandTEngineer]

Noted that the walkway from the South entrance in front of the 3Gs opened at about 1000 this morning (07 May 2013).

[Electric train]

In fact the only thing I would give a definite down mark down to are the PA^▸ (Public Address) announcements as there seems to be a lot of echo.

I thought the same. It would be a predictable drawback of so much glazed wall - I don't think they make transparent acoustic absorbers. In the transfer deck itself, the ceiling has acoustic treatment above the slatted surface. I guess that could perhaps be increased - but only up to a strict limit (100% absorption).

The northern stairwell is worse, and that already has a pretty large treated wall. It may be hard to alter that, but maybe it is not such a high priority there.

In the design guide, there are several mentions of the need for announcements, but the only reference to acoustics per se is under "O3.2 Ensure full compliance with all statutory emergency requirements", where we find:
Design appropriate acoustics to allow passengers to hear public address announcements on platforms and help control excess noise and vibration.
Why does that only refer to platforms? Even for this restricted purpose of emergency management, that looks wrong.

The passenger transfer deck will be regarded in the evacuation strategy as a "Place of Relative Safety" the focus of the evacuation strategy will be worse case a train fire at one of the platforms, the transfer deck will have been designed to with stand a fire directly under it for a duration.

The PA system I suspect will get balance once the station layout is complete, this can be done by adjusting the volume of individual speakers or operating some in anti-phase (i.e. they cancel each other out)

[ChrisB]

The passenger transfer deck will be regarded in the evacuation strategy as a "Place of Relative Safety"

Agreed - until they put retail units up there....