SkyscraperCity banner

6661 - 6680 of 6696 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,151 Posts
Stephenson Quarter has to be conceptualised as the high profile, centrally located development it is. Not some convoluted walk down secondary back streets to get there. It significantly devalues any property there and reduces the chance of having the best quality to respect such a historically significant site.

A southern entrance is the best (not some metal steps in the corner of the station) but a modern, albeit smaller version of our portico but on the South side. Look a the Southern entrance for Leeds station recently built. We aren't asking much here. A metro is a secondary option, because it enlivens a currently dull part of the Quayside as well.
It never ceases to annoy me how we can't even get the bare minimum of what seems to happen elsewhere, or if it does, its decades after everywhere else. For all the tories gained a few more seats up north last time around, it doesn't seem to have done us much good, if anything, the north/south divide appears to be widening. Although I dare say local government has a significant part to play in this. Frustrating to see the levels of investment in places like Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool, and no doubt most other major cities, while we can't even get a bloody second entrance to a train station in the regional capital, we can't give our main iconic bridge a lick of paint, and our main road linking us with Scotlands capital is half country road. Sigh
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
504 Posts
Stephenson Quarter has to be conceptualised as the high profile, centrally located development it is. Not some convoluted walk down secondary back streets to get there. It significantly devalues any property there and reduces the chance of having the best quality to respect such a historically significant site.

A southern entrance is the best (not some metal steps in the corner of the station) but a modern, albeit smaller version of our portico but on the South side. Look a the Southern entrance for Leeds station recently built. We aren't asking much here. A metro is a secondary option, because it enlivens a currently dull part of the Quayside as well.

I get your argument for Sunderland/Park Lane, however the University is wholly unnecessary, and just there as an excuse to give Sunderland x number of stops. But i'd also say Central is such an immoveable and permenent object, unless they can increase its permeability it is justified in order to activate this part of town.
This is my point exactly - the distance to the station isn't the issue, the perceived ease of access into it is. A new station would actually have the opposite effect, as it would make the area feel even less part of the city centre. Squeezing a new station in on the ramp onto the QEII bridge would also be a tough engineering challenge, and the resulting design would very likely detract from other buildings in the surrounding area.

To promote the area better pedestrian links into the station (Metro and National Rail) and also as a thoroughfare to the city centre need to be provided, and if you want to encourage the areas further down the hill and along the river to be more attractive some sort of solution needs to be thought up to make the incline more walkable.

A well designed sub-surface access that uses the undercroft of the station and then emerges inside the Metro station on one side and on Forth Street opposite Royal Mail on the other, with exits on the National Rail platforms and maybe also inside the Portico would be the best option. Obviously, this would need some serious architectural consideration to make it attractive since retail units in the space is probably a no-go these days, but with clever lighting and maybe some artwork installed it could be made to feel quite grand.

I'd absolutely advocate against just having a metal set of stairs in the corner as an option for this - but if it's a way to get it in place as a temporary solution quickly with the more grand works committed to at the same time, I'd be up for that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,182 Posts
This is my point exactly - the distance to the station isn't the issue, the perceived ease of access into it is. A new station would actually have the opposite effect, as it would make the area feel even less part of the city centre. Squeezing a new station in on the ramp onto the QEII bridge would also be a tough engineering challenge, and the resulting design would very likely detract from other buildings in the surrounding area.

To promote the area better pedestrian links into the station (Metro and National Rail) and also as a thoroughfare to the city centre need to be provided, and if you want to encourage the areas further down the hill and along the river to be more attractive some sort of solution needs to be thought up to make the incline more walkable.

A well designed sub-surface access that uses the undercroft of the station and then emerges inside the Metro station on one side and on Forth Street opposite Royal Mail on the other, with exits on the National Rail platforms and maybe also inside the Portico would be the best option. Obviously, this would need some serious architectural consideration to make it attractive since retail units in the space is probably a no-go these days, but with clever lighting and maybe some artwork installed it could be made to feel quite grand.

I'd absolutely advocate against just having a metal set of stairs in the corner as an option for this - but if it's a way to get it in place as a temporary solution quickly with the more grand works committed to at the same time, I'd be up for that.
You make some excellent points. I hadn't considered the fact that the Metro station would perceptively make the station feel further away.

Although long term I do think there may be a case for it, i'll park that idea. Only thing i'll say is that if you look at Ken's pic in previous you can see there is ample space between the tunnel to bridge to fit in some Metro platforms, although moot point.

It shouldn't take a tunnel to provide a Southern entrance, stairs could work if done with enough decorum like say Leeds. The water tower site south of Central is the missing link- this land should be developable
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
504 Posts
Only thing i'll say is that if you look at Ken's pic in previous you can see there is ample space between the tunnel to bridge to fit in some Metro platforms, although moot point.
The issue isn't necessarily the raw space - the line is curved with a noticeable gradient too, and then there is constraints in terms of access to the site. The surrounding land is all at different levels of elevation too.

When you consider that requirements for stations are getting ever more strict in terms of platform-train interface and other accessibility requirements, these factors can cause construction of a station in a site like this to become a significantly more costly undertaking than in other places.

In addition to a pair of platforms, you have to factor in space for ticketing machines, potentially lifts and steps, any S&T kit that has to be relocated, and you have to do so without creating any safety issues (sighting, minimum widths for platforms, camber of surfaces, and more).

Obviously anything can be achieved with the appropriate amount of funding, but since funding seems to be one of the bigger challenges up here it's one of the main constraints we have to work around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: elliott

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Forth Rail Station, Newcastle

^^^

Information on its history - see Forth Goods Station

KEN
Thanks Ken, some great insights on that thread.

In terms of Metro, I haven't used it since the new app has come in but really how Nexus is it to have an Android app but not an Apple one. If and when they come to Apple's guidelines I'll use it daily (hopefully post covid) but really is amateurish to launch one without the other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
108 Posts
Thanks Ken, some great insights on that thread.

In terms of Metro, I haven't used it since the new app has come in but really how Nexus is it to have an Android app but not an Apple one. If and when they come to Apple's guidelines I'll use it daily (hopefully post covid) but really is amateurish to launch one without the other.
All because you can do it easily on Android but can't as easily access the things needed on iOS.
 

·
The Legend
Joined
·
13,244 Posts
All because you can do it easily on Android but can't as easily access the things needed on iOS.
Yeah, for some things such as access to the NFC chip, they need Apple engineers to implement, whereas on Android a developer can do that.
However the U.K. has the highest percentage of iPhone users amongst smartphone users in the world. It would be stupid to leave out such a large market.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,835 Posts
Gauging issues like this are fairly normal to accommodate modern standards eg Merseyrail is having to modify many platforms to achieve level access with its new stock
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
504 Posts
All because you can do it easily on Android but can't as easily access the things needed on iOS.
Yeah, for some things such as access to the NFC chip, they need Apple engineers to implement, whereas on Android a developer can do that.
However the U.K. has the highest percentage of iPhone users amongst smartphone users in the world. It would be stupid to leave out such a large market.
The main reason for this is that Apple don't want anyone to be able to mess on with the NFC reader in their devices, as it exposes potential attack vectors and creates other security and trust issues.

If you have a legitimate use case, you can get them to agree to allow your application to access the readers quite easily.

That said, it's all a bit of a moot point, as if we were really looking forward we'd skip this entirely and move directly to distance-base fares charged directly to contactless bank cards with multi-tier capping.

If we wanted a solution that was not reliant on contactless bank cards yet was still forward-thinking, we'd have gone directly to something biometric - doing away with the cards/phone/other media entirely.
 

·
The Legend
Joined
·
13,244 Posts
The main reason for this is that Apple don't want anyone to be able to mess on with the NFC reader in their devices, as it exposes potential attack vectors and creates other security and trust issues.

If you have a legitimate use case, you can get them to agree to allow your application to access the readers quite easily.

That said, it's all a bit of a moot point, as if we were really looking forward we'd skip this entirely and move directly to distance-base fares charged directly to contactless bank cards with multi-tier capping.

If we wanted a solution that was not reliant on contactless bank cards yet was still forward-thinking, we'd have gone directly to something biometric - doing away with the cards/phone/other media entirely.
Yes, you are right that it is down to how Apple wish to protect NFC from potential security risks. As we have both pointed out though, it requires a request to Apple and an Apple engineer to write that part of the coding for the apps.

Anyway I agree with you that the future will largely be about contactless payments and fare caps. However there will always be a need for passes, and in future digital passes. This will be so that people entitled to free travel such as elderly people and those with disabilities, as well as children and people on low incomes who may receive passes from various authorities as well as their parents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
504 Posts
Anyway I agree with you that the future will largely be about contactless payments and fare caps. However there will always be a need for passes, and in future digital passes. This will be so that people entitled to free travel such as elderly people and those with disabilities, as well as children and people on low incomes who may receive passes from various authorities as well as their parents.
So in these cases, you could either issue a printed card, or have them link up their bank card like everyone else, but just have a flag on their account that zero-rates the charge for all journeys for the duration of whichever agreement they fall under - this would be done by setting a fare cap of £0.00 for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Godscrasher

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
So in these cases, you could either issue a printed card, or have them link up their bank card like everyone else, but just have a flag on their account that zero-rates the charge for all journeys for the duration of whichever agreement they fall under - this would be done by setting a fare cap of £0.00 for them.
A printed card yes, as that is pretty much what OAPs get at the minute, but I could see a lot not trusting having a bank card linked to a zero rate
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
504 Posts
A printed card yes, as that is pretty much what OAPs get at the minute, but I could see a lot not trusting having a bank card linked to a zero rate
Exactly - so that way it uses existing technology, with a low-tech opt-out for anyone with trust issues, and saves the whole "phone as a smartcard" implementation headache.

Implementing one new technology instead of two will save substantial amounts of money, and having everyone use the same technologies also makes the user experience easier to curate, resulting in a better system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
504 Posts
Regarding the metro going to Washington, I don't think adding a load more trains to the core route with its flat junctions at both ends would be all that wise. Especially at Pelaw which would have three lines converging into one.
The junction at Pelaw wouldn't have to be flat though - there is plenty of space for that junction to be grade-separated, either partially or fully.

In terms of the junction at Gosforth, this could be less of an issue if the new routes were to form an extension of the current Monkseaton - Pelaw trains.

However because of the Metro the heavy rail service gets anywhere between 11 and 17 minutes between Heworth and Sunderland which will probably be worse if "Metro Flow" increases the Metro to every 10 mins.
This is one of the main reasons why it has been so short-sighted to have the new fleet limited to 50mph. I feel this (along with the decision to have only longitudinal seating, no passive 25kV AC provision and not opting for 65m long trains) will be big regrets in the future, especially as Metro and heavy rail continue to clash rather than compliment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
921 Posts
There are Monkseaton to Pelaw trains? Aren't those just stock movements from the depot to the most convenient places to turn back at to begin passenger service?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
504 Posts
There are Monkseaton to Pelaw trains? Aren't those just stock movements from the depot to the most convenient places to turn back at to begin passenger service?
Nope! It's essentially what used to be the red line.

They used to do a combination of runs between Pelaw - Regent Centre/Benton/Monkseaton, but now are mostly all Pelaw - Monkseaton.

Even on the currently reduced COVID-19/"the fleet is buggered" timetable, there are 3 additional services between 0800 and 0900 that run from Monkseaton to Pelaw, and 1 additional service that runs from Regent Centre to Pelaw.
 
6661 - 6680 of 6696 Posts
Top