SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Manchester Victoria Station

2M views 8K replies 446 participants last post by  Tony_H1 
#1 ·
A hidden jewel in Manchester's transport arsenal, if only a bit of money was spent on it, it would mean Manchester having 2 world class Rail gateways, with Piccadilly Being the ultra modern one and Victoria being it's classy Sister.

Its a crying shame whats happened to Victoria, its dark, dingy, is only served by crappy cattle wagons, and has no shops whats so ever.

If only the council and the train companies would step in to clean up the place and give it the attention her achitects envisaged,

Get it sorted, its closer to The City Centre then Piccadilly and would be a even classier station.
 
#1,389 ·
Euston???
What's that based on though? It has a roof which does its job (keeps rain off passengers), its design to allow passengers to view the departure board while having a route to access platforms without obstruction still works. The main reason why people always say Euston is that when compared with her sisters on Euston Road (Kings Cross and St Pancras) she's an ugly duckling. However after the HS2 redevelopment Euston will become a model terminal on two levels.

I use EUS a lot and yes it is tatty and its age is showing but it still serves its job very well unlike Victoria which was aloud to fall into disrepair. You cannot compare the two. Victoria handles mostly local and interregional services whereas EUS handles major InterCity, suburban commuter, metro etc etc. Manchester Victoria handles services comparable to Waterloo!
 
#1,391 ·
Euston is very functional and designed for the mass transfer of rail travellers. Only in the last decade or two have Network Rail/Railtrack allowed the large lobby to be infiltrated by stalls and boutiques.

The big display board is great to see.

Did you know that on Christmas and Boxing Days in the past - Euston's been used in films as an Airport terminal?
 
#1,392 ·
Euston is a fine station. They shouldnt have knocked the original down but the new one isn't that bad.
If they hadnt though we'd have this http://www.mediastorehouse.com/eust...modernisation_officer_1959/print/7607808.html and and this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...rridor_geograph-2991378-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg which may look nice but couldn't cope with the additional traffic of an electrified WCML. They could have key the arch though and incorporated it into a new bus interchange but they didn't so hey hoe!
 
#1,393 ·
They could have key the arch though and incorporated it into a new bus interchange but they didn't so hey hoe!
The arch was roughly where platform 7 is now. It would have been a very cramped station with the current level of traffic.

It's not the concourse that makes Euston scruffy, it's the lack of light due to the goods terminal above the passenger platforms. They also have a disused depot just outside the station that makes Mayfield look good.
 
#1,394 ·
Begs the question, such a station would not be tolerated in London. Makes you wonder where the priorities are in transport and why the economy outside of London is in tatters.
Some of London's stations are Dire. London Bridge was like Victoria until the current rebuild started.

Clapham Junction has only recently began to become something that looks like a station, and that see's a train every 13 seconds in the peaks!

Elsewhere in the SE. Portsmouth Harbour is in a far worse state than Victoria. It's going to collapse if something isn't done soon.
 
#1,396 ·
So basically then, when Victoria is done, Manchester will have two very attractive termini, and the only major UK city to have 100% modernised and attractive termini. (Victoria and Piccadilly).

Because although Birmingham is redoing New Street, that's basically what we did in 2002. They still have Snow Hill and Moor Street (some may argue that Moor Street is an okay-ish station but I can't really fall in love with it).

Not counting Leeds because it only really has 1 train station.

I suppose Liverpool is redoing Central, and Lime Street isn't in too bad a state. But can Central really be classed as a terminus anymore?

And then London; which still has the blights of Euston and others on its back.
 
#1,398 ·
In fairness, it's only the canopy over the bay platforms which let Victoria down, the rest of it is every bit as functional as London Victoria and building the Arena over it was an improvement. Now if only they'd re-open the subway, instead of those staircases....... (Amsterdam Centraal, anyone?)
 
#1,399 ·
So basically then, when Victoria is done, Manchester will have two very attractive termini, and the only major UK city to have 100% modernised and attractive termini. (Victoria and Piccadilly).

Because although Birmingham is redoing New Street, that's basically what we did in 2002. They still have Snow Hill and Moor Street (some may argue that Moor Street is an okay-ish station but I can't really fall in love with it).

Not counting Leeds because it only really has 1 train station.

I suppose Liverpool is redoing Central, and Lime Street isn't in too bad a state. But can Central really be classed as a terminus anymore?

And then London; which still has the blights of Euston and others on its back.
Glasgow might disagree: Central (absolutely glorious) and Queen Street (the latter has it's knockers but isn't a bad station, it's also due for redevelopment).

Belfast has two reasonable stations in Great Victoria Street and Central (albeit both are tiny compared to mainland stations).

Dublin (not in the UK) has two glorious stations in Connolly and Heuston.

Edinburgh is currently seeing both of it's main stations redeveloped too.

Cardiff has two main stations but both are rather functional if anything.

I don't think any other cities (than these and the ones you've mentioned) have multiple main stations.
 
#1,400 ·
Some of London's stations are Dire. London Bridge was like Victoria until the current rebuild started.

Clapham Junction has only recently began to become something that looks like a station, and that see's a train every 13 seconds in the peaks!

Elsewhere in the SE. Portsmouth Harbour is in a far worse state than Victoria. It's going to collapse if something isn't done soon.
Those arguments are quite thin. You can say Portsmouth but it is a small station (1.9 million) compared with Victoria (6 million+). It is expected smaller stations with lower footfall provide a no frills service. But if you compare the London stations which have received upgrades since Victoria has been on a downward spiral of neglect since 1994 then there is no argument to be had.

Waterloo Intl, 1994 - £100 million + (another vanity project wasted on London which is not used)
London St Pancras 2004-07 - £600 million+
Stratford International - £210 million (another vanity project which is only used by 5000 people a year!)
Blackfriars, 2009-2012 - £350 million
King's Cross, 2007-13 - £500 million
London Bridge, 2013-18 - god knows
Liverpool Street, 2013-17 - dozens probably

Capacity needed or not - is spending £30m on a new trans-Pennine hub for Northern England too much to ask for? Is spending £5 million on an upgrade for Portsmouth really that much either? I don't think it is - definitely not when you upwards of £100 million on vanity stations whilst rail passengers suffer elsewhere.

I hate this country sometimes. It is infuriating we live in a country which is so backward and wasteful in the 21st century. Can you see why we get annoyed? Even now they're fannying around with redeveloping Victoria rather than just getting on with it.
 
Top